User talk:Koavf/Archive008
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.
AfD nomination of K. S. Balachandran
An article that you have been involved in editing, K. S. Balachandran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting comparison of perspective?
Hi Eagle Eyes. The WP advice on archives says something like "name your file archive#". However, both you and I expect to have more than 9 archive files, and know that when sorted, "archive#" won't give the result either of us want. So I named mine "archive##". I see you've named yours "archive###". I gather you're planning to be around for a long time, and be very active! ;-) Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Too true The notion of having in excess of 99 archives is completely outrageous, but I tend to go with the two trailing zeros unless there is some possibility of the thousands. Again, absolutely correct that 100 archives is preposterous. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. For me, one file every two months will last me 17 years; at the moment I'm not looking much further than 10 years ahead (if that far), so that's well beyond my horizon. You, however, look like you will be using 8-per-year, and you are much younger than me, so 3 digits is not at all outrageous.
Changing subject, if you want an excuse for throwing a really big party, you will reach 10,000 days old in the next year or so.
Also, Happy Birthday for next week. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hang on? The userbox says one thing about your age, but the text on the left says something different.
Well, you've confused me. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And while I'm at it: "2004-06-09 - Met Kurt Vonnegut, touched his knee". And why was it you touched his knee? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. By "boot" (2005-05-10), I assume you mean bootleg? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The image of L Ron Hubbard needs a rationale for each article in which it is used. There is none for this article. Therefore, I have reverted your edit until a rationale has been provided. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just reverted the whole edit; please feel free to add the rationale &/or fix the formatting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Category
The category had already been deleted once per CFD, see here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- One way of getting rid of a category is to just stop using it. There is a problem with a category labeling Baha'i Prophets, since the category would be exactly the same as Prophets of Islam, with the exception of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. The Baha'i Faith is really insignificant and represents a small minority viewpoint on articles like Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, so this category would seem like an attempt to bring the Baha'i Faith into more prominence, not a useful in a categorizing sense. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Trivia tagging
The last time trivia tags were added en-masse, it caused some drama. This isn't a good idea. Also the way you're doing it caused edit links to disappear for those sections. Please discontinue this... You're welcome to add trivia tags, but systematically this way is really not a good idea. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:01, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya Template
Hi, I've reverted some of the changes you made to the template, with reasons on the relevant discussion page. Best regards, Nazli (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Merging of different Ahmadiyya persecution articles
Hello,
I disgree with this action as the events of 1953, 1974 and Ordinance XX have their own historic significance with reference to Pakistani politics. These should be maintained as separate entries. Also, Shab Qadr incidence has a cultural significance. The ahmadiyya persecution article now starts with the dismissive note "the persection occurs periodically". The ahmadiyya persecution now is happening in Bangladesh, indonesia and Sri Lanka. Some incidents are more significant than others and require to be recorded as important and distinct events.
Regards, --Khokhar976 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Epidemiological
Dear Justin, I just wondered why you've replaced many instances of epidemiological with Epidemiological. Epidemiology isn't a proper noun so neither it nor its adjective need a capital 'E' (unless at the start of a sentence obviously). Regards, Qwfp (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, replacing "[[epidemiological]]" with "[[Epidemiology|epidemiological]]" – regardless of the case issue raised by Qwfp – goes against this rule: Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. The page Epidemiological already redirects to Epidemiology, so you should leave these links alone. --Lambiam 11:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry all This was a part of a silly attempt to fix redirects due to misspellings and I included that one by accident, really. Sorry about that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would you mind undoing those edits then? Regards, Qwfp (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello? I've just checked your user contributions so I know you've been around today and you must have read my previous comment but you don't seem to have done anything about it. Thanks for admitting you made a mistake. Surely it's reasonable to ask you to rectify it yourself? Qwfp (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? As you can see if you look at my contributions, I have reverted those edits. I am honestly confused here. I promptly and fairly thoroughly rolled them back. Look at my contributions again, and you can see a number of edit summaries that read "Reverted edits by Koavf (talk) to last version by..." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please accept my humble apologies Justin, you're entirely correct. I falsely remembered how many of those pages I had on my watchlist (I should add some of them..) and I'd incorrectly assumed that you'd reply to this thread after fixing the problem. Yesterday was rather a busy day on my watchlist and our timezone differences don't help but that's no excuse for me not checking properly. Sorry, Qwfp (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? As you can see if you look at my contributions, I have reverted those edits. I am honestly confused here. I promptly and fairly thoroughly rolled them back. Look at my contributions again, and you can see a number of edit summaries that read "Reverted edits by Koavf (talk) to last version by..." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello? I've just checked your user contributions so I know you've been around today and you must have read my previous comment but you don't seem to have done anything about it. Thanks for admitting you made a mistake. Surely it's reasonable to ask you to rectify it yourself? Qwfp (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would you mind undoing those edits then? Regards, Qwfp (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Spellings
Please do not use AWB to indiscriminately change American spellings to British spellings, as you have been doing recently with "organization" on dozens of articles. That is against convention. As noted at WP:ENGVAR, the existing spellings of previous authors should be retained, except to make the article internally consistent. Furthermore, using an automated tool to make these controversial edits is even more disturbing. Please revert your changes and only reinstate the edits where they contribute to article consistency. Dmcdevit·t 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because our article can only sit at one location (I notice it was changed recently, actually) does not make that the "proper" spelling. Minimal research shows that the organization itself uses the two spellings interchangeably, for example at [1] and [2], and the United Nations and United States also refer to it as "Organization." Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts
Please stop changing Ron Paul's row to green. The default for active candidates is white. He hasn't withdrawn, so he's not grey. He's not the "presumptive nominee", so he's not red. Ergo, he's white. There is no need to distiguish that he's active. If he wasn't, it would be listed explicitly. White is better for "readability" anyway. Also, green is the color for the Green party, not the Republican Party. It doesn't fit.--Bark (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand you weren't the first to turn it green, but you did revert it back. For the record, I changed McCain to "red" when I reverted Paul to white. I agree that's it's easier to read "red".--Bark (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not undo all the work I am doing updating this page...also Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Indiana is not yet aproproate because he has not been sworn in yet.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Links to disambiguation pages
Hello. I noticed you made this edit to Flag of Georgia. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages, "To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation) rather than America). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." Khatru2 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters whether or not the link is piped as long as the link is to the page with the "disambiguation" suffix. The point is so that the links sort separately when you click on "What links here". Khatru2 (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Andre Comment
I had it in BOLD and both before and after the categories so people won't miss it. Some people scroll to the bottom to add categories without looking at what's above them. Also, the bold makes it stand out... I didn't think wikipedia had format guidelines for commented text. Does it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Got your response. Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy category renaming
I suggest you do not create and manually migrate new categories shortly after people propose that a category be speedily renamed. Note that according to WP policy, "A [speedy rename] request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old". In some cases, you are manually migrating to the new category long before 48 hours has expired. If you limited your activity to those that had been posted for at least 48 hours, there's probably no problem with what you are doing, but the wait-time is imposed in case someone raises objections. We must provide that buffer time to allow them to do so. Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the recent discussion at the speedy rename page under Category:Cook Islander society for a great example of why I think it's still worthwhile to observe the 48 hour rule, even in cases that may seem straightforward. You created Category:Cook Islands society already, but another editor pointed out (and I agree) that Category:Cook Island society is the more commonly used phrase. I realise your intentions are nothing but to be helpful and I don't mean to be critical of your efforts or to discourage you, but I thought this was a good example of why the rule exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Advisor questions
Hi, Justin. From my humble experience with LaTeX editing at university, I assume the reason why Ëzhiki proposed the nbsp is that a dash should never be wrapped at the beginning of a line. The , or tilde ('~') in LaTeX, "glues" the dash to the previous word and prevents breaking them apart. For instance, if you search for the "nbsp-dash" example in my doc page and slowly resize your browser horizontally so that the dash wraps, you will see what I mean.
Regarding the ISO dates, you are right, I overlooked them. I'll fix the script during the weekend. Cheers, --Cameltrader (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Bosnia and Herzegovinia footballers
Hey, you make a mistake when you move the pages from Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers. You move them to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian football managers. It should be Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian footballers. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1959 Tibetan uprising
Camp Hale covers some of it, but I don't know how to fold that in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Saw it because it's on my watch list, like many other articles where POV editors can destroy a good start (thanks for your help on Sahrawi Scouting, btw), right now it's Tibet, and I've always known you to be a standup guy (you and I started about the same time), you also root for the underrepresented, so whatever your edits are, they're quality and worth a look. Curious and found it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Unilateral category renaming
I really hate to keep harping, but I think my former comments haven't made much of an impact. I see you are essentially renaming some categories unilaterally — creating new categories to replace them and then asking that the old one be speedily deleted. In my opinion, this is not OK. You should be proposing renames, speedy or full, as appropriate, for each of these. I'm sorry to be such a stickler, but the fact is I disagree with some of the renames and would oppose such changes in a proposed CFD. CFD is there so we can discuss the changes and reach consensus. Please follow the rules. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You have twice amended this article with the edit summary "(clean up ... using AWB)". Unfortunately, your edits have deleted the gaps in the infobox regarding games played/goals scored and credited his Southampton career to his time at Nelson. The paragraph breaks were there for a reason.
Can I request that you revise your AWB instructions. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Tags added with Advisor?
Hi, I responded on my talk page. It already starts looking like a discussion page for Advisor.js, so I'll take the conversations out and place them on a separate page (this weekend, when I have spare time). --Cameltrader (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hi, Koavf. Another user alerted me to your changing of some of the demonym categories. I just wanted to tell you that we've just recently been through this discussion on CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_31#Bosnian_and_Herzegovinian_people. The guideline that has come out has been "Use a demonym unless the demonym is controversial, unclear, or otherwise unusable, then use the country name." In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the demonym "Bosnian and Herzegovinian" has been deemed unusable because it defines two ethnic groups that these members may not belong to, so "Bosnia and Herzegovina" is what we're using. So I'd appreciate it if you'd put back any changes you made contrary to this direction, and bring any other changes you'd like to make to the main section of CfD (not Speedy). Hope that helps!--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- What actions I have taken FYI, Koavf — I've re-created the deleted categories and put soft-redirects on the newly-created ones pending outcomes the CFDs which you may choose to formally propose; however, I haven't reverted all of the article changes for some of the larger categories, most notably Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian footballers and Category:Trinidadian and Tobagonian cricketers. They are very large and it will be quite a bit of work to reverse all of these unless the bot does them automatically, which I'm not sure it does with a soft redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted the Trinidad cricketers, and will get to the Bosnia footballers when time allows.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks. I mostly did the Trinidad ones myself to see how fast I could do it. :^) Anyway, thanks for your willingness to help, and your tolerance for our arcane rules.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted the Trinidad cricketers, and will get to the Bosnia footballers when time allows.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss
Please discuss Talk:Accelerate_(R.E.M._album)#.22Photocopied.22_review. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy rename suggestions
I and others have made some comments about the proposals in the speedy rename section. Really, I think if you want these renames to proceed, you may as well right away propose a full CFD for each of them as opposed simply listing them in the speedy section. That section there is not intended to be the place for discussion and if there is ever any suggestion that the rename may be opposed or not unquestionably qualify as a name open to speedy renaming, they have to be moved to a full discussion. Instructions are at WP:CFD if you're not familiar with how to list them. I realise you probably have your hands full right now but thought I would give you the heads up that the best way to get the ball rolling on them would be to do a full CFD and get them out of the (rather chaotic right now) speedy section into a formal proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop corrupting the goal info in the infobox of Ivica Grlić. After your edit it always seems as if he had for example 91 apps and 4 goals with Köln and not with Duisburg. This is now third time within a few days that I had to repair it. --Jaellee (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ellipses
Hi. You seem to be systematically replacing "..." (three periods) in article titles (such as ...Art) with "…" (Unicode horizontal ellipsis) for no clear reason, and directly against the recommendation in WP:ELLIPSES. Please discuss this on the MoS Talk page before performing additional such moves. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replacing Bahá'í with Bahá'í??
On Johannes Birringer you replaced it with itself?? I don't see any difference. Care to explain?--Smkolins (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Categories again
Kovaf, Kovaf, Koavf. You're still doing it. You're still manually emptying categories and renaming them unilaterally. The most recent ones I've noticed are the Northern Cyprus ones. Have you just decided that you won't ever follow the CFD procedure unless pressured into it, or is there a different explanation? (You can respond here as opposed to my talk page to keep the discussion together.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Northern Cyprus The main category and article were renamed, so the subcategories should have been renamed at the same time (see also when "Myanmar" was changed to "Burma.") -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, BUT, you need to go through the proper procedure regardless. Do you understand this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Proper procedure Procedure was followed to move the main category in the first place; this is just fixing an oversight on the part of those editors who didn't move the subcategories. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is incorrect. It was not an "oversight". Show me where these categories were formally proposed for renaming. Unless proposed for renaming, a category is not renamed, regardless of what happens to others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion here is where it was discussed, with the nominator writing "There are also some subcategories which use the full name; if this rename is successful I will also nominate them." They were not nominated, so I moved them myself. If the consensus is to move any of them anywhere else, I would be happy to assist in that. It is nonsense to have them where they were though - why would one category by "X of Northern Cyprus" and another by "Y of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" barring something literally including the full name of the TRNC? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fully understand the logic behind the move and may even support it in a formal discussion. But the point is they have to be nominated — whether by the original nominator or you or someone else. You can't "move" a category without a CFD. Do you understand this principle, yes or no? If yes, will you abide by it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well It is not the case that all categories must have a CfD prior to being moved, but, yes, it is the case that most categories are to be proposed at CfD prior to a move. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Justin, it most assuredly is the case that all categories must have a CfD prior to being moved. It seems like you have both enthusiasm and good intentions, but are ignoring the procedures for category management. CfD doesn't create consensus for editors to follow precedent; it creates precedent for nomination closers when other categories are nominated. So please listen to the above advice, or I expect you will get a lot of content changes rolled back by administrators.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- All? "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." I am not alleging that these categories exist as a consequence of vandalism or duplication (although a few have been the latter), but it is not the case that all category moves have to go through CfD. If you want me to propose these TRNC categories, I will. And if you want them to all be separate, full CfDs (that is, non-speedies), let me know. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, virtually all. That statement means the only real exceptions are vandalism or merging near-exact duplicates, really. To be on the safe side, though, you should really nominate everything you plan on changing. Even categories which are clearly duplicate tend to be nominated before merging. It's not for us to tell you we want your changes to be formally proposed, though — you must take that initiative yourself. In other words, just always do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please always nominate on CfD, and please only use Speedy for things that fit one of the speedy criteria. It's not that burdensome a requirement.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Justin, it most assuredly is the case that all categories must have a CfD prior to being moved. It seems like you have both enthusiasm and good intentions, but are ignoring the procedures for category management. CfD doesn't create consensus for editors to follow precedent; it creates precedent for nomination closers when other categories are nominated. So please listen to the above advice, or I expect you will get a lot of content changes rolled back by administrators.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well It is not the case that all categories must have a CfD prior to being moved, but, yes, it is the case that most categories are to be proposed at CfD prior to a move. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, BUT, you need to go through the proper procedure regardless. Do you understand this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your AfD
"What is being promoted on "Celebrate Bisexuality Day?" Bisexuality. It sounds like you're having fun by asserting some kind of paranoia on my part. An allegation about pleading by a certain group does not have to devolve into out-and-out conspiratorial nonsense (for an example of that, see below.) -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)"
Let's clear the air here, because I don't think I did any of the things you said I did. Also, I want you to know: there are people on Wikipedia who agree with me on everything, and there are people who agree with me on nothing, and it doesn't matter to me. What's important to me is that people believe in the project and have skills and spend time on it. You obviously do, you've contributed a lot, and I'm glad you're here.
Here's my take on what just happened in that AfD, and if this is helpful, use it, and if it's not, don't. You got 13 Keep votes, most with "speedy", "strong" or WP:SNOW, no neutrals, no deletes. Read back over the comments, and notice that until that paragraph of yours (above), no one made any comment at all about where your head was. There was not the slightest evidence of what you called "conspiratorial nonsense". When there are AfD's, a variety of knowledgeable people generally drop by, and this doesn't look like an exception to me. I dropped by because someone made a comment on WP:CITE about the reliable sources issue. What struck me was your "essentially promotional" statement, as if "Celebrate Bisexuality Day" was promotional at its core and could never be anything else. Everyone else had been talking about whether the event was notable and how to improve the article, but it sounded like you thought the issue was "promoting bisexuality". When you agreed, and accused us of conspiracy where there wasn't any, that's what got the negative reaction. I was not "having fun" with you, I was saying that people were having fun with a discussion about an article about sex in Wikipedia, as they usually do. And "pleading by a certain group" ... what group? Celarnor's response to your idea that bisexuality was being "promoted" probably reflected the reaction of the whole room to that: "That's like saying Kwanzaa promotes African-Americanism." I understand that there may be strong cultural differences here, but if you're going to shrug off the reaction of the room as you did, you're missing the chance to see that that was in fact a pretty representative sampling of the reaction you can expect on Wikipedia, regardless of your personal beliefs, so you might want to tone it down. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Paranoia? You made a silly assertion about an "international bisexuality cabal" which you conveniently edited out of the comments that you posted on my talk. I have no doubt that some of the keep votes were made in good faith and some of them were made blindly because it was posted on a politically-motivated WikiProject. That having been said, I will not be making allegations about the motivations of particular editors without some substantive proof. What I took umbrage to was the notion that my AfD was made in bad faith or was silly; I did not make a spurious AfD nor one with an ulterior motive - the article itself, regardless of its content, was a bad one.
- Clearly, any day that is labeled "Celebrate X Day" is inherently promotional; that claim isn't defamatory, it's just true. I have no problem with someone crafting a day to celebrate X. I also do not have a problem with someone creating a Wikipedia article about "Celebrate X Day" if it can be proven that the celebration in question is notable. Once again, as the article was written, it did not assert that notability, nor did it point to any sources - let alone credible, verifiable, third-party sources. I don't know what you think "Celebrate Bisexuality Day" is other than promotional, but that's irrelevant as well - if the day was entirely promotional, I would have no problem with that being an article per se. Something like Secretary's Day is promotional and I don't have a problem with it being an article as it is something notable. If someone wants to invest a lot in Secretary's Day, that's entirely up to him and it's irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. If enough persons invest enough in it and achieve some level of notoriety for it, that is relevant to this encyclopedia.
- I do not understand where I accused anyone else of conspiracy, but I agree that such was the case, as the LGBT WikiProject is certainly an open attempt at conspiring. I also have no problems with conspiring (that is precisely what any WikiProject is), nor do I have a problem with users voicing their opinions in an organized manner. My problem is with any users that didn't want the article deleted because of some agenda. I have no proof that this is the case, so I didn't allege that of anyone else (although such was alleged of me in my AfD.)
- If I misunderstood your line about "having fun," I apologize; it appeared that you were alleging that my AfD was made in bad faith. In retrospect, I'm still not entirely sure that I understand what you wrote, but I trust that I was simply in error interpreting it.
- As far as "pleading by a certain group" that group would be whoever is promoting the visibility of sexual minority identity politics. That does not have to be an international cabal, nor do I think it is. And I would agree that Kwanzaa does, in fact, promote African-Americanism (that is, African-American culture); how does it not? Nowhere did I make the claim that this holiday promotes the recruitment of anyone, as Celarnor implied.
- My problem is also that there seems to be an assumption of "strong cultural differences" - again, I am primarily thinking of the bigotry that Rhonan wrote - and I also take umbrage to that. Other users have apparently read motivations into my AfD and voted against me rather than it; they took the opportunity to discuss the merits of a (poorly-sourced) article and turned it into 1.) political soapboxing and 2.) slander. If that is the "representative sampling of the reaction [I] can expect on Wikipedia," then I wouldn't be editing here and I certainly wouldn't engage in discussion with any of them, as it would essentially be an exercise in masochism.
- Lastly, it also shows a certain lack of reciprocity to 1.) get mad at me for presumably striking a blow against others' identity politics and at the same time 2.) using my presumed religious beliefs in a slanderous way. I'm not alleging that you did this, of course, but it happened and was unjustified and rude. Again, if that is what I could expect on Wikipedia, I would have left long ago or stopped directly interacting with other users. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- This might be surprising, but I'm happy with your response. My worry was that you were a little naive, and that you might be in for a rough ride here. Your response shows poise, I think, and whatever your beliefs and whatever you think happened in that AfD, it sounds like you can hold your own and you'll be fine.
- You missed Celarnor's point when you say "I would agree that Kwanzaa does, in fact, promote African-Americanism." He was saying it in the sense of "Kwanzaa promotes blackness". Leaving aside the rare case where "passing as white" is a factor, you can't "promote" blackness, and no amount of celebrating will affect it. "Promoting homosexuality" (or in this case, bisexuality) is a nonsense phrase to most people in Western democracies, and to a large number of people in the U.S. Sadly, it is not a nonsense phrase to many other people in the U.S., and your use of the phrase seems to have led some people to the conclusion that there was a POV going on that bisexuals choose their orientation and attempt to recruit others to do the same. This is occasionally true in some sense but usually nonsense. And insulting. And you're not operating in a vacuum; politically aware people have heard the phrase (at least with "homosexuality") many times, and it's usually followed by words and actions that they regard as, being as gentle as I can, unfortunate. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- All's well While it may have taken too many words, I think we are largely on the same page now and understand one another by and large.
- As far as promotion goes: "Celebrate Bisexuality Day" certainly does "help or encourage [bisexuality] to exist or flourish; further it; and attempt to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc." just as Kwanzaa does the same for African-American values or some supposed link between blacks in America and a sampling of values from sub-Saharan Africa. You cannot possibly claim otherwise. I imagine that you are correct in your assumption that other editors think that the word "promotion" is somehow equivalent to recruitment and that me pointing out how this day attempts to promote bisexuality also implies that I think bisexuality is a matter of choice. Clearly, that is a wrong-headed and probably malicious assumption on their part. It appears you may have thought as much yourself, and if so, I'm sorry, but you were mistaken about the plain meaning of the word "promotion." I could die a happy man if no one else read into my words and just took them at face value. The association with my very simple and plain statements with others who may have followed similar statements with words and actions you deem unfortunate is unjustified and their behavior is clearly beyond my control. I would prefer it if editors would at least lay their cards on the table and display their own bigotries as did Rhonan (although what he wrote was defamatory). I had no hidden agenda, I didn't assume others did, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
- I would be remiss if I did not point out that some homosexuals do, in fact, argue that homosexuality is a choice (e.g. lesbian separatism) and it would POV of you (or anyone else) to claim that it isn't. As far as this AfD goes, it's entirely immaterial, and I did not state or imply either that bisexuality is a matter of choice, or that bisexuals recruit. And whether or not I believe either of those things to be true is also immaterial to the substance of what I had to say there or here. The same goes for you or anyone else; others' explanations for the origins of sexual deviance or the appropriateness of encouraging it in others has no bearing on whether or not an article on Wikipedia is well-sourced or notable. Obviously, some editors beg to differ and want to read their own political activism into AfDs and see my comments as some kind of battle ground for their identity politics. Ugh.
- In summation (unless you have more to say, which is fine with me), I do not assume bad faith on your part, nor do I have any ill will toward you. In fact, posting on my talk is a gesture of charity that I appreciate. I wish all users (your- and myself included) would be more sober-minded and have less ulterior motives - especially the ulterior motive of assuming ulterior motives on the part of others! - when discussing Wikipedia policy, or anything at all. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of running for admin in the autumn, which may be really dumb, because whenever I see something that seems like an unspoken, simmering conflict, I will say something, so I've stepped on more than a few toes and the opposition to my RfA will probably throw a party and sell tickets. But still I do it. I've been in a privileged position in some ways, and sometimes what I say helps. In this case, basically I goofed. My perception before I spoke up was the same as yours, I think: people were being reasonably polite and appropriate, but some were grouchy that this was taking up their time, and there was an undertone of "Does this guy have a POV?" I was trying to solve both problems at once ... I bought the general idea, but I reacted to the idea that this AfD was "wasting people's time" about the same as I would react to Jon Stewart saying that Larry Craig was wasting Jon's time. People are generally willing to cling to an AfD discussion about a topic like "Celebrate Bisexuality Day" like white on rice. I was also attempting to give you what interviewers call a "creampuff" question; I thought the "cabal" language made it clear that I was expressing something ludicrous, unbelievable, and that you would probably say something like "of course not", and put the matter to rest. I was surprised by your response, and note that I didn't say anything more after that.
- There is a little more to say about the general subject of bigotry, of the right towards the left in the U.S. and vice-versa, of a majority of people in Western democracies towards people who have expressed religious preferences or sexual identities, but there's no need to cover it here or now. I think I could legitimately be accused of ownership of the issue, and it's also not appropriate to keep talking when, as you correctly point out, all is well (and I'm hip-deep in various WP:Version 1.0, policy and style guidelines wars, and haven't finished my work on Robot). Thanks for talking. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
John Henry
John Henry has been relisted at WP:RM 199.125.109.107 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Accelerate
No problem. The Alt-rock WikiProject will probably clean up the article soon as part of its Collaboration of the Week. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
CfD: People from Abkhazia
You proposed the category People from Abkhazia for speedy deletion. I can't find the place where to discuss this, so I'll do it here. I'm concerned that if the category is moved to "Abkhaz People", it will sound as though the people included therein are necessarily of Abkhaz ethnicity, whereas the category is meant for people of any ethnicity originating or living in Abkhazia. The same misunderstanding could happen with any country/people combination, that's why I think in general "People from ..." works better than "... people". sephia karta 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Presbyterianism by nationality
Category:Presbyterianism by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:WBE
Users are allowed to remove theirselves from WP:WBE. Please refrain from reverting them. Snowolf How can I help? 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Geez, do we need to have this discussion every month Koavf. I suggest you stop owning that page. — Κaiba 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Interwiki sort order and AWB
Hello!
I incidently noticed your modification of Trespass (album). I reverted your edit because it seems that the old order was prefered, although yours is also correct, see Help:Interlanguage_links#Sorting. Now I have a question to your edit – I'm not using AWB, therefore I cannot reproduce it's behaviour: Maybe that it is necessary to download a new version? See this link.
Dear Koavf, just wish to let you know that no Iranian pronounces "Mohammad" as "Muhammad"; the word "Muhammad" is just unknown to any Farsi-speaking person. I foresee that you will respond by saying that OED writes "Muhammad" (as it indeed does — not, incidentally, in all the examples that it gives for the name), however as I have argued elsewhere, that has to do with the fact that OED relies on extant texts in such media as newspapers. This would not be any problem, were it not for the fact that the majority of the journalists who write pieces for newspapers have a very limited knowledge of the language (in the present case Farsi) about which they write (to claim that one knows a language, one has to know the folklore of that language, something that one cannot reasonably expect from a typical journalist). My personal observation is that the older the English examples are that OED presents, the more accurate the English renderings of the words become. I am no expert in Arabic, so that it is conceivable that in Arabic-speaking countries "Muhammad" is the correct rendering of the word. Pronounce "Mohammad" in the presence of a Farsi-speaking person, and s/he will either say "I beg your pardon" or will laugh at you. Perhaps you wish to take this fact into account while editing entries concerning Iranian people. Kind regards, --BF 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Koavf, thank you for your kind and prompt response. I did not suggest or imply that you might have an agenda, in particular because of the fact that this issue of mis-pronouncing Farsi names has come up rather frequently. This is an issue that I have intended to raise with OED since some time, however I have never had the time to sit down and write a comprehensive letter containing all my arguments against their adopted system of spelling. If you just consult OED (the same applies to Encyclopaedia Britannica), you will see that the examples that they give, dating from 1615, 1634 and 1777, all use "Mohammad". Later examples contain "Muhammed", and the like. In older times only literate people wrote, in modern times also illiterates participate in this activity — if you ever have used some of the Windows editors, you will have noticed that no matter what you type, the words appearing on the screen are all correct and in accordance with the spelling convention of some American-English dictionary running in the background. Kind regards, --BF 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |