User talk:SimonP/Archive 4

Western Canadians Need Representation Too!

Hello, Simon. Thank you for helping to clean up the list of famous Canadians. The article needed some editing, and from what I've seen you've proven yourself as a keen editor. However, the removal of Shane Sutcliffe was unneccesary. He was the "Great White Hope" for the heavyweight title during the early part of the 1990's and was a big deal amongst Canadian boxing fans. He is especially famous in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. He defeated a man who was once the world heavyweight champion. He is perhaps the last of Canada's viable prospects for the world heavyweight title. Within the boxing community, he is greatly renowned and well regarded. I can see where someone who isn't from western Canada or someone who doesn't follow the sport of boxing might not be able to see Mr. Sutcliffe as a household name. However, there are people who warmed bench on a college curling team 20 years ago who somehow still managed to be named as a famous sports person. Hell, professional wrestlers (who are more actors than athletes) occupy about half of the list! Therefore, I added Mr. Sutcliffe's name back to the list. Thanks a bunch, Simon. I appreciate your time!

-Marcus Allen-Garcia

List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945

Hi, Simon, could you please not remove NPOV tags that have not been resolved, especially without discussing first. There has been plenty of dispute on the discussion page with no consensus. You removed the tag, asking if it was still up for dispute. Well, it is. Why RV without discussing it? See the talk page -- lots of dispute over the page. Thanks Willowx 12:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandenn Bremmer rises from the dead, perhaps.

Simon, a month or so ago you zapped Brandenn Bremmer as the result of an unfixed copyvio. A (non-copyvio) article on him has just reappeared. As the copyvio charge followed a vigorous (indeed somewhat acrimonious) VfD, I've resuscitated the VfD process. I hope I've done the right thing; anyway, lacking precise directions on what to do about resuscitating an abandoned VfD, I've tried to be sensible and transparent about what I've done. The result of course is at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Brandenn_Bremmer. -- Hoary 02:49, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Nobiin language

Hi Simon, I'm a huge fan of your history work. Recently I've been working on Nobiin language and I wonder if you would have something to add to the History section. I've been reading articles like Nubia, Makuria, and Lower Nubia, and I think the linguistic evidence that the Nile-Nubians originally came from the south-west meshes with those articles, in some way, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Incidentally, one of the most cited articles presenting this evidence can be found (in a badly OCR'ed version) here. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 21:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. isn't it time to archive your talk page? This is the 149th entry...)

Thank you for your high praise, and you are quite right about this page being too long. - SimonP 22:55, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, and for adding that paragraph to the history. — mark ✎ 13:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC1 - Embassy Photographs

Howdy!You asked for "more and better pictures" of the embassies in D.C. I have uploaded some more, though perhaps not necessarily better. The Secret Service Police confronted us while I was taking some of these photos, and while we were allowed to continue, I got in a hurry after that. Also, I didn't have the "List of Embassies" with me when I took the photos, so I was unable to cross-check with those that are already in Wikipedia. And finally, in some cases I thought I was taking a picture of an embassy, but the building turned out to be the ambassador's residence (or some other building besides the actual chancery).

But for what it's worth, I have some more photos for you, and will continue to upload the rest as time allows. There will be a few dozen in all. See commons:Category:Washington DC Field Trip (Embassies). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Commonwealth of Nations template is on most of the other pages, and there is support to keep it. You must have noticed reversions of your deletion on some of the more popular pages such as the UK and NZ. Therefore I have added it back to the others. Astrotrain 22:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was not invited to this discussion, and couldnot have possibly known about it. The fact is there is support for the Commonwealth template, and I will be adding it back. Your deletion of the template on many pages was reverted, just because these ones are not actively edited doesn't mean you can impose your will. I'm not as sad as you to spend all my time reverting back, but I will be adding them back. Astrotrain 22:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where is the supposed discussion about the Commonwealth of Nations template taking place? I would like to partake.--Cyberjunkie 04:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch-up. I had originally monitored discussions, and occasionally commented, but later lost track. Any chance of consolidating them all? The vicious cycle of addition and removal that you and Astrotrain are engaged in has continued much longer than it should have.--Cyberjunkie 09:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Banu Kanz

I noticed that you created the article about these people, & was wondering if they are the same folks that E.A. Wallis Budge calls the Awlad Kenz, & stated ruled this stretch of the Nile before the Ottoman conquest. If so, could you take a look at my changes to Makuria, & make any necessary fixes? Thanks -- llywrch 17:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks back at you. -- llywrch 00:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basilikon Doron

thanks for the tidy-up --ClemMcGann 20:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage - thanks

Thanks a LOT for what you did with that. Kappa 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster System

Why did you remove various Irish articles from the Westminster System category? Either you don't know what the Westminster system is or you don't know much about Ireland. The Irish Free State in particular is regarded as possessing a classic example of the pure meaning of Westminster System, particularly as by the same time Westminster had in fact moved away from some elements of the more traditional aspects of the Westminster System with the growth of power of the prime minister within the executive and the executive vis-a-vis the legislature under Lloyd George. I have reverted your patiently absurd moves. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 23:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will simply add them in. They are obviously not there due to an oversight. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One was created, but was deleted by users who believed that all the related information, from facts about the system to countries using the system, should be in together. With its deletion, they moved the initial articles in it, the Irish ones, into the remaining category, and plan to link countries with the system to the category too. The category that exists doesn't specify that it is only about the workings of the system, but related to the system, and that would then include countries and constitutions. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_17#Category:Irish_entities_based_on_the_Westminster_System
Djegan 21:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I'm working on a website dedicated to Transportation in Ottawa, and I was wondering if it would be okay to use Image:Campus Transitway Station.JPG, and Image:Lees Transitway Station.JPG We're a hobby website, and you would get full credit for your work. --Spinboy 16:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed you also took Image:Billings3.JPG. Would it be okay to use that one as well? Thanks. --Spinboy 20:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much for allowing me to use those. If you want to see the site, head over to My Ottawa Transit. --Spinboy 01:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that offer. Yes, I know Montrealis runs that site, he inspired me to start My Ottawa Transit actually. --Spinboy 01:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of VfD on "Maps of Korea"

By my count, there are eleven votes of "Delete the page, move the images to Commons", on the grounds of Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and five votes of "Keep". Why did you interprete this as "Keep"? --Carnildo 21:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mis-counting, one of the six "keep" votes was by User:82.67.176.126, and signed "Olivia". As I understand it, VfD votes by anonymous users aren't normally counted. --Carnildo 23:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jacob - Joseph.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Jacob - Joseph.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

While the art on the wall itself is public domain, the pictures of any section of it are not, as they show artistic merit. Thus, this image is not PD. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I am well aware of Bridgeman. That is not a direct reproduction, because it only shows a portion of the image. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Bennett

Simon, now that the dab page is not required, would you be so kind as to move William Richards Bennett to Bill Bennett? I'd do it myself, but because of the history on Bill Bennett I cannot... Cheers, Fawcett5 15:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done - SimonP 15:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Antigua

I reverted your revert on Antigua and Barbuda; the link seems kosher, was there a reason you reverted it? --Golbez 05:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Deadend pages

May I ask why you put Salar ud-din Muhammad Khan and Sallybrook back onto the Wikipedia:Deadend_pages list, after I removed them? --TheParanoidOne 21:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Stronach

Oh my god. If User Michaelm or an anonymous editor had made the changes you just made, I would have reverted as vandalism. Ground Zero 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Hugh_Gallagher

In Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Hugh_Gallagher There are 3 delete votes, 1 keep, and 1 rename. How does that equal keep and rename? - Tεx τ urε 15:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week for Dan Gable

Hello,

I have nominated the artical on Dan Gable for the calaboration of the week. But the artical needs as much support as possible. This will be a tough one that has potential to become a collaborated artical with help of people like you. Please place your vote at the collaboration of the week artical under the Dan Gable Section. Thank you very much for your help. ZeWrestler 17:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so-called category

It is not a disputed category. It is a makey-up category manufactured by one person for his own agenda. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vurp

You recently closed Vurp's vfd discussion which resulted in "transwikied and delete". But I think you forgot to delete it. I just noticed it when it showed up on my watchlist after someone removed the vfd tag, but it didn't survive. Thanks. --Dmcdevit 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that, I have deleted it. - SimonP 23:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I thought I'd ask you a question as an admin that frequents vfd. I do basically all the transwikis to Wiktionary (with a bot). Just wondering, if the result of a previously closed vfd debate was "transwiki", and I transwiki it, does that mean I have to resubmit another vfd listing (as I've done before), or can I just alert an admin to delete it (since I think the normal meaning is "transwiki and delete"). Just wondering, thanks for your help. --Dmcdevit 01:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, for Wiktionary transwikis I will have any newly tagged articles transwikied within a matter of days. We got the backlog effectively down to zero. So, incidentally, if you ever see an article listed that needs transwikiing, I'd prefer if you could let me know or tag it so I can tranwiki it before it is closed and it won't need to be resubmitted. Well I kind of expected the grey area, so I guess I'll continue to submit them to vfd just in case. --Dmcdevit 02:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guru (sociology)

This article has already been merged into guru. All information in guru (sociology) is also in the history of guru. Hence can be deleted now safely. Andries 13:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genera lists

Yes, I do plan on working on them soon. Thanks for reminding me. --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Edits on Missing Wikipedians

Simon, please stop reverting the edits on Missing Wikipedians and yes they are missing and you are gonna accept it. I'm getting tired of trying to restore them. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:00, 19 May 2005

Matthew 2:16

I'm sorry to see that this is on VfD - looks like it'll be kept though. I think the articles you've done on the verses, etc are very useful - I hope that this doesn't put you off carrying this project on! --G Rutter 14:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD: Altar Q

I have decided to preserve this section and direct VfU people to it in order to see my arguments. When the situation has been resolved, you may remove the section at your liesure if you so please.

SimonP,

I would like to appeal your decision from four days ago to delete the article Altar Q, listed on the VfD page. I would like to present the following facts and observations in support of my case.

As you will see on the relevant VfD page, there were three votes to delete and one to keep. The vote to keep came from me, after I put Altar Q on VfD to begin with. I realize that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I hardly consider a vote of four to be able to render any sort of responsible decision.
Although generally reliable, the "non notable" standard for band inclusion has proven misleading in the past, as in the VfD page for "Reagan Youth". One of the "delete" votes on that page even came from a Wikipedian who voted to delete Altar Q. I do not mean it as a personal attack on her when I use this instance as an example to point out that, especially with "underground" punk rock movements, significant bands may be unknown to some users. The likelihood of arguments from ignorance (logical fallacies) being committed in these types of votes is, I believe, significant enough to consider the very real possibility that votes for deletion for "non notable" topics may reflect little more than the voter's personal view.
Two of the three negative votes cited band "vanity" as a reason to delete the article. However, while I did not write this article, my friend did, and I know him to be unaffiliated with this band. He has a veritable library of CDs, plenty of which he enjoys better than Altar Q, but I have full confidence that he contemplated the band's significance before writing an article on it. If this was a "vain" attempt by a fan to promote an obscure band, trust me when I say that there is a small army of other bands he could have and would have shared with the world via Wikipedia.
I incorrectly stated, in an attempt to provide an objective assessment of the band's status, that the band was "apparently not together". This and an allegation of vanity comprised the complete argument of another "delete" voter. In my rebuttal to him, I, again, incorrectly gave 2003 as the year of their album release. The correct year is, in fact, 2004, according to Allmusic, and bands rarely release albums quick enough for their second one to have appeared in that case. I also believe that my comparison to The Beatles and the Soviet Union (as significant entities "not together" anymore) was relevant, if hyperbolic.

Altogether, I believe that these arguments, in light of the small voting body, merit another chance for an Altar Q article. My friend would likely be interested in expanding upon the old version, which could be retrieved via an Internet archive, after what he perceived as a very hostile reaction to one of his few Wikipedia contributions, of which he was proud. I hope you will consider the merits of my argument and grant a second chance to my friend. --BDD 19:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sittner Hall and Omicron Pi Sigma

I have merged the content of these pages into Walla Walla College under the agreed section of Student Life. This is the first time I have merged articles, so could you please reply on my talk page and explain what needs to be done next? A redirect? The only concern there is that the talk pages, and the VfDs, will be forgotten. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 22:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help. Harro5 22:35, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Electoral districts

Hi Simon, thanks for all of your awesome effort lately in expanding the Canadian electoral district articles. One issue has come up though on which I would value your opinion. I notice that a couple of the former stub articles for defunct electoral districts have been redirected. On one hand, I see the value in consolidating things for districts that had really pretty similar names and/or boundries, but on the other hand, consolidating messes up the very nice categorization scheme, where every electoral district ever could be found by looking at the category. Redirection makes for missing entries in the master list created by those categories. Personally, I much favour standardizing on keeping each district as a separate entry, and linking from article to article to follow how each electoral districts evolved.... Thoughts? Fawcett5 22:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Why did you delete Canada instead of deleting the article with the very long title that Canada was moved to? Crotalus horridus 01:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! You just deleted Canada! AlexTiefling 01:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect needs to be deleted before the page is moved. Unfortunetaly the database does not seem to be letting the page move go through. - SimonP 01:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm in Toronto, and we're still here. I'm sure the rest of the country will be back shortly. :) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

A question at the bottom of Talk:Canada is waiting for an answer! Georgia guy 02:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback High School closure on VfD

You commented that the result of the debate was to delete, was this in error? —RaD Man (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, thanks for catching that. - SimonP 02:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

closing Vfds

Hi, I see you're doing a great job closing all these Vfds, but it would help if you used the edit summaries when you do so. Most users put something like "processing Vfd; keep" in the summary, so people can immediately see the result in their watchlists. As it is, they have to click through to each and every one to see what it is you said or did. Just a thought.

Plus, as an aside, one of the main gripes on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship is "scant use of edit summaries". So if you're ever aspiring to have those extra abilities, this may well count against you...

...anyway, thanks for your time, and for all your hard work! Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, please, it would be *really* helpful if you could start doing this. Thank you. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 02:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SimonP. Glad to see that you're leaving extensive Talk page notes for articles that are retained. Just thought I'd chime in with respect to MTG's remarks. It would be great if you could at least give us a "closed" in the edit summary, if nothing else. Much obliged, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 06:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns, but I have been closing VfD debates for a long time and I don't feel that adding extra comments would be worth the effort. The debate pages are set to generate automatic edit summaries, which I feel are enough. At the same time the automatic summaries also make it much more time consuming to append my own comments. To me it is far more important to add a detailed comment to the deletion record or to the history of the article and its talk page if it is kept. I am proud to do more detailed annotations in these areas than almost any other closer. - SimonP 05:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see now, you're giving vast summaries! Well, even so it would be nice if you could... actually, I have AutoComplete enabled so I can type a letter or two and then click the applicable fill-in from the list just before I click save. Simple as that. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 06:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another VfD closure

Winter rat was closed with the decision to move to wiktionary. I had done the transwiki hours earier. (For future reference, always check the edit summary and/or talk page before putting on a "Move to Wiktionary" tag, because articles transwikied under the same name twice overwrite the first transwiki.) Sorry I had forgotten to alert the VfD discussion page, but it should actually be deleted now. --Dmcdevit 07:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ty--Dmcdevit 21:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD on Continuum calculator

Hello Simon, you have finished the VfD on Continuum calculator, which I appreciate, but the article is still marked "TotallyDisputed". What is the next step to removed the mark? I don't know who is apt to do this, because the mark has been set by no registered user. Thanks. -- Karsten88 14:29, 23 May 2005 (CEST)

Deadend pages

Hello Simon, can you please explain me what is wrong with pages BKTV SAT (included in BKTV, so BKTV SAT is redirection now), Nenad Prokic, Fruska Gora National Park... there were corrected and are not deadend pages more. Thank you. --Ninam 02:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :) I should to find some more information on Nenad Prokic. :) --Ninam 02:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing CatNeeded Templates

Just curious as to why you removed the "CatNeeded" templates I placed on Penticton Ironmap and Spectator Guide and Philadelphia Herpetological Society? --Wolf530 05:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

No response, and you've also removed the template on other pages I've edited. Still trying to figure out what the deal is? --Wolf530 19:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Limitedgeographicscope on TfD

Template:Limitedgeographicscope is on TfD. I saw your name in the edit history so I figured you might want to know about it. — mark ✎ 10:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Party of Canada

I've asked User:The Tom and User:Bearcat for help on this. Can you think of anyone else who might know? Ground Zero 15:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Reducing_VfD_load

I've added a proposal of sorts at the top, and would like to have your opinion thereon. Thanks, R adiant _* 08:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Fine, I'll make no more template additions to countries, despite the fact that it facilitates finding related articles. --Myles Long 01:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted." Watch what you're removing will ya, jack? You just took the ax to the Venezuela templates without first looking where you swung. Da 'Sco Mon

Ugh. It's worse than I tought. Note to you: the SACN is not the OAS, it is more like the South American EU. But reading over your talk page suggests you have a problem with keeping your hands off templates. I for one, will be replacing all SACN templates in member nation pages as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Footers Da 'Sco Mon

Alexander Spottswood

Seeing your edit on Alexander Spottswood, I wonder whether my idea of a stub was wrong. Can you explain your reasoning for removing the bio-stub template from that article? (if there was none, that's fine, I just like to ask when I don't understand an edit) Rl 06:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to readd the template. I agree with keeping the number of pages marked as stub down. However, I also believe the stub categories were more helpful if editors better agreed on where a stub ends. That is what brought me here — checking and recalibrating my own scales. Thanks. Rl 16:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Find or find a stub

Hello. You have recently reverted the article Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub to its previous version. This article has been made into a redirect in order to centralize all information about stub articles on a single place, Wikipedia:Stub. That article was written over the course of weeks on the WP:WSS and was lead by me, and I think the final result is quite good. Thus, I am reverting your your edit. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 16:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury High School

Why a disambig page when there aren't articles on any of those other schools? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If all the high schools are deserving of articles then a disambig page is perfectly appropriate Yes, but maybe it should wait for those articles to be created first? --File:Flag of Ottawa.svg Spinboy 02:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Years in television

Would you please move back the regional "1976 in television" articles? The reason they were subpages was because it was a test proposition. They are not ready to go live in the main space yet (see Talk:1976 in television/Temp). I will add a notice to that effect tomorrow (and will move them back myself if you do not see this message before tomorrow). I am sorry I did not think to put the notice in right away.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

School discussion

Hi there! I've summarized the lengthy Wikipedia:Schools discussion and listed the statements that got approval from most people. I believe it's been a constructive page, and WikiProject Schools has benefitted from the revitalization. Anyway please take a look at it and write on the talk page if you found this acceptable. Also I'd appreciate some help in keeping any future VfD discussions on this matter from getting out of hand (I'm not entirely sure how, but we could set a good example by casting concise votes referring to /Arguments). Yours, R adiant _* 10:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Roaring Twenties, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Falphin 03:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru revert

On May 10, you reverted Astrotrain's edit, when he added {{Commonwealth of Nations}}. Why did you do that? Nauru is a member of the Commonwealth, so the template really should be there. Jon Harald Søby 07:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(in reply of what you wrote on my talk page) OK, I see. I'm not very active on en:, so I'm not into all regulations here… Thanks for explaining. =) Jon Harald Søby 13:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amerocentrism

You added that The Roaring Twenties only existed in North America, and then you rearranged the article to make it less Amerocentric, moving important American factors for the emergence of the Roaring Twenties such as the 18th and 19th Amendments, to less prominent places in the article.

Ye kinna have it both ways, man... ℬastique▼^talk 13:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1976 in television

Simon, I generally hate to lecture people, but I have to point out to you that you really need to start paying a bit more attention. The articles were NOT moved back to their subpage locations; they were moved to new titles as per Talk:1976 in television/Temp, which, as it very much seems, you also did not read.

As for the redirects, they were deleted because none of the other "Years in television" articles follow the 1976 format (mainly because this format is in its test phase). When the format/layout/structure are finalized, I will be creating appropriate redirects for all years, not just 1976, unless the consunsus is not to. For now, it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to have incongruous and useless (i.e., unused) redirects littering the main space, especially when the articles they point to are a work in progress and can be gone altogether.

In future, please make sure that you read all the suggested materials related to the case before coming up with abuse allegations (people tend to take offense, you know). I would also strongly suggest that you move the articles back as the moves you performed are in violation of the discussion on the talk page (at least two users prefer the "1976 in television (Canada)" format (which, I emphasize again, is not utilizing subpages any more) over the "1976 in Canadian television"). Otherwise it would be me who is going to be bothered with your attitude and inattention to details.

I am sorry if this all sounds a bit harsh, but I tend to get irritated when people are not paying attention and refuse to admit it afterwards. If your attitude continues, I will be forced to move the test articles to my userspace in order to be able to work on them in peace and have you calmed down. If "Years in television" articles interest you, I would suggest that you adopt a more constructive attitude and start making project-related suggestions on the Talk:1976 in television/Temp page.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you wish to contest this on the basis of technicalities, so be it.

Semantically, the slash and a parenthesis are the same thing. However, this particular semantics issue is not covered by any of the WP policies or guidelines. While using parentheses is indeed typical of disambiguation pages, there is no official policy or guideline prohibiting using them for other purposes (to me, this is where "use common sense" comes into play). Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Subpages guideline defines subpages strictly as "pages separated with a "/" (a forward slash)" (note the parentheses are not mentioned at all). Then, this same guideline also states that "the only accepted use for subpages in the encyclopedia namespace is for making drafts of major article revisions", which puts your original move in direct violation of this particular guideline, as the the articles you had moved were meant as temporary draft versions (to your benefit, I will gladly accept that it was my mistake of not prominently labeling them as such).

Both "1976 in Canada (television)" and "1976 in television (Canada)" can indeed be used. I, however, do not see anything wrong with using one of them as a title, and the other one as a redirect. In the end, the version which is to the liking of more people will be used. As a matter of fact, the only reason why I moved "1976 in Canadian television" back to "1976 in television (Canada)" was because both Cburnett and myself liked this format better (no one else voiced an opinion), leaving you in the minority. Plus, you did not move all of the country pages out of the subpages space, so, to achieve consistency, I had to make moves one way or another.

Your Canada/television vs. Television/Canada suggestion, by the way, would have looked much better on the project's talk page, especially when presented positively. I strongly believe that editors working on this project are reasonable folks open to any constructive suggestions. If you think this "ambiguity" is a deficiency (I don't, because it can easily be resolved with a redirect), start a new section on project's deficiencies (hopefully with proposed solutions). Do not treat the article structure as set in stone just yet—the project is only days old, and I am sure there are still many issues neither you nor us have yet thought of.

As far as the deletion of redirects goes, this action of mine falls under #7 in the General section of WP:CSD. Furthermore, as a creator of these temporary pages, I have a right to declare that the pages were created in the main space in error and move them to my userspace. The remaining redirects will then be deleted as per #2 in the "Redirects" section. Previously deleted redirects will fall under the same criteria, although the rule will be applied retroactively (which, again, is not in violation of any policies).

I hope this addresses your concerns. I now very much regret that I've just wasted a whole morning contesting a very technical issue instead of actually working on "Years in television" project as I planned. While your desire to enforce policies is honorable, you still need time to get to know them better, and, above all, you need to assume good faith. If you took a little time to check my contributions and userpage, you'd see that "years in television" is one of the projects I've been working on for a long time, and, even if I made a mistake, it would not have been intentional. Simply pointing out to me what you think a mistake was (instead of hastily moving stuff around) would save us both a lot of time and nerves. Stubborness is not usually a good trait, neither in real life nor in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was not me who started to stick to the letter of the policies instead of to their spirit. So far, your accusations have been based on very technical interpretations of the rules. All I did was to respond in a similar fashion.

Anyway, technicalities or not, you may or may not be right about CSD #7 (it all really depends on interpretation of "authorship" under GFDL provisions, especially when applied to redirects created due to a (unilateral) page move—I am not a lawyer, and I have absolutely no desire to dig into this even further than I already did). If you suggest sticking to the spirit of the policies, however, then, using common sense, leftovers of temporary/draft pages moves are perfect candidates for CSD.

In any case, I still reserve the right to move the project to my userspace and then apply CSD Redirects #2, rendering this point moot.

Speaking of me not having "noted that [my] efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland... etc. projects", how about (again!) going back to Talk:1976 in television/Temp#Why change?, and looking at the following sentence in the middle of the second paragraph: "Country-specific information is proposed to be moved to separate articles"? Whether you missed this line or not, it does not really matter; I am simply flabbergasted that you did not understand that I was using Canada just as an example, and that by default I meant the rest of the countries. What in the world did I do to earn such a distrust from you that you are willing to accuse me based on the most minor (and, as I deem them, obvious) omissions in my reasoning?

Finally, as far as your statements that "my effort so far has... been a subproject... advertised to those interested in that area" and that it was "a pure coincidence that you... stumbled upon [these] pages" go, I would like one more time to bring to your attention the fact that the project is less than a week old. I am sure there are some projects out there that started without you or me knowing about them. If one is to assume good faith, s/he would understand that the reason for not advertising the project was not to conceal it from public scrutiny, but rather to shape it, through the joint efforts of the interested editors, to a form which can then be presented to a broader audience without being accused of distraction of said audience's attention to review an unreadable, unstructured, and unformatted mess (which this project at this point of time is).

To summarize, I would suggest that you adopt the following course of action: move the pages back where they were this morning (an apology from you would have been nice, but I am not going to insist on it) and conduct the straw poll on the project talk page regarding the naming issue (let me remind you that the only reasons why the WP has policies is because the majority decided to have them). I, in turn, promise to apologize for any offenses I might have inadvertently given you in any of my communications above. This will hopefully result in us cooperatively working on the project, with respect to each other's opinions. So far, I am looking at 15 Kb of discussion on my talk page, and do not see how it can even remotely aid Wikipedia to become a better encyclopedia. What I do know, is that instead of working on having a more or less shaped project by noon today, I have wasted my time on a pretty much pointless discussion over the interpretation of the rules (most of which do not even apply). Sue me if that's not the truth.

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that I was under no obligation to notify people working on country pages. The real reasons, however, were not that I was too lazy to do so, but, first, because the project is more television- than country-oriented (so I wanted people interested mainly in television to take a first look), and, second, since I was not working on country pages, I would not know who was involved the most and who would take the greatest interest. If such information is available to you, by all means go ahead and let them know this project exists. The more people, the merrier.

As for consensus vs. majority, most of the times it is the same thing, except where significant compromises are made by both sides (yes, I would guess most of the existing policies were a result of compromises). I am very well aware of the quick polls controversies, but in this particular situation, the main article can really be under only one name (whatever that name is), so a quick poll would be a good idea, especially considering that it is not binding, but is only used as first approximation of how the things are going to look like in the end (it is very hard working on a project if its pages are moved back and forth). Furthermore, quoting you ("polls are generally only resorted to when other types of decision making have failed"), I would say that the current situation can be perfectly described as such. I understand that you moved the articles because you believed that they violate WP naming policy. I already told you why they do not, but I do not see you providing any other reasons why they should not be moved back to where Cburnett and me prefer to see them (at least for now). I like your RfC idea, but I do not think now is the best time to request one. I would rather have people comment on the whole idea/structure instead of a mundane issue of sub-articles names.

Looking back at your actions, the very least you could do was to notify the project participants that the move was going to be made (and why). The way you did it was (or, rather, was perceived as) very arrogant and impolite, and you did not do much to fix that when it was pointed out to you. I realize that you were probably just being bold, but this particular guideline is not very applicable when dealing with an active project that's still in its early testing stage (just because only three people commented on it is no excuse).

I will stop insisting that you move the articles back (since it is all temporary and to be decided upon, it really does not matter where they are now), but I would still suggest that you change the in-article references to bypass the redirects that appeared because of your moves. These redirects are currently nothing more than just yet another factor in an already complicated articles structure (and an unnecessary one at that); bypassing them would help the participants more easily focus on what's important. When all this is done, I hope the project will be back on track again.

If you wish (and if you are positively against any polls in any form), request an RfC on the names, but do it yourself as I am not going to distract the community's attention on such a minor issue, at least not at this time when the project still smells of raw meat.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted your edits

There was no reason to remove the categories from Little Rock, Arkansas. I have reverted your edits and will continue to do so until you can provide me justification for removing the categories. --Wolf530 18:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would mark your edits, which is standard procedure, it would be easier to see what you're doing. I did, in fact, look at both the old and new (your) revision, and could not see where removing the categories was beneficial. And, considering that you have changed a number of my edits in such a manner, one conclusion leads to another. So, if you're going to talk about standard procedure, I'd suggest you utilize the "edit summary" box and make note of what you're actually changing to avoid further confusion. --Wolf530 23:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

MONTH 2005 in rail transport

I noticed your edits to the subpages of 2005 in rail transport. I had almost named the subpages as MONTH 2005 in rail transport when I created them, but decided to use the names I did for consistency with the sections on the Trains portal. Perhaps the March, May and June pages should be moved to similar article names? I had split these out from the main page due to the main page's size (it was approaching 40kb), but now I'm also wondering about splitting out the rather extensive References section on the main page too, and listing the subpages on the main page as links rather than using them as templates. Since I've included footnote-style external links on the events themselves, it shouldn't be that hard to match them up. Thoughts? slambo 19:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'll have to think about that one. I'm tempted to make the subpages complete articles in themselves and reduce the main article to links with maybe four or five significant events per month. While I'm trying to encourage other editors to add international data to the timeline pages, it isn't happening anywhere near the frequency that I would like to see. The trouble with splitting by country is that there are a lot of items that cross boundaries, such as the contracts noted for Bombardier; the last entry that I added for that (Canadian) company noted orders for equipment in Germany and China. In that sense, splitting my month seems more logical. Well, it gives me another task for the weekend, if nothing else. B-) slambo 22:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving WP:AN

Hi, I've decided I want to give this up - it takes too much of my time. You seem to have spare time and energy - are you interesting in taking it over? It takes between 1/2 hr to an hour a day, depending on how thoroughly you do it. I'll put a note on WT:AN about this. Noel (talk) 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Central Asia

Your new maps for Central Asia are beautiful. Kudos. —thames 21:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, though I now feel I should have matched the Wikipedia font in the legend. - SimonP 21:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bao'an

I amended the category membership of Bao'an, to place it in the appropriate-level category and list (Shaanxi administrative divisions not the category for all of China). Thanks ~ Dpr 22:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I was looking for a specific county category but culdn;t find one so I dumped it there in hope that someone who knew what they were doing would move it to the correct place. - SimonP 22:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced comments relocated from User:SimonP

I hereby request you seize and desist from publishing my copyrighted work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activating_the_VOIP_Speaker_on_the_Loox_720 . Any further action on your part will result in legal action being taken.

Regards

Mr S Davids Sururdavids 16:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hereby request you seize and desist from publishing my copyrighted work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_use_the_Audio_In_on_the_Loox_720 . Any further action on your part will result in legal action being taken.

Regards

Mr S Davids Sururdavids 16:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2005 English cricket season

Ah. I only just had Linuxbreak mentioning his hatred of uncategorised pages this morning. I have created a new category for all the match articles: Category:2005 English cricket season matches. This should be added to all those pages with each entry ending in "|Home team v Away team MM-DD" so that its listed sensibly. If you help out with removing them, please start at the bottom up and remove the ones you do. In the meantime, I'll start at the top and remove them 10 at a time. Kind regards, jguk 17:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: History of Central Asia

Thanks for your question. There are one or two stylistic matters and grammatical errors that I might clear up in the section on the 'Conquest of Turkestan' (to which I've largely confined myself). The article as a whole is necessarily lacking in detail, but the various links fill most of the gaps. There is a set of articles ('History of Uzbekistan'; 'History of Tajikistan' etc.) which despite their titles have content which overlaps with some of the stuff here: you might want to take a look at them. Sikandarji 12:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

added copyright notices, thanks

Honestly, there were so many choices. cc-by-2.0 seemed inoffensive; is that a common choice?

Nice work

Excellent work on Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968, Simon. Thanks. Ground Zero 15:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Norway

Because otherwise there is no reference to NATO in the article. It seems pretty relevant. If you want to remove the box, that's fine but then there should be some text put in about NATO membership. The substantive issue is at least as important as the aesthetics issue. Parmaestro 23:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because otherwise there is no reference to NATO in the article. It seems pretty relevant. If you want to remove the box, that's fine but then there should be some text put in about NATO membership. The substantive issue is at least as important as the aesthetics issue. Parmaestro 23:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RABot

I moved your comments to User talk:RABot and replied there. Dragons flight 22:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response

I've already wrote this on "Request for arbitration" page, but I feel I should write you directly. You've made a misjudgment, Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually told me about this encyclopedia. We used to collaborate on VfD a long time ago, but stopped doing that after the two of us and another friend of ours realized it wasn't appropriate. -- OldRight 20:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Renaissance is not an Historical Era?

The logs state that you removed the link to Category:Historical_eras from the Renaissance article, but you didn't provide an explanation. --Brunnock 00:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear- if you look at Category:Historical_eras, there are links to both articles and parent categories (Age of sail, Middle Ages, and Victorian era). --Brunnock 01:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Historical_eras still seems inconsistent. The subcats are a mix of lists of eras (such as Musical eras) and individual eras (Renaissance). Personally, I think that all of the subcats should be lists of eras.

As for History by Period, I'd remove the eras and just put in chronological periods (centuries, millenia, ...) --Brunnock 01:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

ON-FedRep

You're quite possibly right. But it's already there (not created by me), and matches templates created by the same user for all of the other provinces...so they'd have to all be converted to categories. Bearcat 03:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still stand by my suggestion some time back of breaking the HoC cats up by provincial delegation (partly because then there'd be a single category that could cover both "Members of the House of Commons" and "{PROVINCE} politicians"...), but this stuff is really tricky to organize effectively, I have to admit... Bearcat 03:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: The Embo

Thanks for cleaning up after me last night. I was getting a bad case of happy-fingers and couldn't seem to get anything done without a half dozen typos. Have a good morning. Rossami (talk) 13:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scrim revert

Hi! May I ask why you reverted my addition of theat-stub to scrim? kmccoy (talk) 22:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its theatrical use is barely touched on. There is a lot of information about that which could be included. WP:Stub says "This usually means one paragraph or less." -- you left out the "usually". Scrim has a single paragraph (a short one at that) about its theatrical use, and while I'm planning on adding stuff to it myself, I was hoping that other people with an interest in theatre would expand this article as well. Regardless of all that, would it be possible for you to use edit summaries and/or talk pages when reverting changes like that? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 22:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD/Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Hi SimonP,

maybe you could be a bit more specific on the voting outcome than "inconclusive"? I think some people (including me) will be puzzled by this, since the majority was in favour of "delete" (to my counting). - Snchduer 09:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simon

When you deleted Activating the VOIP Speaker on the Loox 720 there were two other pages up for deletion by the same vote. Would you like to delete them or shall I? DJ Clayworth 17:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have not read the debate closely enough. The pages have been deleted. - SimonP 17:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

VfD closing

If it's not too much work, could you put a link to the VfD debate when deleting a page? Sometimes you are browsing the logs and want to read the debate, and the link makes it much easier. Also, sometimes the name of the debate isn't the same as the name of the page (for renominations, multiple pages on a single debate, and some other oddities). --cesarb 00:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quantum sort

I have to disagree with your closing of the VfD on Quantum sort, the outcome was clearly delete. Could you please have another look at it? --W(t) 13:49, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/ROUND_TABLE

Why was this page moved to Talk:ROUND_TABLE? It seems to clutter up the talk page, plus I am not sure if this is the usual procedure for VfD pages. —Tokek 19:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it ok for me to move it back, then? —Tokek 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Spheres_of_Chaos

"The result of the debate was - deleted -"??? The page still exists. Kel-nage 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I sometimes automatically type delete when I should have written keep as delete is the result of the vast majority of votes. - SimonP 22:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. Just a bit confused, that's all. Kel-nage 23:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pakistan

Would you like to join the animated discussion on the Pakistan's talk page? The current issue is whether "Pakistan is famous for its support of Taliban and 9/11 terrorist" is a suitable sentence to start the article's first paragraph. Your contribution would be much appreciated, as the current discussion seems to be more of a dialog between Ragib and SamTr014 (talk • contribs). Thanks ! --PrinceA 06:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Result of VfD on Prehistoric Ice Man

Vote is here. Shoudn't the page be moved or at least disambiguated than kept as it was? Pavel Vozenilek 20:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Now a disambig, links fixed. Noel (talk) 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italian Renaissance

Hi Simon -- right you are! The article reads very well now: good work! The music section does indeed need extensive renovation. I'll try to get to it soon! Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Now all we need to do is find a historian of dance (that person is not me) ... Antandrus (talk) 00:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Canadian history et al

The CFD discussion is archived at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_12#Fooish_history_--.3E_History_of_Foo

This was an "umbrella" rename, in which the specific categories to be renamed were not listed, and unfortunately, not properly tagged. Please make a new nomination for un-renaming and explain your reason for opposing the Canada-related change. As you requested, I have put all the "history of country X" renames on hold. I will wait at least 7 days for further objections to be raised to these renames, as all of them have since been tagged. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#History_by_country for further status updates and discussion. Thanks, Beland 07:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CSD expansion

Hi there! Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load, I've put together a proposal to expand CSD, here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. Before it is put to a general vote I would like your advise on the wording and intent; could you please take a look? Thanks, R adiant _>|< 13:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Law enforcement in the United States

Huh? You should know (heck, you've been here a lot longer than me :-) that you don't need to delete a redirect to turn it into an article. Noel (talk) 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so. Now I understand! "Light dawns over Marblehead", as they say! :-) Noel (talk) 19:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vfd: Raffles Institution String Ensemble

Hi, the article Raffles Institution String Ensemble was deleted recently. In the vfd, there were 3 votes for merging the content into Raffles Institution. Is there a way to retrieve the deleted content and do the merge? Thanks. --Vsion 04:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In recognition...

Your superb contributions, both in and out the article namespace and always coming in exceptionally high quality and quantity, earn you this barnstar. I think it is long overdue. Thank you very much! — mark ✎

Hi Simon — I didn't want to disturb your minimalist user page, so I've put this well-deserved barnstar here for now. Place it where you want it. Know that your work is very much appreciated. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 19:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

tags in an article Shahaji put back

You'd removed much needed tags ({{wikify}}, {{CatNeeded}}) in article Shahaji [1]. I'd put them back. Pavel Vozenilek 14:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CSD expansion

Hi there! You made a remark that the CSD criterion supposed to deal with several vanity pages should be reworded to be about 'verifiability' rather than 'significance'. However, there is one problem with that. Most people treat the word "verifiable" as "something that can be verified", even if that is not entirely what it means by Wiki definition. For instance, an article that reads "John Doe is a student at Albuquerque high school" is verifiable by anyone who holds a yearbook. "Xargh473 is a l33t us3r at t3hforums.com" is verifiable by anyone who logs in to those forums. Both, however, are likely not encyclopedic. I'm afraid we're going to need an appeal to common sense somewhere, and wikt:important and wikt:significant are reasonably well defined for most people. R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 09:33 (UTC)

Recognition

Much obliged.

What's the protocol for awarding these stars, anyway? CJCurrie 28 June 2005 22:04 (UTC)

you accidentally removed a comment of mine

Hi SimonP, I think you accidentally removed a comment of mine [2] --MarSch 29 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

No problem, just checking :) The edit conflict system was broke throughout 1.4 AFAIK. Since I know I've worked around it. Don't know about 1.5 --MarSch 29 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)

African American lit

You were correct in your comment about the lead for African-American literature being too short. I have expanded the lead. Could you look at it again and see if it works for you now? Thanks. --Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

The entire bible

The KJV is crown copyright. Posting the entire text chapter-by-chapter into wikipedia articles is a copyright violation. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

HMSO (the copyright holder - representatives of the crown) has stated in correspondence that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright reproducable under a GFDL licence.

Please do not remove copyvio notices. They are a legal requirement of wikipedia. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Wikipedia servers are not just in the US. anymore the content has to comply with all the laws wherever there are servers. A copyvio prosecution would result from the content being physically published (i.e. on servers located) in any country which respects crown copyright.

I have asked Jimbo Wales to resolve the copyright status of the King James Version.

But, in the meantime, Wikipedia must stay on the safe side of copyright law to avoid prosecution. I.e. the copyvio notices must remain until Jimbo Wales determines otherwise. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

By the way, the content of the "full text section" would likely never remain in Wikipedia. If it was not a copyvio, it would, in all likelyhood, be moved to Wikisource. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

(n.b. HMSO is not the government, it is the crown, which is not quite the same)

O.T. Boy, that's one way to extend copyright: give it to an institution that, presumably never days. What an abuse. Centuries later they still claim the right to collect royalties!

Matthew 1

Heyas, since I essentially listed a suite of articles that I saw you worked rather extensively on for deletion, I thought I might message you to let you know that my intent is not personal malice. You've done a pretty good job on most of the things that I've read, but I wanted to submit them for community review anyway to judge their encyclopedic status and such. It's not quite the easiest thing to watch as Wikipedians deliberate over whether or not to retain works that you've put a lot of work into, but I just wanted to ensure their inclusion (or lack thereof, but it doesn't look like it's headed that way anyway) was the consensus of the community. Best regards and happy editing, SocratesJedi | Talk 2 July 2005 02:14 (UTC).

Surnames

Some Wiktionarians want to delete surnames from Wiktionary. I'm opposing, on the grounds that this is a long-standing arrangement between Wiktionary and Wikipedia, where Wiktionary handles the lexicography and Wikipedia handles the people and places. Please come to Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Surnames and contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-03 13:43:57 (UTC)

History of Eurasia

Someone has proposed merging this page into Asia. From the history it seems you started the page so I thought you might like to comment. Dejvid 5 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Poland 1945-1989

I've replaced some of the photos and tried to make them fit better into the article. Let me know if this helps resolve your objection to the FAC. Thanks. 172 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Matthew 1 & Similar VfD

Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out. It looks like somebody else removed them before I got back on Wikipedia. When you start closing a bunch of VfD's at the same time it's easy to miss details like that. I'll be more thorough in future. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Behaviour

You are warned not to delete other people's edits from VFD. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

3RR

You are reminded that the 3RR policy applies to editors acting on behalf of another. I.e. attempting to get another editor, such as JYolkowski, to perform reverts on your behalf, is forbade, and explicitely treated as an edit by yourself.

The 3RR violation in such cases (referred to as proxy edits) is considered to have been carried out by both editors, and both are blocked for the period of punishment. This is a result of a ruling by the arbitration committee concerning such proxy editing. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

You are informed that your comments on User:Kappa's talk page constitute a request to proxy edit. The use of proxy editors to circumvent rules is forbidden by arbitration committee ruling. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Lir

I have already been proven by a developer (David Gerard) to be completely obviously a different person to Lir. Indeed, your friend, JYolkowski made this edit [3], which can essentially be applied to you verbatim. Do not make the accusation again, it will be considered a personal attack. ~~~~ 21:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he just stated that he could not prove you were Lir, there is an important distinction. - SimonP 21:15, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Read what he wrote, and consider very carefully your next response to it. Personal attacks are completely forbidden. ~~~~ 21:17, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What he wrote was Doesn't appear to be anything to do with Lir. -Ril- appears to be exactly what they claim to be. [4] All David can do is check to see if IPs match, it is not terribly difficult to change IP addresses so this cannot prove anything. Moreover I never accused you of being Lir, but given your user name and recent behaviour I have become justifiably suspicious. I thus asked an educated user to take another look at the issue. Unfortunately it is impossible to prove anyone innocent, but because of Lir's long history we have to remain alert. If Snowspinner looks at your edits and reaches the same conclusion as the IP check then, for myself at least, that will be enough evidence and I will drop this line of inquiry. - SimonP 21:30, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

On another note I hope that you are not Lir, as when you are adding content rather than striving to have other's deleted you have made many valuable additions. Lir is irredeemable, but many newish users have some trouble adjusting to the community and if you are simply a new arrival I'm confident that the problematic behaviour will disappear in the long term. - SimonP 21:38, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew 1 etc.

No problem, anytime. I don't mind -Ril-'s opinions about the articles (although I disagree with them) but the vigourous campaigning was starting to get annoying. Anyway, looks like he's been blocked so that should resolve the problem until tomorrow. JYolkowski // talk 23:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken the 3RR at mathew 4 [5] [6] [7] [8]

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COTW on talk

I responded to you, why does it belong on talk. By the way, TWID also has its notices on the article page. I believe it is good for a reader to know whats bad or good about the article. Falphin 00:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment at the village pump here. Please move it if that is not the right place for it or please change it if that is not the right way to discuss it. Thanks. Falphin 01:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be fine, I have responded. - SimonP 01:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

IDRIVE

Thanks for your contribution to the IDRIVE. I appreciate your suggestion to change the color of our templates. The color was carefully chosen, however, and has worked well on this Collaboration which was almost dying before I made the changes. Also, please bring up any suggestions for changes on the talk page of WP:IDRIVE first. Your help would be most productive if you could contribute to this week's topic, currently we are working on Trade, next week we will be working on Refugee. Hope you can help. Greetings--Fenice 05:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion template

It is not appropriate to go around and engage in a large-scale, multi-article revert war. Please stop and take the discussion to Wikipedia:Template locations. violet/riga (t) 13:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steven Spielberg's films

As the result of a dispute over its previous TFD, the template showing Spielberg's films has been folded into a discussion of similar templates and renominated for deletion. I am contacting everyone who voted on the original TFD so that they will have another chance to make sure their opinion is heard.

The new vote is here.

Dragons flight 01:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Germanistics

Maybe You would like to clean up and transfer from talk to text the translation and expansion I did. Oh, and please change the title if You know how to do that! Kdammers 04:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry M. Rosenfeld

I expanded the article from the single sentence that was there before, adding material from Graham's memoirs. I'll look through Bradlee's later and see what else I can add. PedanticallySpeaking 15:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I did some more expansion and added a photo. What do you think? PedanticallySpeaking 19:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/3-C

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but since you voted on the earlier CSD proposal about unremarkable bands, it would be appreciated if you cast your vote for this version. It has been reworded to address concerns raised against the earlier wording. Please take a look at it and consider if you support or oppose it. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on User talk:Gsociology

Your comments regarding (mass) linking your own site appear to have been ignored. His contributions seem to consist mainly of adding these links? brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Canada

Thanks for telling me about the book. It will cost around 60 USD to buy, but I am going to get it ASAP. I also created two article forks: Appointment to the Order of Canada and Removal from the Order of Canada (which is on VFD now. I do not know what other articles I can fork, but I assume it can be a few more (recepients, the Advisory Council). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Fischer FAC

Hi. You posted an objection on this FAC about the lead. Could you take a look at the article now, and respond to my question on the FAC page? I'm looking for more ideas about how to improve and expand the lead, and I figure you're the perfect person to ask, since there seems to be something you are expecting that isn't there. Thanks. --malathion ^talk 23:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates on Canada

Thanks for catching my oversight. I should go look for Francophonie and UN templates, too. Maybe there's a "Countries of the World" template. Hey, we could just delete the text from Canada and replace it all with templates! Regards, Ground Zero 13:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The *Barnstar of Diligence*, awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. I see you have a barnstar above, but I award this to you nonetheless for your on-going efforts both in contributing content, but also for keeping things orderly around here. Thanks. Ground Zero 21:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclists

Thank you for your input. I disagree though. I think having a central hub where you can find a listing of all of the cyclists on Wikipedia, would be helpful and beneficial to users. Category:Cyclists The country where they are from should be a subcategory. --Cdman882 03:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is policy. I find that to be a bit counterproductive in some cases. For instance, if all cyclists were listed under a single heading a user could go in, while researching a the topic, and see a large cross section of the sport (without having to click through each country individually). --Cdman882 03:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawaness

I have created articles for my old 'hood, Centretown West, and for Lebreton Flats. I invite you to make any additions/corrections that you think are appropriate. Regards, Ground Zero Ground Zero 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faras

I live in Warsaw, but I'm really not sure if one is allowed to take pictures in the museum. Please, check the pictures first. If you don't like them, I'll go to the museum and see what can be done. --SylwiaS 19:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what I can do. There may be also technical problems with taking the pictures as the room is very dark and I would be really surprised if they allowed using flash. Anyhow, I'll try to contact their archives. Would it be ok if they gave the pictures with limited copyrights? --SylwiaS 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Polish museums it's still more about the person, who holds the archives than any official policy. They usually give pictures to press without any problems, I don't know though what they will say for commercial purposes. I'll see what I can do. --SylwiaS 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My So-Called Spam

Please see my reply on my User talk page to your notice that my links are considered spam. HVH 05:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a new reply. Please also see Wikipedia_talk:External_links on the most important things to consider with regard to adding/keeping/deleting external links. - HVH 18:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bible verses

Hi SimonP! Boy... taking off 124 VFD tags was a pain... Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All debates must be closed. :-) But I have neglected adding links to the debate on each of the articles' talkpages, so if you want to add 126 of those links on each of the talkpages, (there were two articles where the VFD-tag were removed prematurely), that would be nice. Then again, maybe it would just be a worthless time consuming grind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

I was wondering why you moved Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) to Department of Fisheries and Oceans as most of the other departments in Canada have "(Canada)" on the end. A while ago the governemnt stoped revering to departments as "Department of TOPIC", but as "TOPIC of Candada". In the government, DFO is now known better as Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Oddly enough they still use the acronym DFO, but I'm guessing thats because they dont want to call themsleves "FOC". Zhatt 16:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I can see where you are comming from with the disambiguation, but you're right that the page needs to be moved. I'm not sure what you mean by DOA. I believe the page should be moved simply to Fisheries and Oceans Canada as, like you mentioned, that's what they call themselves on the webpage. Useing the same logic, some other departments should be renamed such as INAC, DOJC and a few others. Zhatt 16:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'll bring it up on the Canadian discussion board. Zhatt 17:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

typofixing my redirect

Thanks. I'd have caught it when I got to my watchlist. Pretty fast on the trigger there. :-) Tomer ^TALK 03:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi SimonP. I did something very dangerous today. I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews as a "keep (no consensus)". A number of users, IZAK and Ambi for instance, have protested my decision and have asked the debate to be reopened (see Talk:Religious persecution by Jews). Do you have any advice as to what I should do? I am also going to ask Rossami for his input. Thanks, Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Oil Prices" article and dependence

I think the use of a strictly neo-classical definition of "dependence" is simplistic and misleading in the case of the "Oil Prices" article. I agree that the statement that Western economies are "about as" dependant on oil as they were twenty-five years ago is also unacceptable. But it's not clear to me that any statement about dependence can be made solely on the basis of increased production per oil unit. Linkspro 16:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew

Simon, since we seem to be agreeing over the hopelessness of -Ril-'s poll on Bible Verse, I wondered whether I might prevail on you to look at the Authentic Matthew VfD. It's headed for 'no-consensus' which would be unfortunate. I know its -Ril-'s nomination again, but in this case he is actually right. You will find no mention of something of this name in any Biblical commentary nor any dictionary of the NT. The creator has put links to this in various Biblical articles, giving it a prominence it certainly does not deserve. Jerome's comment are being interpreted in a way no scholar (conservative or liberal) takes them. Just thought you might like to consider voting on this. --Doc (?) 21:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and if you can persuade anyone else to do likewise it would help). --Doc (?) 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Makuria

Hi Simon, there was one minor point about the Makuria article that I felt I should mention, but not on the Peer Review page: it appears that the British/American dialects are mixed in this article. I haven't gone over this article carefully, but seeing "neighbour" in the second paragraph & double ticks used to set off quotations throughout the article suggest that there is a conflict here. I didn't want to mention it there because that just might set off Yet Another Silly Edit War.

Honestly, I'm agnostic on this issue; I just want the style to be consistent. Since you've taken this article under your wing, I'll let you make this call. (But I will help defend your decision.) -- llywrch 22:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Canadians spoke American English. Or did you lot finally dig a moat to separate yourselves from the USA, made your own continent & put an end to the embarassment of being confused with us? ;-) -- llywrch 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

Delete - 21 (58%)
Keep - 11 (31%)
Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

User talk:SimonP/Archive 2 turned up on Wikipedia:Duplicated sections and has been repaired. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurahman Khadr born in Bahrain?

You wrote that Abdurahman Khadr was born in Bahrain, and only spent two years in Canada. I wrote, on Talk:Abdurahman Khadr, several months ago, that I believed this was incorrect. Khadr and his wife met and married in Canada. I believe she remained in Canada, and raised their children in Canada, while Ahmed Khadr was overseas.

I did a google search on 'Bahrain "Ahmed Said Khadr"', it turned up some right ring blogs that claimed Khadr was born in Bahrain, but it didn't turn up anything authoritatively. So, where did you get the info that Khadr was born in Bahrain, and only lived two years in Canada? -- Geo Swan 11:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=={{Arabic}}==

Oops. Well, I've done quite a lot of them. I'll start adding them to the talk pages instead. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Makuria

Simon,

I've just been married and I have moved, and I'm taking a wikivacation for obvious reasons. I don't have the time to get into Makuria deeply anytime soon, though I couldn't resist to update Image:Christian Nubia.png with a version omitting the rather anachronistic Toshka Lakes :P. I hope to be back within a month. Warmest regards, — mark ✎ 20:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Image:Realoui7.JPG

Hi Simon. I noticed you placed the assumed PD tag on the image description but didn't realise that it was you who added the comment stating there was nothing to suggest it was fairuse, so I thought you'd just clarified the copyright. Nevertheless I've deleted the image now and removed it from the articles it was on. I hope this helps. By the way, you don't know of any admin that would give me a hand on WP:PUI, do you? There was me and another fellow admin but now I think I'm the only one. If you have any suggestions please let me know. Thanks Craigy (talk) 20:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Could you please take a look at Talk:Commonwealth Realm? We're close to an agreeement, the sticking point is the use of the term "British Crown" which I argue is both 1) a correct term and b) needed at least initially for NPOV purposes. Homey 15:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hello SimonP, let me preface what I am about to say with this: Please take this in the spirit which it is intended. jredmond and I have blocked the IP that was adding content to William Colby, Louis Freeh, and Aldrich Ames for violation of the 3RR. As I am sure you know, violation of the 3RR doeos not include reverting vandalism. I believe that you were acting in good faith when you made your reversions, and as I have stated at the Administrators' noticeboard, I believe the vandalism clause applies. However, in the interests of fairness (since the other user was blocked, and technically you have four edits in 24 hours), I am hereby issuing you this stern, harsh warning: Be careful not to violate the 3RR rule. Now you have been properly admonished. -- Essjay · Talk 15:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct! I went back and checked, and my mistake was on Louis Freeh, where you did make four edits, but they were not four identical reverts. I retract my stern warning and hereby admonish myself: Essjay, be more careful to check the edits you are calling reversions. Bad administrator, bad, bad! I'll correct AN as well. For your excellent work in avoiding 3RR violations, I hereby award you the Cool as a Cucumber award. Good work! -- Essjay · Talk 15:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but you looked at Blaise Pascal when it was on peer review, and I was wondering if you could take a second look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blaise Pascal. I don't like to push it but it seems to have missed its chance at the top of the page to get a lot of interest, and only has two opinions after five days. If you have the time and could add any thoughts you have, that would be great. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Henry Fonda FAC

Thank you for comments on the Henry Fonda FAC. All of the issues have been addressed to the best of my ability. Any further comments and criticism (and especially contributions) are welcome. Volatile 20:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do you request an article?

I went to the wikipedia:requested articles but I had no idea what do to next. I looked around, but it was all categorization and stuff. is there a specific place to put in a request? thankz, Kzzl 23:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't consider the TaxAlmanac.org link spam

SimonP,

Thanks for the note. I meant no harm by posting the link to the TaxAlmanac.org site. Jimmy Wales, one of the creators of Wikipedia, was kind enough, to spend time with our development team last April as we created this Wiki site. He even directed the Time magazine author of "It's a Wiki, Wiki World" to us and we were featured in Time's June 6th, 2005 edition.

TaxAlmanac is the only free online resource of its kind dedicated to tax research and is the only free site that contains an updated US Internal Revenue code (the IRS.gov site was last updated in 2002). I posted the link where I thought others that had interest in tax might find extremely useful.

I think the information on TaxAlmanac would be helpful for those that have a tax question and need to get more information on the tax code and Treasury regulations. This is a free site, open to the public and built on the Wikimedia technology. We have thousands of registered users and, since we just launched, are just beginning to build an active community.

I hope you reconsider.

Best regards,

BeTheBest 03:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism and fascism

Hi, I saw you removed Germen's (horrible) section. Now, I think that the section is attrocious. It's original research but... I did compare Qutb to communism, fascism and democracy in political science class so I think it has some validity -- although, not as it stands now. Would you agree with that assertion? That the section although right now Germen's original research does have some merit? I think Islamism and politicla theory and combime communism, fascism and democracy might be a better more neutral title. What say you? gren グレン 21:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the section because the comparison between islamism and fascism is notable. There even exists a word, islamofascism. I think a reasonable approach is comparing the definition of fascism with islamism to provide valuable information to Wikipedia users. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 21:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned to me by SimonP, there was a debate about Islamofascism which was moved to Neofascism and religion. As Simon pointed out to me you should read [[9]] because it seems to have a discussion on the issue. I am not sure what should or will be done Germen but, you must recognize you are going to need some better sources and better writing. SimonP, do you think it should all be discussed in Neofascism and religion? gren グレン 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An actual discussion, referenced to scholarly sources, of this issue would be useful. An article tracing the influences of fascism, communism, socialism, and liberalism on the development of modern Islamism would be fascinating. However, creating such an article would require a level of expert knowledge that I, and seemingly Germen, lack. - SimonP 21:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

hi

thankz for the tips. I will check it out.

File:American Recordings logo.jpg

Blanking S. Somasegar

Hello Simon,

Since it's a little hard to communicate through edit descriptions, I want to explain here why I've been blanking pages in lieu of deleting them. I have been exploring ways to divert traffic from VfD, since I feel that it is overused and definitely overloaded right now. It's my view that vanity pages, though generally something to be removed from the Wiki, are not so bad that the Wiki benefits from purging them entirely (as it does from purging copyright violations).

I believe that blanking vanity pages is preferable to deleting them for several reasons: It doesn't take up the community's time, or an admin's; it is more easily reversed in the event of a mistake; and it may help to disencourage vanity page creators from having an adversarial relationship with Wikipedia (as is seen daily on VfD). I don't see any big advantage to deleting vanity pages, besides having consensus -- but since blanking is easily undone by any user, consensus can form naturally, as it does in most every other part of the Wiki. There are some admins, I know, who speedy-delete pages such as the ones I have been blanking, which is worse in every way, is it not?

If you can point me towards any archived in-depth discussion about the virtues of not blanking pages, I will gladly read them. I'd also appreciate if you describe your objection on Template_talk:Vain. Eliot 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was going to ask about Template:Wi, but I see that you are making progress on eliminating those too. It seems like there is a case to be made for short or blank pages, but I'll make it to the developers before I continue to blank pages. Eliot 16:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please delete User:24ip. Thanks. 24 at 18:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Help categorizing article

Thank you for your help categorizing the Landmark Communications article. I had forgotten :) -- Sitearm | Talk 01:59, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Amanda Lepore

Hi, you deleted it today. And I think it was a mistake, because this artice should be developed. Google returns about 10,000 hits looking for "Amanda lepore." So I think it's pretty notable, just the contributor did a very lousy job. Want me to work on it? Renata3 19:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Evidence

I added evidence to this page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Could you explain why Cerner's page is in violation? I don't even see any of the text from the wikipedia page on the site listed to have the copyright problem? Thanks for your help.

All of the text is taken from [10]. Putting something in quotes does not make it alright to use. For fair use to count the quote must be a small section of the article, and in general no more than two or three sentences is normally allowed without getting the owners permission. Earlier versions were taken from [11], and this text is still accessible via the page history, and thus must be deleted. - SimonP 13:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. So how do we go about fixing this? Is it possible to delete certain parts of the history? Or do we have to start fresh? --Matt Smith 14:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The best option would be to write an original article at Cerner Corporation/Temp. When the version with the copyrights in its history is deleted, the temp version will then be moved to Cerner Corporation. - SimonP 14:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of this spam [12] DDerby 21:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

What is POV? --horseboy 15:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

Hey,

I heard that you managed to feature prominantly in the Ottawa media, and have scaled the mighty peak of editing contributors. Congratulations. Do you mind if we mention this in the "wikipedia in the media" section? It would seem somewhat pertinant. Keep it up. Peregrine981 10:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they sent me a copy all this way. I've put in a brief blurb, including a quote, culled from the article. If you want to tinker with it go ahead, if you prefer some other quote. Modesty be damned, now that you have a media profile you have to hire a cut throat publicist to keep it ahead of the cycle. Hope all went well with our various associates. Peregrine981 14:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Structural differential

Your changes to Structural differential are under discussion and generated a VfD... you may wish to chime in and comment ;) --Raistlin 10:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structural differential

Your changes to Structural differential are under discussion and generated a VfD... you may wish to chime in and comment ;) --Raistlin 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Wikipedia:Deadend pages

Hello Simon!

You did a partial update of this page. However some of the pages you added are no longer deadends. See for example Brenda De Banzie which I'd made into a brief, but acceptable (IMO), stub. Is this just a question of date stamps or is there some other criteria than mere absence of at least one link that you use?

I'd like to understand because I spend my Wikipedia time working from this list of deadend pages.

A response here (rather than on my talk page) is fine.

Thanks

--Cje 08:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your response - that's what I suspected, but just wanted to be sure. On "making progress" - don't worry - I'm well aware that cleaning out deadend articles is like painting the Golden gate bridge in San Francisco. Once you get to the end, you go back to the beginning and start again! --Cje 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the most recent update was smooth. Apart from a few red-links the new articles I've checked (at random) are genuine dead ends. Back to work!

Cje 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digg

Hi there! After the VFD discussion, some recreation and a failed VFU request, the Digg article is now protected on {{deletedpage}}. User:Lifeisunfair asked me to undo this so that he could write a new article on the topic. Since you originally deleted the article I thought it best to leave that decision up to you (see also [13]). Yours, R adiant _>|< 10:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the VfU discussion and my discussion with Radiant for justification.

To be clear, my familiarity with the Digg website is not as strong as that of several other users who have attempted to resurrect this page. I am, however, qualified to contribute some information to such an article, and I volunteer to monitor it for any illicit activity (such as insertion of the type of POV content that has been deleted on more than once occasion). —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who deleted the page I have no special power to undelete it. I stand by my original VfD decision, but since the page was deleted its Alexa ranking has passed 10,000 and there is very much a legitimate argument for undeletion. The most recent one likely failed because it was begun by someone obviously close to the subject in question, was subject to repeated sockpuppetry, and it took some time for the actual facts of the case to be brought up. My suggestion is to wait a few weeks then relist the page on VfU. Hopefully by that time the people at Digg.com will have lost interest and we can have a clean vote without sockpuppets and the inevitable backlash against them. Contact me at that time and I will vote for undeletion, but I do not have the power to unilaterally undelete a page that has failed two VfU bids. - SimonP 14:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not requesting undeletion; I'm requesting unprotection (thereby enabling an entirely new article to be authored). I never saw any of the deleted versions, but it's my understanding that they were comprised primarily of POV content that needn't be restored. (Perhaps you could verify the accuracy of this claim.) —Lifeisunfair 14:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this impression is correct. The version deleted back in March, while not a model of neutrality, was not overtly POV. With its long history (it has been deleted on twelve separate occasions) any new version of this article is certain to be listed on VfD, if it isn't speedied as a recreation. I feel it is important that this page should go through VfU before it is unprotected. Wait a few weeks or months for the situation to calm down and the page can then hopefully be given a fair hearing. - SimonP 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was any substantive content. (A comment by Mysidia led me to believe that the page consisted of nothing more than a brief "advertisement" that had been restored repeatedly by persistent newbies who didn't know any better.) Knowing now that there was a semi-appropriate article at some point, I agree that the best course of action is to wait a while, and then relist the page for undeletion (hopefully without the participation of sock puppets). Thanks very much for your advice. —Lifeisunfair 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Per the above discussion, please add your 2¢ to this VfU. Thanks! —Lifeisunfair 10:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the week poll

Just a quick comment on the poll. might not be a bad ideas to specify how long it'll last for. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Learning COTW twice?

Did i miss something or was learning an COTW two weeks in a row? Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History--ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm curious. this there a way to count the number of edits between when a collarboration started and ended without doing it manually? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thats an ingenious method. pasting it to word though, creates a lot of lag, i toyed around with the method you explained to me, and if you try it with notepad, its almost instant with no wait time. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table is finally finished. Thanks again for the tip. It made it the updating go a lot quicker. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I was able to help =) --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Yokohama, Japan

Hi Simon. You deleted the redirect I created for "History of Yokohama, Japan", giving your reason as content was: '#REDIRECT Yokohama, Kanagawa#History' (and the only contributor was 'Proto'). So I don't make the same mistake again, could you tell me what was wrong with this, please? Thanks. Oh, and good job with all your work on the Requested Articles, btw. Proto t c 10:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Simon, that makes sense. Proto t c 12:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ready, fire, aim

It's a pity that embarrassing block log entries can't be blanked too. :-) Not long ago I deleted Our Gang and had to hastily restore 300+ revisions. -- Curps 04:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism

Hey Simon, I am hesitant to revert Germen over at Islamism as I have just assured him that you and I were not teaming up on him. He seems to be feeling outnumbered. I've suggested that he should make small changes with consensus instead of adding large sections such as that. Anyways, your work on the Islamism article is great, but I think I will let another editor take a look at it.Heraclius 15:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Simon: thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I am honoured that you and others think highly enough of my contributions here to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 12:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links in Toronto

I do not appreciate the links I've added to the Toronto listings to be deleted by you. It took a great deal of effort to find links for tourism, journals and city-related info which provide good, quality information. I've been looking at the edit history page, and I know you have deleted many other links by other people too. Please be assured that I am like yourself in not wanting spam and other commercial links, and I have used my best effort to find links which are not spam/commericial. To be sure, Fodor's and Frommer's would be spam too. The links I found are not heavily-commericial, and if you actually go to the websites themselves which I listed/added, you will see that they provide a wonderful introduction to the city's history, maps and tourist industries. bluebear2364

I have NO personal interest in ANY site. I am not a Web master of any sort (I don't even know HTML). I personally found that site to be effective and useful, as I did "Welcome to Toronto" on the UToronto webpages. I have looked at your history, and you have many criticisms regarding your edits. I suggest you consider your edits carefully. I welcome any other suggestions for links you may have (tourism links or otherwise), but deleting sites which you have a bias against is considered a violation of Wikipedia rules as well.

Well, I don't know about the history page or other pages on the site which may have been copied from Wikipedia, as I am NOT affiliated with that damn site. Again, I suggest you check your edits carefully. You have a history of annoying many people. I'll agree with you to not add that site for now, since it is mostly Wikipedia content. BUT there are other sites which I found useful and which I may add soon.

Well, believe it or not, I do find that site effective. While some of it may be copyrighted (well, the author for that site will pay!), it does provide a good overview of the city including its attractions and stuff. As a proud Torontonian, I actually to like the site. Fodor's and Frommer's online sites are good, but I personally do think this Good Old Toronto site has better information (at least, online). And why do you *not* delete the UToronto's "Welcome to Toronto" page, which is just a bunch of links? And why do you not delete Toronto.com, which is perhaps *the* most commercial site for Toronto?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbine High School massacre

Salut Simon,

The image you were concerned about in the Columbine High School massacre article has been removed and some information on the bowling has been added back (see Cultural impact). If you would consider revising your nomination and striking out the parts that have been addressed it would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Cedars 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done. - SimonP 13:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Award

Thanks for offering to do what, I have been meaning to do and, has needed done, for just too long now! --Doc (?) 13:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote in the Signpost?

I noticed you were the main supporter of reducing WP:COTW from 2 collaborations back to one. I'm writing an article about the switch on the Signpost; can I quote you in it? If you're interested, leave some information on User:Ral315/Signpost. ral 315 03:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Colomnbo

Give me a chance. He's a missing Encarta article. I turned it into a stub but now its gone. Don't you check before you delete? Now I've got to do it again.

Are you afraid of the dark?

Those pages, redirects and article names are confusing and when I redirect them, they don't redirect to the right page. If you have a better idea on fixing them rather then deleting articles with no content then lets hear it. Arm 02:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is confusing so it's hard to explain. The 2 redirects redirect to the same page. Neither of the pages originally had any kinda content to them. There is a are you afraid of the dark page that has content but it has almost the same name as a redirect. I cant move that page since an article already exists by the name I want. So I want to delete that page, the novel page and then bring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark%3F_(television) <--This page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark?_(television) <-- to this page

They are not valid articles. They are redirects with similar titles that makes them very confusing. edit: Notice the %3F instead of question mark. --Arm 02:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So this was a technical limitation problem... Well I guess I'm just gonna have to fix the links until the Wikipedia software allows question marks.--Arm 04:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the problem is fixed. I removed the question mark from the page and moved it. It's a dead issue now. --Arm 04:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I use Mozilla version 1.73(or something like that) I believe. Plus my connection is heavivly filtered with the Proxomitron which sometimes causes problems with poorly designed web sites. --Arm 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion copyvio material

I am drawing up the proposal at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Obvious copyvio material, following your comments I have added to the clauses, and as a more experienced admin I would appreciate your thoughts. thanks! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Public Library

Thanks for the feedback about the VPL branches. Sorry about that - I am excited about the Wikipedia and went a little far. I will keep it simple. Take care!

User:Alex Ramon

IndicText template

Hi,

The changes you've made to the IndicText template have messed up the layout of many of the language pages. The template will need to be changed or we'll need to re-layout the pages that use it. IE seems to be okay for the most of it, but Firefox is showing the pages as being deformed! :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xperimental Deletion

Hi there! You expressed an opinion on XD3 about it breaking Special:Shortpages. I would like to hear your opinion on the very lightweight XD5. See also User talk:Kim Bruning for some discussion on the matter. Yours, R adiant _>|< 23:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

regarding .hr locations

About this edit - if you find more of those "municipalities" or "small towns" of Croatia, check if it's linked from the List of cities in Croatia. If it is, it's a town and goes into Category:Towns in Croatia; if it's not, it's a village, and goes into Category:Villages in Croatia.

TIA :) --Joy [shallot] 17:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect delete

Hey there! I deleted it because in some academic contexts there is a difference between software "engineering methodology" and "software" engineering methodology. One emphasizes the methodology as a subdiscipline of engineering, whereas the other focuses on the software part. In retrospect, this difference is probably too subtle to warrant the redirect being a misleading one. Guess that was a bad call on my part. Thanks for keeping track of my deletion activities. --HappyCamper 00:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Boyd

Yes, there is another Jim Boyd on wikipedia and I haven't taken the time to fix that. Maybe I should have made a note of that in the disambig talk page... doing that now... (sorry I'm new here). CDA 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirects for deletion

Ok, will do, it was just those. They are really off the wall article names. I assumed they could be deleted easily. Guess I was wrong. Wikipedia does change rather slowly in certain aspect, doesn't it? --None-of-the-Above 05:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Page: deleted Info

Hi Simon, thanks for tidying up my messy move at Sheep Island, Argyll and Bute. However in the process you deleted a far better version of the page than is currently up. If you are an administrator I would appreciate it if you could put the info back up when you have a moment. Thanks. Neil McDermott 14:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - SimonP 13:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Arm and ?'s

Hey, check out User talk:Jnc#Damn it Noel.. This guy needs to calm down.

Sounds like perhaps the filtering web cache his ISP is using (see above) may be causing the problem? Although I am at a loss to understand how when he clicks on a link like Are You Afraid of the Dark? it doesn't work - the URL gets 'escaped' in the HTML source for the page he's viewing, However, we're not about to get rid of all page names that include a '?' just because one user has a problem... Noel (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics

You might be interested to have a look. Regards --Pgreenfinch 15:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Julius Caesar CfD

Just as a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I nominated Category:Julius Caesar for deletion; unless I'm misreading the history it looks to me like you created it. It may be that I simply don't understand the need for it, and if you care to make a case for it on the CfD page (and explain in what other circumstances a single-person category is appropriate), that would be great. Nandesuka 03:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status-Quo Man

Cleaning out orphan VfD tags, I note Status-Quo Man was added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Motley Commune. You deleted Motley - but may have missed Status-Quo. --Doc (?) 23:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. I have deleted it. - SimonP 05:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

British buildings and structures

Please reconsider your vote. There are also locks, towers, tunnels, masts, docks, piers and various other things. There is a clear policy that "and structures" is preferred. This inconsistency will bother readers for ever if it isn't corrected. And making the change will permanently reduce the amount of effort required with categorisation was there will be no need to check whether a particular category is in one form or the other or to edit twice to correct mistakes on this matter. CalJW 15:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles req'd for more than two years

Noticed you went through and did a proper update. Thanks; that had me rather confused. Perhaps we should make sure that WP:AR1 is also properly updated? I noticed several of the removed articles from AR2 were still listed on AR1.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bilad al-Sham

I'm thinking of merging the article "Bilad al-Sham" into "Levant". It seems you created the original article so I was wondering if you would object to that. --Yodakii 05:36:22, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

My understanding is that the two terms are different, with the Bilad al-Sham being somewhat smaller than the Levant and somewhat larger than Greater Syria. Though both the Levant article and Greater Syria article claim to be the same thing as the "Bilad al-Sham." In English the term "Bilad al-Sham" is almost exclusively used by historians who are refering to the region in the pre-colonial period. - SimonP 12:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

This looks a quite complicated. I realize "Levant" isn't exactly the same thing as Bilad al-Sham, the problem is that the article states it is the same region called "Sham" in Arabic. The term "ash-Sham" has been used by Arabs for centuries as far as I know. What makes things even more complicated is that in some modern Arabic dialects, "ash-Sham" also refers to modern Syria. The difference should be clarified somewhere, and if these articles aren't merged, I'd like them to link to each other, at least. --Yodakii 13:54:53, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006 in Toronto

Could I get some more information? --Mb1000 18:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nifty! As soon as you get things rolling, you know where to find me. --Dhodges 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Me too!" Glad to see our hat in the ring, Simon. Great you started the ball rolling on this! Madmagic 23:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

SimonP, hello! Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I will not be able to assist with this venture; however, should my circumstances change, I'd be happy to help. Thanks for your consideration. Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including me in your message spamming, but I won't be able to participate. Best of luck with it. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're going through and deleting Template:TOCleft from a number of articles. I'm curious as to why you're doing this without discussing it on the respective talk pages–someone put it there in the first place, there must have been a reason. In the case of Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, I was dealing with an awful amount of extra whitespace. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! I added the Template:TOCleft to the History of the European Union article because I thought it was aesthetically better without so much white space at the top. LiniShu 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Disraeli, that constitutes grounds for moving the TOC somewhere else. I'd still like to deal with that whitespace somehow. More generally, the documentation I've read [14] [15] suggests that the use of floating TOCs achieved community consensus some time back. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP, I did want to acknowledge your response about TOCleft, but took a couple days to think it through. I can see your point regarding the standard Wikipedia formatting (i.e. letting the style sheets do their job), and also, your note on Mackensen’s talk page about the Disraeli article reminded me that article layout may have different appearance on different browsers. Mackensen’s links to the documentation were also helpful – I had no idea there was such strong feeling out there regarding floating TOCs. I will not be adding the TOCleft back to History of the European Union, and also removed one I had added to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. My conclusion for future editing, is that I will not just casually add a floating TOC to an article (to reduce whitespace), but neither will I remove those that I find in articles in which I have not invested time or care editing other content, unless I see adverse effects, such as you did in the Disraeli article. I am a relative newbie to Wikipedia; I’ve been trying to make carefully considered edits to improve articles in non-controversial ways; I am motivated (as you are, I think) to bring order where it is needed; but I sometimes become daunted by the differences of opinion, the complexities of trying not to offend others, and the possibilities of changing something, in the belief that I am improving it, when others may not think so at all. Sincerely, LiniShu 18:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reversion of French History/Gov Templates

Your reversion of my modifications to the History of France template assumes that as it exists it isn't profoundly flawed on just the era/government problem you cite. Before summarily reverting, please check out the History of France talk page to see some of these problems. I also fail to see the utility of having two templates for overlapping topics of history... surely they can be merged in some useful way. -- NYArtsnWords 20:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this another try, and I hope you like the newer version which clearly differenciates between governments and periods. -- NYArtsnWords 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General time dilation, why is was removed?

I created an entry "General time dilation" and it was removed by 5:1 vote, so apparently some people must have thought that something has been wrong with it. I'd gladly learn what was meant to be wrong with it.

As far as I know general time dilation is an phenomenon that exists in Einstein's gravitation with conservation of energy. Einstein proposed non symmetric metric tensor and it makes this phenomenon possible however Einstein didn't fight for keeping conservation of energy in gravitation since he didn't thought it is worth to contradict mathematicians who preferred Riemannian geometry (with symmetric metric tensor). But now, after observations of 1998 and on, confirmed that he might have been right about non symmetric metric and that it is an observed phenomenon we should be more openminded and allow the public to know that Einstein's ideas were not that silly as those mathematicians who prefer Riemannian metrics are trying to imply. Which part of my text is stupid? Plese answer in my user page. Thank you. Jim 00:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Persia" link on Persian Gulf States

SimonP: Interesting — while you were writing your note to me, I was also writing a note to you. Here it is:

I just said to myself, "Haven't I edited Persian Gulf States before"? And so I looked at the history, and I saw your note about leaving the "Persia" link alone. I have no particular axe to grind here; I'm just fixing disambig links, and, as of a few days ago, Persia was at the top of the list. So I'll leave this as-is, at least for now. May I suggest, however, that you are fighting a losing battle here. The general Wikipedia tradition (and it may be an official policy) is that linking to disambig pages is a substandard practice. Furthermore, there is a large WikiProject with many dedicated participants, all aimed at eliminating such links. So others will come along, trying to fix the same link; in fact, from the history of the page, I see that they already have.

So unless you want to spend the rest of your life reverting this page, you might want to come up with an alternate solution. Maybe you could say "Iran (known as Persia until 1935)". Or maybe you could just observe that the Iran article starts by explaining the history of the name, and let others change the link.

In any case, as I said, I'll leave the Persian Gulf States page alone for now.

— Nowhither 20:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Plan

Hi I left a comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Marshall Plan/archive1, but I guess you've been busy with other things. I'm generally one of the toughest FAC critics, but I believe that one could pass, with maybe some reasonable effort to impliment any last suggestions that come up in the FAC process. What do you think of nominating it? - Taxman ^Talk 20:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Request help closing some deletion discussions

Good evening, SimonP. I was trying to close some of the older discussions on the new Miscellaneous Deletions page. Specifically,

I tallied them and found consensus to delete (with a copy to BJAODN) but I'm having trouble being sure that I'm making that decision without bias. I wanted to ask an independent opinion.

I counted the following. I don't want to bias your decision but it also seems wrong to throw away the work I just did...

	Delete	BJAODN	Keep	Merge	could not call
"against..."	8	11	7	2	1
"for..."	9	8	13	2	1
"don't care..."	13	6	8	1	0
summed	15 2/3	12 5/6	12 1/2	2	2

The last line represents the opinions if you took all three discussions and merged them, then eliminated duplication. The fractions come from 2 people who voted differently in the different discussions. They are closely linked pages and an inconsistent decision would be, I think, the worst of all options.

I should also note that 5 of the "keep" voters did so with comments that make it very difficult to tell if they were being serious. Their stated reasons appear to have no connection to the discussion. My hypothesis is that the discussion is about a joke and they consider surreal comments to be humorous and therefore appropriate. Not every culture shares that view, however. I was within a hair's-breadth of putting those comments in the "could not call" column.

Thanks. I trust your judgment. Rossami (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Realms related edits

You edited several of my Forgotten Realms Places entries, and I would like to understand your thinking. The way they were written was done so for two reasons: 1) It is the standard for the hundred or so entries already written (which I noticed you didn't change) and adding the sentence in where and how you did interrupts the flow of the opening paragraph. I just disagree with your assessment that it's an "unneeded warning." It's neither. Perhaps an italicised boilerplate would be acceptable to you?--RYard 19:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I can't say I agree with you 100% (maybe 85!), as many Harry Potter characters and references, for example, have a singled-out sentence at the top of their articles as we had in the Forgotten Realms articles. I will absolutely agree that the sentence does not need to be bolded, and I'll be happy to make that change, but I do think it's prudent to return the sentence to the articles. There are, as I said, about 100 more articles to work on in the category!--RYard 20:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OldRight Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against OldRight has been closed with OldRight placed on Probation for one year.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

In light of your statement, can you do something with Islamicization?--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it will stay blank until someone does the comparison.

TLAs

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images and texts added

What do you think about [Damacy] now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Revolution

Is there a reason why you revert the edited article back to its previous version? Regards, User:sassani (talk) 16 September 2005

Matthew 5:36

I created a brief entry on Matthew 5:36, any expertise you could lend, or info you could add, would be appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 03:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peristeria (orchid)

I just put up the Peristeria (orchid) page a few days ago. I came back to it today to add to it and it has been since deleted. Please explain the reasoning for the rapid delete. (Brett Francis 18:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

kdbuffalo

Simon, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo please? Dunc|☺ 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects

Hey, when you moved Miles O'Brien (Star Trek) to Miles O'Brien, you left a whole flock of double redirects (all pointed at Miles O'Brien (Star Trek)). Do you want to fix them, or shall I? Please make sure to check the link provided on the "move succeeded" page for this whenever you move a page. Thanks! Noel (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You like, really need to archive your talk page! In addition to it just being plain big, do recall that every edit keeps a copy of the entire page (at 1/8th MB per edit), and we're going through disk space like mad on the server....

PPS: You also didn't move the talk page to keep the talk page for the article on the character with the character's page! Come on! This one I will fix right now, before someone edits the wrong talk page. Noel (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long requested articles

Hi Simon ... keep adding to the Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years, and I'll keep trying to create them. ;) Proto t c 14:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston-Little Italy

I have made mods to this article and Little Italy, Toronto. You would never include Mirvish Village in Little Italy. Palmerston is its own enclave. See Palmerston Boulevard. I have modified the maps to make the approximate areas of the neighbourhoods more clear. Alaney2k (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]