User:Improv/talkarchive made aug2005
This is an archived talk page. If you want to comment further on something in it, I'll happily move (or copy) the old conversation from the archive to my current talk page.
Portugal Census Data
[edit]Hi, Pat. Happy Holidays! Sorry for being so unresponsive on this subject. No valid excuse: I've just been plain lazy. I'm going to be at my parents for Xmas weekend (starting tonight) and won't have a computer. I'll revisit this soon. Nelson Ricardo 18:33, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
IRC invite for Everyking
[edit]No, I don't, because I don't know how, for one thing, and I figure it'd probably distract me from proper editing anyway. Everyking 06:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
GNAA
[edit]I'm all too aware (too late) of what I have done. GNAA has even been attacking Wikipedia, and a lot of people blame the listing, which was done innocently, on rampant deletionism and malice. Alas the perils of being a newbie. I've done what I can to repair things. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't want to switch my vote. I think it's pointless and counter-productive to continue to try to delete that entry. It's doing no harm where it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, you said to Tony to perhaps wait a couple of months before going back to vfd. Ok, that's not too bad an advice maybe, hmm, but it might actually be unnescesary to go back to vfd at all?
If an article has really gotten worse since it got vfd-ed the first time, you could simply revert back to the last version that was accepted by vfd. That should typically be sufficient I think. There's only a very limited number of exceptions to that.
In this particular case for GNAA, I'd not reccomend reverting to the last declared-good-by-vfd-version. There's a comment by Ta bu shi da yu saying he's managed to source just about all the claims in the article. That's even better, of course :-)
Kim Bruning 02:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Improv, I did not cite Rev. Moon as a source for anything. 172 04:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Finns
[edit]Hi!
I note your improvement to the Finland's language strife article! As I am sure you understand, that article, and many others covering topics far away from English speaking countries, suffers from contributors' and readers' lacking proficiency in English.
I've not yet taken a closer look at that article, but it appears to me as if it unfortunately has been modified in POV-direction since I last saw it. I'll put the article on my mental to-do list; and believe that by the time you're back from Europe (happy trip!), you might find also some of your improvements erased. I'm sorry for this. It is hard for us foreigners to express ourself on English, and in some cases I believe that the bad state of the text led you to interpretations that are either wrong or missing the narrative intentions.
Best regards!
- --Ruhrjung 17:05, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
I quite simply restored a version of that article from early in the autumn. Thinking back and forth, that was what I arived at. :-(
BTW: Your change to the main article on Germany was totally OK. The problem, that you now let the text gloss over, is how many that were "intentionally killed/murdered" under German occupation in the East. I'm happy not to mention any figure, but it's possible that others aren't. For some people, it's important to point out that probably more Slavs than Jews were "intentionally killed" (not to mention them who "only" died of starvation, as collateral damage, or by diseases caused by the war conditions).
- --Ruhrjung 16:48, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've opened a user conduct RFC regarding Libertas, primarily over habitual personal attacks. Your request for him not to make them is included as evidence of failed attempts at resolving the dispute. As such, you might want to certify the basis of the dispute or otherwise provide your input (it's currently awaiting a second certification). Let me know if you have any concerns. RadicalSubversiv E 08:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Improv, I would indeed welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you. I have barely interacted with you at all, other than on IRC where I thought we got on rather well. I believe you are feeding a troll by supporting his RFC, would happily to discuss the detail with you on IRC or alternate. Let me know. Libertas
I added this to the RFC and would appreciate you taking me through this:
- Improv, can you please explain how you tried and failed to resolve a dispute with me. I believe you tried and succeeded to resolve our pretty minor dispute on IRC and we both walked away happy. Have I missed something? Libertas Fair and Balanced
- Response is on the talk page for the RfA. --66.93.172.249 21:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for certifying. I'm sure some of the RFC is overstated, as I was both exasperated and exhausted when I wrote it; so if you have specific corrections, feel free to make them. I'm about to make some minor revisions and maybe add a couple of new pieces of evidence. I wish there was a less time-consuming way of dealing with this kind of blatantly obnoxious behavior. RadicalSubversiv E 14:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and you probably know it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Just because you weren't involved as deeply as some of us shouldn't prevent you from sharing your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seeking you support
[edit]I am seeking your support and participation for starting the "Indian Collaboration of the Week". Please enlist your support on the page Wikipedia_talk:Indian_wikipedians'_notice_board if you would like to support. Thanks Arunram 09:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
critical/conflict theory
[edit]No, I cannot see how I could possibly change my mind. But I am really confused by your message on my talk page. I deleted the section in question. Are you asking me to restore it? It sounds like you too do not like it. Why do you want me to change my mind? I will try to explain more clearly on the talk page of the Marx article Slrubenstein 18:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on the talk page of Cantus's new Wikipedia:Images unsuitable for inline display. I'd also appreciate if you could look at my Template deletion proposal for his template:offensiveimage which he's been trying out lately on one or two articles.
The discussion is here.
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Template:Mediation-meeting Please edit the side box here (be brief) to update when you might be able to attend. Thanks. -==SV 22:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi Improv. I've nominated you for admin - I just hope I filled it all in right :) Please add your formal acceptance there.. and I would say good luck, but I'm sure it won't be needed! Best wishes -- sannse (talk) 22:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mediation meeting
[edit]Was there a meeting after all? I had not seen the notice - hm. FFR, please take a look at wikiday idea - to make real-time meeting coordination a little easier. Although 2pmGMT/6amPST seems like the ideal time, because most WP:MC people are in the US, there seems to be some room for biasing toward a little later. Namely there doenst seem to be anyone in Asia on the committee. -==SV 04:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Viewing Rastafarianism
[edit]To clarify I don't think nor did I say we should not rely on academic sources, but that we should not rely only on secondary sources. Indeed it is vitally important to keep an objective and academic head in how we treat this article. --Squiquifox 21:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I looked around, both at academic publications (theses and dissertations) and at Google and it seems that Rastafari is more widely used than Rastafarianism, with Rastafarians as the people. (see Talk:Rastafarianism#Looking_at_the_data). Thanks Guettarda 01:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Notability
[edit]I figured that I'd not clutter up the FAC page and message you directly. I was wondering why the Sollog article can't become featured quality? I realise that it might not be there yet, but if it's notable to enough to be on Wikipedia, why can't we make it good enough to become a featured article? I can understand lists and categories not being suitable for FAC, but why can't we have main articles good enough? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- TBSDY, note that I saw that I made an error -- thought it was being discussed for frontpaging, rather than featuring. When I noticed it, I withdrew my objection. I'm not certain what I feel about article featuring yet -- haven't given much thought. Until I figure it out, I'd probably best stay neutral. --Improv 04:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now you are an administrator on a Wikipedia
[edit]Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations
[edit]Dear Improv congratulations on your been elevated to the Admin role. Wikipedia needs more inspiring wikipedians like you. I would be seeking your help from time to time on soke sysop tasks in the areas where I am working on or intersted in. Congrats again Arunram 02:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to revive this project. I noticed that you've added yourself to the list of available Spanish-to-English translators. Are you interested in working on Spanish Translation of the Week? — J3ff 06:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This week's Spanish translation is Hispania. Besides translation, help is needed on copyediting and proofreading. Please help out if you are able to. Thanks — J3ff 07:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
a longwinded reply
[edit]Can be found @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Clarification_on_jewish_ethnocentrism.3F. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And again, @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Clarification_on_jewish_ethnocentrism.3F, Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bible vs. Christian Bible
[edit]Hi Improv. An RfC has moved the discussion to Talk:Bible; your thoughts on the subject would be welcome there. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
RFA
[edit]You write: I find it unfortunate that your involvement on one side of a policy disagreement where there isn't a clear right answer has led so many people to go against you on what looks to be purely on that basis. I find myself wondering if they expect this kind of issue to come up very often.
Well if it's just that then that's good news. If I don't get it this time, things will be quieter in a month or two's time, everybody will be scratching their heads and trying to remember what all the fuss was about. :)
If it's something more serious then whatever it is will still be evident then. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
re: @ -> AT
[edit]Sorry, Improv -- I just assumed that you'd prefer the spam-avoidant version. With apologies, BCorr|Брайен 19:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
RFC major changes
[edit]Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
I think we have pretty clear consensus (except for jguk) that the page should be returned to the old procedures, at least for now. I'd like to ask you to please keep an eye on it. He has promised to keep reverting (ad nauseum), so it'd be nice if he see's I'm not the only one undoing his proposal. Primarily, this is because I don't want to see that very important page further disrupted. Please also keep an eye on the example subpage templates at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Please feel free to add any comments you have on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, where the new approach has already been discussed by other interested parties. It is an attempt to avoid confrontation (which is probably why Netoholic objects to it). The new approach is not perfect, but it is certainly an improvement on the nasty, divisive approach that we used to have. As I say, your comments on the talk page would be welcome, jguk 21:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IfD vote
[edit]Hey Improv, I recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD and start claiming that it's a copyvio (even though they've failed to establish that on the appropriate copyright problem pages). I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re:
[edit]See here, where I moved (and answered) your question. I won't say more here because I refactor my comments, and don't want to create hijinks. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Next Archival coming soon
[edit]I will probably rearchive my talk page soon. --Improv 18:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Autofellatio vote
[edit]Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Vote on Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg
[edit]
As you may or may not be aware, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is up for deletion. I'm never one to electioneer, and I deplore the necessity of contacting you, but Achilles has contacted all the "delete" voters from the previous autofellatio image debate; and since that has already been done, I didn't think fairness would be served if the "keep" voters were not also contacted. I have attempted to contact only those people who have not voted in the current debate, but the information was hard to sift through by hand and I may have made a mistake. If I have, I apologize. Cheers to you! Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
issues about school articles
[edit]In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).
I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DC trip
[edit]Please list all your available dates in the table at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip#Date. Thanks. --brian0918™ 18:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The DC Meetup date has been finalized to May 7/8. Even if you can only come one of the days, that's still fine. Please watch this page for new details, which will be posted in the next couple days: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip --brian0918™ 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey it was cool meeting up in DC. See you around. —thames
Maximilian of Baden
[edit]I don't think I moved it, I think I just made a redirect, since the "Prince" article already existed. It probably should be moved. Adam Bishop 22:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Possible new mediator and committee chair
[edit]Mgm has nominated himself to be a mediator and indicated he's willing to take over as chair. In an effort to help keep the mediation process alive, it would be nice if you could comment on this at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. --Michael Snow 20:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've been in touch with Mgm and he's only waiting for a final, clear 'go' signal to take the chair. Do you feel like letting him know how you feel? Dan100 (Talk) 18:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'm having a real problem with Ed Poor and have formally requested mediation
[edit]See also his talk page and the administrator's noticeboard for details.
Really need some help here, serious disruption by means of multiple page moves at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Talk page there will make for interesting reading, as well. BrandonYusufToropov 19:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Request for mediation with Ed Poor
[edit]Thanks very much for your message on this. I very much appreciate this. BrandonYusufToropov 12:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you mediate?
[edit]Can you try to get the issue sorted out described in this diff. of the RFM page? - Mgm|(talk) 13:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
What's the status of my RfM concerning Ed Poor?
[edit]Either I've missed an email (entirely possible, since I get quite a lot) or one of the two parties in this dispute is foot-dragging. Please help.
Since I filed this RfM, there have been multiple unauthorized edits by Ed of my userpage, which Ed now claims was unintentional.
I have reasons to doubt his sincerity on such matters, since he deleted half of my complaint in transferring it to the RfM talk page.
He then attempted to edit the material related to this matter that I placed on my userpage.
I wish to pursue the RfM even if he does not. He is now moving on to other matters on WP, which is fine, as long as this is one of them.
If I've missed an e-mail message on this, please accept my apologies.
Many thanks for any help you can provide. You can find more background on this complaint at my userpage. (assuming Ed hasn't vandalized it while I wasn't looking). BrandonYusufToropov 14:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I just sent another email out to both of you. --Improv 14:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I answered your e-mail yesterday ...
[edit]... and copied Ed on it as well. Did it make it through to you?
Peace,
BrandonYusufToropov 12:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just got it, and Ed's response. Please await my reply. --Improv 13:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK -- many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{Rfmchat}}
Template locations
[edit]I have noticed you discussed template locations at Wikipedia talk:template messages.
One user has unilaterally been moving templates from articles to talk pages en-masse (over 100 articles are affected during a spate made by the user last night). I have spent some time trying to resolve this issue.
There is now a poll discussing where templates belong created at Wikipedia:Template locations, and a discussion at Template talk:Expansion. ~~~~ 14:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Medcom
[edit]Please update Template:MedComOpenTasks (list current cases) and Template:Medcom#Active_Mediators (add * for each current case) to reflect your current status. Sinreg, -St|eve 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC) P.S. New rules in testing: No absolute consensus for mediation (else to WP:RFAR), and MC:Chair assignment of mediators, rather than disputant agreement (given no confict)
PPS: Would you be able to assist with one of the WP:RFM#Other? -SV
Can you mediate this issue?
[edit]There has been a dispute brewing for the past several days between User:Egil and User:Rktect, for which I've been trying to act as a go-between. Details are available on the Requests for mediation page, Egil's talk page, Rktect's talk page, and my talk page, as well as talk pages and histories for various contested articles. I've requested protection for the article currently at the center of the issue. Thanks! Ken talk|contribs 03:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have looked at your page and read as much about you as you cared to share.
You come across as young, intense, intelligent, opinionated, interested in linguistics and though politically aware, centered in Ohio and possibly a little too libertarian (conservative thinks he's a liberal) for my personal taste.
None of that raises any serious questions about your ability to be a good moderator. I encourage you to have a stab at resolving the conflict. Rktect 6:15 AM 08/11/05.
Thanks for taking this on, Improv. I realize that you'll probably only be able to open up communication, and maybe help with things like some definitions of terms. The content discussions will doubtless come later. Ken talk|contribs 03:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be interested in mediating this issue, or could recommend another mediator that could. You've stated that you know a little Japanese, which would be useful since a small part of the discussion regards text on a Japanese website. --Poiuyt Man talk 03:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice on WP:RFM. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)