I look forward to working with you and everyone here to make the Wikipedia the best it can be.-- Onlytofind 21:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please reconsider your case regarding move/merge. New material Presented. -- Cool Cat My Talk 22:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not extremely experienced in welcoming, but here's what I know. First, you should check out Wikipedia:Standard user greeting for some examples. I kind of like Neutrality's version. But, try to remember that adding you own personal flavor to the message will make it more appealing and, well, personal. I think the best option is to peruse the Wikipedia:New user log for new users and customize the message to their pesonal interests, suggesting related Wikiprojects, Notice boards, etc., along with standard greetings. I bet this would make them more likely to contribute. Best of luck! -- Dmcdevit 03:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I of course disagree with your final decision, but I can appreciate diverse views upon the matter. I expected that some people I contacted might indeed vote otherwise than on the previous one. What was especially irritating to me was that there was so casual disregard and dismissal of the strong views and consensus expressed on the previous image in attempting to replace it with this one. As I have noted, there is not another article on erotic, auto-erotic or quasi-erotic activities that I am aware of that uses such an explicit photograph, though I would expect that there have been attempts to post them. ~ Achilles † 02:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
for supporting my recent RFA; I'll do my best in the new job. Happy editing, Antandrus 03:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my nomination too -- nixie 03:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, don't forget to sign your comments when you support adminship nominations. It's no big deal, we just want to save the bureaucrats from having to dig through the history to figure out who the comments are from. -- Michael Snow 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Care to join?
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Howdy, You made a minor edit to this article changing the Jesus Christ wikilink to a Jesus wkiklink, but AFAICT, they both link to the same article. Not at all arguing about this, makes no difference to me, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing a subtlety in Wikistyle that I should be aware of for future edits. Thanks very much. Soundguy99 16:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for the quick answer. Soundguy99 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and the kind words on my RfA! I shall attempt to continue to do the same, and to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What would satisfy your appetite? Copies of incorporation papers? Our quarterly tax returns? How about a listing of assets within our portfolio? (mostly agricultural and commodity interests, FYI). It would take a day or two for me to get those to you as 1.) I am outside the United States right now, and 2.) The weekend started an hour and a half ago. We don't keep a website (though the name is reserved). Given that I have infrequent access to the web while I'm away, give me the grace of a day or two to respond to your comments. — ExplorerCDT 22:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note off thanking you for the comments and the cleanup edits, I was a bit crosseyed when I hit the save button :) The Nordeast redirect was great! Thanks again...later! Rx StrangeLove 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please stop replacing they with he or she. It is standard English usage on Wikipedia and worldwide to use the third person plural as a third person singular neutral. Adding in two third person singular specifics reads badly, which is why most people avoid it like the plague. Wikipedians widely use they for that reason. It is elementary English. FearÉIREANN 23:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In regard to my small userpage and usertalk, if you look at my talk page I refer all talk to my user page since I check that on a weekly basis. If you check the history of my user page you will see I regularly delete conversations when they are no longer active so I have been in discussion. The point is actually moot though since no one has voted in support... freestylefrappe 23:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
And your unbiased impression of my nomination for adminship, I thank you! Yours truly, El_C 03:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I did not cut a paste the new article. I merged two articles and added my own research.
The title was chosen following the example set by the professional historians at the Minnesota Historical Society whose judgements I respect. The redirects will lead people to the article if they choose to use an older label for the conflict.
Thoughts? Samaritan 05:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I liked the idea so much, I created it! Please see Wikipedia:LGBT noticeboard. Help spread the word. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on this! Arcuras 22:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
The poll about serial commas is archived here. This issue is also other places in the archive, if you're interested.
Although I was substantially involved with this issue in the past, I don't feel strongly either way about using or not using serial commas. My objection was to the way certain people were trying to push through their preferences. This time the change appears to have been handled cooperatively. Maurreen 02:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Jonathunder, I'm sure you noticed that I responded to your request for a comment on this issue, although I doubt it was what you were hoping for. Allow me to give you a bit more unsolicited (and perhaps unwanted) advice: bad spelling is a good way to undermine arguments in any manual of written style. It suggests either a lack of competence with the language or unwillingness to perfect one's prose, which is the raison d'être of manuals of style. This implies that one is willing to criticize but not follow guidelines. I considered correcting your unfortunate misspelling of "unfortionate", but I have a visceral aversion to editing other people's Talk page text. I suggest you make this correction, and run your further contributions through a spell-checker (or check individual words with Merriam-Webster Online or Cambridge Dictionaries Online when in doubt, like I do) before you post, in order to avoid inadvertently sabotaging your credibility. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey,
Yeah, as I'm sure you noticed, I'm a bit new to this. I am from Minnesota; I'm in Iowa now but I'll be returning for the next year in a couple of weeks. I think I have a pretty good knowledge of the state, so I figured I'd contribute a bit when I saw things were somewhat incomplete.
I agree that the organization should be worked on. I mentioned that I thought those two regions were ok together simply because of a general geographic size similarily as the other divisions that were made; I do understand, though, how they could be thought of as two different regions. I think I'll sit back and see what more experienced people think of this.
Thanks for the help.
ObsidianOP 02:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel| talk 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Trödel| talk 23:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with trying to maintain some semblance of balance/objectivity with the Aesthetic Realism article. I'd do it myself but the mediator requested that neither side post to the Talk or the Article itself until the matter is resolved, so I'm honoring that. Of course that hasn't stopped Aperey from attacking the article with gusto, but that's expected. I haven't heard from the mediator for a while and he didn't respond to my message from a few days ago so I'm not sure anything's happening on the mediation front. At some point I guess I'll have to ask for a new mediator. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Michaelbluejay 02:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Please see [1] if you are interested. Whig 09:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, the reason I blanked the page after I created it was because I trying to delete the page so I could move Knopf Publishing Group to that page. I can't do a move if the page exists. I spent several hours disambiguating the company from the person but decided that people were probably going to keep linking to Alfred A. Knopf when they meant the company,so I wanted to turn it back to the company's page. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get an adminstrator to delete the page so I could complete the move, so even though I think it is a poor set-up, I went back to reinstate my disambiguation language and saw you had already done so. DS1953 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure why, but it seems we're voting again on what to call Gustavus Adolphus. Since you voted the first time, you may want to participate again. No Account
Thanks for your support on my Adminship request.
I noticed you reigned in on the Color debate. Unfortunately, you weren't around when Gasoline was changed to Petrol, of course, nobody was. The RfC was posted on the article's talk page last summer with no notice elsewhere. Now it's Gasoline/Petrol (my idea) until we can develop a consensus. Your contribution to the vote would be appreciated. ℬastique▼ talk 04:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the vote on whether to delete the article about Arnold Perey. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether there's a Wikipedia article about him or not. Maybe it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for what's deserving of an article but I'm unfamiliar with such standards. What I'd *really* like is to just keep him from vandalizing the Aesthetic realism article on a daily basis. It's ironic how he has a page on another website titled "Arnold Perey counters lies about the death of Eli Siegel" in which he claims that AR people have been completely open about the fact that Siegel killed himself, yet on a daily basis Perey censors that very fact from Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I look forward to working with you and everyone here to make the Wikipedia the best it can be.-- Onlytofind 21:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please reconsider your case regarding move/merge. New material Presented. -- Cool Cat My Talk 22:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not extremely experienced in welcoming, but here's what I know. First, you should check out Wikipedia:Standard user greeting for some examples. I kind of like Neutrality's version. But, try to remember that adding you own personal flavor to the message will make it more appealing and, well, personal. I think the best option is to peruse the Wikipedia:New user log for new users and customize the message to their pesonal interests, suggesting related Wikiprojects, Notice boards, etc., along with standard greetings. I bet this would make them more likely to contribute. Best of luck! -- Dmcdevit 03:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I of course disagree with your final decision, but I can appreciate diverse views upon the matter. I expected that some people I contacted might indeed vote otherwise than on the previous one. What was especially irritating to me was that there was so casual disregard and dismissal of the strong views and consensus expressed on the previous image in attempting to replace it with this one. As I have noted, there is not another article on erotic, auto-erotic or quasi-erotic activities that I am aware of that uses such an explicit photograph, though I would expect that there have been attempts to post them. ~ Achilles † 02:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
for supporting my recent RFA; I'll do my best in the new job. Happy editing, Antandrus 03:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my nomination too -- nixie 03:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, don't forget to sign your comments when you support adminship nominations. It's no big deal, we just want to save the bureaucrats from having to dig through the history to figure out who the comments are from. -- Michael Snow 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Care to join?
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Howdy, You made a minor edit to this article changing the Jesus Christ wikilink to a Jesus wkiklink, but AFAICT, they both link to the same article. Not at all arguing about this, makes no difference to me, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing a subtlety in Wikistyle that I should be aware of for future edits. Thanks very much. Soundguy99 16:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for the quick answer. Soundguy99 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and the kind words on my RfA! I shall attempt to continue to do the same, and to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What would satisfy your appetite? Copies of incorporation papers? Our quarterly tax returns? How about a listing of assets within our portfolio? (mostly agricultural and commodity interests, FYI). It would take a day or two for me to get those to you as 1.) I am outside the United States right now, and 2.) The weekend started an hour and a half ago. We don't keep a website (though the name is reserved). Given that I have infrequent access to the web while I'm away, give me the grace of a day or two to respond to your comments. — ExplorerCDT 22:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note off thanking you for the comments and the cleanup edits, I was a bit crosseyed when I hit the save button :) The Nordeast redirect was great! Thanks again...later! Rx StrangeLove 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please stop replacing they with he or she. It is standard English usage on Wikipedia and worldwide to use the third person plural as a third person singular neutral. Adding in two third person singular specifics reads badly, which is why most people avoid it like the plague. Wikipedians widely use they for that reason. It is elementary English. FearÉIREANN 23:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In regard to my small userpage and usertalk, if you look at my talk page I refer all talk to my user page since I check that on a weekly basis. If you check the history of my user page you will see I regularly delete conversations when they are no longer active so I have been in discussion. The point is actually moot though since no one has voted in support... freestylefrappe 23:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
And your unbiased impression of my nomination for adminship, I thank you! Yours truly, El_C 03:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I did not cut a paste the new article. I merged two articles and added my own research.
The title was chosen following the example set by the professional historians at the Minnesota Historical Society whose judgements I respect. The redirects will lead people to the article if they choose to use an older label for the conflict.
Thoughts? Samaritan 05:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I liked the idea so much, I created it! Please see Wikipedia:LGBT noticeboard. Help spread the word. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on this! Arcuras 22:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
The poll about serial commas is archived here. This issue is also other places in the archive, if you're interested.
Although I was substantially involved with this issue in the past, I don't feel strongly either way about using or not using serial commas. My objection was to the way certain people were trying to push through their preferences. This time the change appears to have been handled cooperatively. Maurreen 02:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Jonathunder, I'm sure you noticed that I responded to your request for a comment on this issue, although I doubt it was what you were hoping for. Allow me to give you a bit more unsolicited (and perhaps unwanted) advice: bad spelling is a good way to undermine arguments in any manual of written style. It suggests either a lack of competence with the language or unwillingness to perfect one's prose, which is the raison d'être of manuals of style. This implies that one is willing to criticize but not follow guidelines. I considered correcting your unfortunate misspelling of "unfortionate", but I have a visceral aversion to editing other people's Talk page text. I suggest you make this correction, and run your further contributions through a spell-checker (or check individual words with Merriam-Webster Online or Cambridge Dictionaries Online when in doubt, like I do) before you post, in order to avoid inadvertently sabotaging your credibility. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey,
Yeah, as I'm sure you noticed, I'm a bit new to this. I am from Minnesota; I'm in Iowa now but I'll be returning for the next year in a couple of weeks. I think I have a pretty good knowledge of the state, so I figured I'd contribute a bit when I saw things were somewhat incomplete.
I agree that the organization should be worked on. I mentioned that I thought those two regions were ok together simply because of a general geographic size similarily as the other divisions that were made; I do understand, though, how they could be thought of as two different regions. I think I'll sit back and see what more experienced people think of this.
Thanks for the help.
ObsidianOP 02:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel| talk 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Trödel| talk 23:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with trying to maintain some semblance of balance/objectivity with the Aesthetic Realism article. I'd do it myself but the mediator requested that neither side post to the Talk or the Article itself until the matter is resolved, so I'm honoring that. Of course that hasn't stopped Aperey from attacking the article with gusto, but that's expected. I haven't heard from the mediator for a while and he didn't respond to my message from a few days ago so I'm not sure anything's happening on the mediation front. At some point I guess I'll have to ask for a new mediator. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Michaelbluejay 02:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Please see [1] if you are interested. Whig 09:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, the reason I blanked the page after I created it was because I trying to delete the page so I could move Knopf Publishing Group to that page. I can't do a move if the page exists. I spent several hours disambiguating the company from the person but decided that people were probably going to keep linking to Alfred A. Knopf when they meant the company,so I wanted to turn it back to the company's page. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get an adminstrator to delete the page so I could complete the move, so even though I think it is a poor set-up, I went back to reinstate my disambiguation language and saw you had already done so. DS1953 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure why, but it seems we're voting again on what to call Gustavus Adolphus. Since you voted the first time, you may want to participate again. No Account
Thanks for your support on my Adminship request.
I noticed you reigned in on the Color debate. Unfortunately, you weren't around when Gasoline was changed to Petrol, of course, nobody was. The RfC was posted on the article's talk page last summer with no notice elsewhere. Now it's Gasoline/Petrol (my idea) until we can develop a consensus. Your contribution to the vote would be appreciated. ℬastique▼ talk 04:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the vote on whether to delete the article about Arnold Perey. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether there's a Wikipedia article about him or not. Maybe it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for what's deserving of an article but I'm unfamiliar with such standards. What I'd *really* like is to just keep him from vandalizing the Aesthetic realism article on a daily basis. It's ironic how he has a page on another website titled "Arnold Perey counters lies about the death of Eli Siegel" in which he claims that AR people have been completely open about the fact that Siegel killed himself, yet on a daily basis Perey censors that very fact from Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)