This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As much as I'd like to deal with "Anti-Semitic people" through the usual channels, everytime I try it's either completely ignored or drowned out by abuse from other editors (I was borderline threatened just today; see "anti-semitic people discussion." If you keep "anti-semitic people", you have no justification to delete my new category. Treybien 16:40 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can't stop you from deleting the category, and I appreciate your asking me first. However, I would remind you again that there is no rational justification for deleting this category and keeping "anti-semitic people". Treybien 14:31 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam. I am leaning heavily toward delete on this one, but am going to look at the arguments in full. User:A Musing (07:05, 31 March 2007)
Why wasn't this category deleted? You closed the poll, did you forget about activating the bot to delete it and remove the cat. from the pages? ~ I'm anonymous
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Dear Sam, yes, I've wanted to write a long reply to you since you dropped by my talk page yesterday, and I wholeheartedly apologize for not getting back to you before. Unfortunately, I've had little time yesterday and most of today to compose the long reply I have in mind. The matter at hand is a serious one, and most definitely not something I wish to dismiss with a hastily written line; so please, if you could be patient and give me a couple of hours to properly address your concerns, I'd be most grateful to you. Warm regards, Phaedriel - 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam. You can go ahead and say you reject it, but give it a little more time before putting the header. When it comes to it, I want it to be a well-improved essay rather than a single-contribution rejected proposal. Bulldog123 05:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistakes I'll be careful next time.-- 80.186.164.195 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a contributor to those pages either, but I completely agree with your argument, as you saw, and very much regret that Phadriel closed this with delete. These decisions are taking the encyclopedia in the wrong direction and I'd like to participate in any community discussion about it. I'm quite sure that some other supporters of these lists ffrom the previous AfDs weren't aware that this was being discussed again, so soon after the last one, and would have weighed in had they known. This whole process is seriously flawed. Tvoz | talk 09:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
I'm sorry, but I didn't take pictures of the Pierre-Laporte bridge. Although I live in Quebec City, I live quite far from the bridge (in fact, on the opposite side of the city) and taking a picture of this bridge is not as easy as taking one of the Quebec bridge. There is a pictures of the Pierre-Laporte bridge on Commons, but it is not that brilliant: Image:Quebec - Pont Pierre-Laporte.JPG. If I ever have the opportunity to take a better picture of that brige, I'll let you know. Cordially, Boréal 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Its no mystery, did you read the article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sam and thanks for dropping me a note. Wikipedia is to me similar, in its effort, to the Diderot Encyclopaedia, and may it contribute to Enlightenment because, 200 or so years after the end of that era, it feels like it's getting dark out there, again (And while we are in allegorical mode, I will not say who I think is the new Napoleon, with a hundredth of the class and a thousandth of the wit).
I am a proud financial supporter of the project and am honoured to be a contributor.
Improving the Article on Children of Paradise was not half as fun as creating the one on Frank Spinney from scratch: THAT was a contribution, and a lot of fun... I hope to continue and perhaps, if I get into it, I might improve the French portion (it is ridiculous that the article on Children of Paradise in English have way more depth than the French one...). But I don't like translating half as much as creating/Editing...
But that is neither here or there: There are several footnotes in the article of Children of Paradise to the effect that there are many un-sourced segments. I was able to find the source to some of them in my edits, and I believe that only three remain (two at the end of the production section, one in influence) that I could not verify, and I doubt of the authenticity of any of them. My question is: will they remain there forever? How does that work exactly? Not that it is a huge deal, and I think it is great that you tag those the way you do (can I do that too?), but is there a policy about cleaning up stuff, especially things like "can be interpreted as"...
And lastly, will there ever be a spell check function in the editing boxes? I mean, I finally got the rhythm of working in a word editor, proofing and then pasting, but it would be nice; I mean, after all, that is what this whole thing is about: writing stuff, ideally without mistakes...
Thanks, and keep up the good work. Astragale 09:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Sam, I think you read me five by five, but this is not the forum... As for the un-sourced paragraph, I have no problem with them really: truthiness has its place as much as the factual in a world under the rule of liberty of expression. It is for people to decide for themselves...
Thanks for the tips and the prompt response... Astragale 10:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sam,
Sorry if I sounded curt regarding your comments about politics. I simply think that except with veiled references, it is a touchy subject to bring up on your talk page (then perhaps it is not, what do I know)... Anyway, I am always opened to a political discussion, even if I think I tend to agree with you anyway, but I think it is better to do it via e-mail or a less public board than you talk page.
Cheers!
Astragale 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Comin' atcha Tvoz | talk 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sam, I appreciate your expressed interest in the effort to move the "Palestinian people" article to "Palestinians." You said you were waiting for a clear sign of consensus before moving it. I am proud to say that we have come to a consensus. We are waiting for your response. Thank you, -- GHcool 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Hi! I'm now quite far from home so I can't check my photos but frankly I don't remember any kind of bridges in Bukhara. Sorry (( Alæxis ¿question? 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
It's Barbara from PLoS. We met about a year ago at your house (thanks again for dinner!) and also briefly at a Wikia Campaigns meeting last fall.
I am writing because we at PLoS are getting serious about community engagement using our open-source platform to get scientists and other interested people to discuss and annotate scientific articles, and we'd would like to pick your brain about what you have learned from the Wikipedia experience.
As you might remember, all our content is licensed under the creative commons attribution license and freely available to anybody, and most of our research articles are accompanied by summaries for non-specialists. We think that some of or articles would be of interest to Wikipedia users, and would also like to get your feedback on whether and how we (as editors) and our scientist authors might contribute to relevant Wikipedia articles and link to some of our content in a way that would be welcome by Wikipedians.
Can we invite you to come by the PLoS office sometime, bribe you with bagels, lunch, or tea and cookies, and have an informal chat?
Alternatively, I'd be happy to take revenge for dinner and organize a small dinner with some of my colleagues.
Let me know whether you are willing to have your brain picked and what would work for you.
Barbara (my contact details are on www.plos.org) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barabarcohen ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As much as I'd like to deal with "Anti-Semitic people" through the usual channels, everytime I try it's either completely ignored or drowned out by abuse from other editors (I was borderline threatened just today; see "anti-semitic people discussion." If you keep "anti-semitic people", you have no justification to delete my new category. Treybien 16:40 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can't stop you from deleting the category, and I appreciate your asking me first. However, I would remind you again that there is no rational justification for deleting this category and keeping "anti-semitic people". Treybien 14:31 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam. I am leaning heavily toward delete on this one, but am going to look at the arguments in full. User:A Musing (07:05, 31 March 2007)
Why wasn't this category deleted? You closed the poll, did you forget about activating the bot to delete it and remove the cat. from the pages? ~ I'm anonymous
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Dear Sam, yes, I've wanted to write a long reply to you since you dropped by my talk page yesterday, and I wholeheartedly apologize for not getting back to you before. Unfortunately, I've had little time yesterday and most of today to compose the long reply I have in mind. The matter at hand is a serious one, and most definitely not something I wish to dismiss with a hastily written line; so please, if you could be patient and give me a couple of hours to properly address your concerns, I'd be most grateful to you. Warm regards, Phaedriel - 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam. You can go ahead and say you reject it, but give it a little more time before putting the header. When it comes to it, I want it to be a well-improved essay rather than a single-contribution rejected proposal. Bulldog123 05:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistakes I'll be careful next time.-- 80.186.164.195 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a contributor to those pages either, but I completely agree with your argument, as you saw, and very much regret that Phadriel closed this with delete. These decisions are taking the encyclopedia in the wrong direction and I'd like to participate in any community discussion about it. I'm quite sure that some other supporters of these lists ffrom the previous AfDs weren't aware that this was being discussed again, so soon after the last one, and would have weighed in had they known. This whole process is seriously flawed. Tvoz | talk 09:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
I'm sorry, but I didn't take pictures of the Pierre-Laporte bridge. Although I live in Quebec City, I live quite far from the bridge (in fact, on the opposite side of the city) and taking a picture of this bridge is not as easy as taking one of the Quebec bridge. There is a pictures of the Pierre-Laporte bridge on Commons, but it is not that brilliant: Image:Quebec - Pont Pierre-Laporte.JPG. If I ever have the opportunity to take a better picture of that brige, I'll let you know. Cordially, Boréal 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Its no mystery, did you read the article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sam and thanks for dropping me a note. Wikipedia is to me similar, in its effort, to the Diderot Encyclopaedia, and may it contribute to Enlightenment because, 200 or so years after the end of that era, it feels like it's getting dark out there, again (And while we are in allegorical mode, I will not say who I think is the new Napoleon, with a hundredth of the class and a thousandth of the wit).
I am a proud financial supporter of the project and am honoured to be a contributor.
Improving the Article on Children of Paradise was not half as fun as creating the one on Frank Spinney from scratch: THAT was a contribution, and a lot of fun... I hope to continue and perhaps, if I get into it, I might improve the French portion (it is ridiculous that the article on Children of Paradise in English have way more depth than the French one...). But I don't like translating half as much as creating/Editing...
But that is neither here or there: There are several footnotes in the article of Children of Paradise to the effect that there are many un-sourced segments. I was able to find the source to some of them in my edits, and I believe that only three remain (two at the end of the production section, one in influence) that I could not verify, and I doubt of the authenticity of any of them. My question is: will they remain there forever? How does that work exactly? Not that it is a huge deal, and I think it is great that you tag those the way you do (can I do that too?), but is there a policy about cleaning up stuff, especially things like "can be interpreted as"...
And lastly, will there ever be a spell check function in the editing boxes? I mean, I finally got the rhythm of working in a word editor, proofing and then pasting, but it would be nice; I mean, after all, that is what this whole thing is about: writing stuff, ideally without mistakes...
Thanks, and keep up the good work. Astragale 09:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Sam, I think you read me five by five, but this is not the forum... As for the un-sourced paragraph, I have no problem with them really: truthiness has its place as much as the factual in a world under the rule of liberty of expression. It is for people to decide for themselves...
Thanks for the tips and the prompt response... Astragale 10:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sam,
Sorry if I sounded curt regarding your comments about politics. I simply think that except with veiled references, it is a touchy subject to bring up on your talk page (then perhaps it is not, what do I know)... Anyway, I am always opened to a political discussion, even if I think I tend to agree with you anyway, but I think it is better to do it via e-mail or a less public board than you talk page.
Cheers!
Astragale 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Comin' atcha Tvoz | talk 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sam, I appreciate your expressed interest in the effort to move the "Palestinian people" article to "Palestinians." You said you were waiting for a clear sign of consensus before moving it. I am proud to say that we have come to a consensus. We are waiting for your response. Thank you, -- GHcool 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Hi! I'm now quite far from home so I can't check my photos but frankly I don't remember any kind of bridges in Bukhara. Sorry (( Alæxis ¿question? 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
It's Barbara from PLoS. We met about a year ago at your house (thanks again for dinner!) and also briefly at a Wikia Campaigns meeting last fall.
I am writing because we at PLoS are getting serious about community engagement using our open-source platform to get scientists and other interested people to discuss and annotate scientific articles, and we'd would like to pick your brain about what you have learned from the Wikipedia experience.
As you might remember, all our content is licensed under the creative commons attribution license and freely available to anybody, and most of our research articles are accompanied by summaries for non-specialists. We think that some of or articles would be of interest to Wikipedia users, and would also like to get your feedback on whether and how we (as editors) and our scientist authors might contribute to relevant Wikipedia articles and link to some of our content in a way that would be welcome by Wikipedians.
Can we invite you to come by the PLoS office sometime, bribe you with bagels, lunch, or tea and cookies, and have an informal chat?
Alternatively, I'd be happy to take revenge for dinner and organize a small dinner with some of my colleagues.
Let me know whether you are willing to have your brain picked and what would work for you.
Barbara (my contact details are on www.plos.org) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barabarcohen ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)