User talk:Bardsandwarriors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Men in Skirts 2 Please discuss! 3 Arctic islands 4 CONSISTENCY 5 Indonesian Islands 6 Giant Space Magnet of Death 7 Textile arts

[edit] Men in Skirts

Hello. You're right, it isn't awful for a first draft. But first drafts require cleanup, that's why they're not final drafts. When I said it desperately required cleanup, I didn't mean to insult your contribution, and I'm sorry if it looked that way. It's just got a long way to go before it meets our standards. Cheers. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment, thank you Bards 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bards: Thanks for the note! I did add a couple of images of male skirts that I have designed and constructed. I will be adding more as I make more skirts. --Allyn 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Mark! Your outlandish sense of style is great :) I've replied on Talk:Men in Skirts aswell. Once we get 1 or 2 more in other styles aswell, we'll choose your best one and just have that there - if that's ok with you. Bards 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, some anonymous user took out both of my pictures, saying in the summary line that they were not appropriate for men's skirts, or something like that. I re-inserted the pictures. I feel that as I have seen men wear skirts like the ones that I made; as well as having sold several of these skirts to men who wear them in public; that they are appropriate. --Allyn 05:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, well done ;) It seems that User:Aaron_Brenneman (an admin) thinks he is god, and can change whatever he pleases, on subjects he knows nothing about, without any consultation. His ruthlessness makes me suspect a POVPush (ie. pushing his own point of view, antipathetic to the movement; wikipedia should be neutral). I have also restored the list of external links that he deleted, and left a message on his talk page to get the name of the article changed back. Bards 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do need to mention, Bard, that the edit to remove my pictures was from an anonymous user (an IP address). I don't know if it was Aaron, using a public terminal such as an Icafe, or someone else. No one left me anything in my talk page, nor the talk page for the article. From you experience, if Aaron makes a change, does he usually leave a comment in your talk page or the talk page of the article? --Allyn 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history page - here [1] - you will see a flurry of 4 edits (after along break with no editing) - 2 with an anonymous IP, followed by 2 signed by Aaron. I haven't encountered Aaron before. But this is very likely the same person, as it follows a pattern: he makes some edits, then realises he isn't logged in, then logs in to finish his work. There is nothing wrong with that. But his reasons for removing the pictures make no rational sense to me, and his other edits don't either. On a debatable issue, he should have opened it for discussion on the talk page. Taking high-handed unilateral decisions, on things that are debatable, strongly suggest he is not doing it for rational reasons. We will have to see if he replies. Bards 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bards:

Thank you for restoring my skirt pictures. I did some checking and found that it was a different IP address that removed them this time. I went ahead and left a note in the talk page for each of the two IP addresses to please do not remove my pictures unless you leave a note in the talk page for the article or my own talk page. Nothing has been left. I will assume these removals as vandalism.

By the way, both of the IP addresses are housed in Great Brittan, but they are of different ISP's.

--Allyn 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Wikipedia is full of vandals. Most are harmless - schoolkids having a laugh, or people passing through and thinking they know better. But some are jerks with issues, eg. you might find some christians or moslems objecting to your style on religious grounds. Also small-minded people with similar issues, who think it is 'perverted' or some old rubbish. Pushing points of view like that are strictly not allowed in wikipedia, but it happens. Best thing is to just revert the changes (look at history page; hit 'diff' to compare pages; hit 'undo') and think no more of it! Bards 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss!

So: what's up with the De Long Islands?Reaganamerican 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

They are over here now: Category:DeLong Islands. I am cleaning up and improving the structure of Category:Arctic islands. Islands everywhere, all in the wrong places :( If I've done something to offend, please explain. Bards 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic islands

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm working on a project to populate the Arctic Ocean category, and I've been placing articles and categories in all of its subcategories, including the Arctic islands category. I've never spoken to you about this project, and didn't know until right now that you are working on a project that overlaps with mine. CRKingston 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I had the idea that you were someone else, and I don't know why I thought that. I will delete my question from your talk page if you like.01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But since we are introduced now - I have been working on cleaning up the 'islands' categories, and would appreciate a discussion on the best protocols for organising them. In Arctic Islands, for instance, I had got almost all articles categorised inside the subcats organised by archipelago, eg. article Franz Josef Land inside category Franz Josef Land. But many of your recent changes have placed the main article back outside aswell, eg. Franz Josef Land in both Franz Josef Land, and Arctic islands. Should I revert your edits in those cases, or edit them back, or do you have an interesting strategy that I should take note of? 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, I just found your note. First, I really like the Arctic Islands category, and other oceans have something similar (more like Islands of the xx ocean). Here is the strategy I have had in mind (which I might not have executed correctly). I was thinking that your islands category would have all of the islands (and island subsets like archipelago) for the entire ocean. You can break it out however you think is best. I saw the islands listed in two places, in the Arctic Islands cateogry, and in the specific sea category. A lot of them are the dividing line between seas, so they would be in both. If you create a category like DeLong Islands, it would be in the Arctic Ocean and the specific sea as well. Does this strategy make sense? I'm certainly open to discussing it. I think the inconsistencies you have found were from before, before I started creating the sea categories, I put everything into the Arctic Ocean category. Now, as I'm going through, I'm replacing the Arctic Ocean cat with a more specific sea cat. One other thing I've done that touches the islands, the island categories (like DeLong) I've started populating with other things like landforms, explorers, etc. that are beyond the scope of the ocean/sea categories. Let me know what you think, and again, sorry for the delayed response. CRKingston 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In my fervour to sort everything out, I may have been a bit hasty and/or over-assertive in places. I've fully read the wiki help articles on categories now, and the 'exceptions' to the parent-child non duplication rule are applicable. I need to put back some of my changes - under the 'incomplete subsets' rule - so that eg. Svalbard appears in both the category Svalbard and the category Artic Islands. This applies because not all islands can be classified into subcats for groups of islands, therefore all island main articles must also form a complete list within "Artic islands". Live and learn! With your agreement, I will sort them out. And thanks for the other comments, I agree with everything except putting islands into the Arctic Ocean - surely readers can follow the "Arctic islands" category link? Bards 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It all sounds good. I've not been clear about putting islands into the Arctic Ocean. I did that first, before I added the seas cats, and before you created the Arctic islands category. I agree with you completely that no island should appear in the Arctic Ocean category, and as I'm working through the seas (still not done), I'm replacing the Arctic ocean cat on the island article with the appropriate sea cat. You can do that replacement as well. I don't know if we have all of the sea cats created yet, so you may have to create a sea category to move an island from Arctic Ocean. CRKingston 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose deleting Category:Marginal seas of the Arctic Ocean, and moving all seas into "Seas of the Arctic Ocean". Reason: currently the reader needs to look in 2 places instead of one, and may not think of looking 2 places; and I see no special reason to split them up. Bards 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Marginal seas are a subset of seas, and the marginal seas category traces back to the Seas category and covers every ocean. Instead, let's put the marginal seas in both the marginal seas and the Seas of the Arctic Ocean category. This makes sense to me as being within the category guidelines. Agree? CRKingston 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If we make "Marginal Seas of..." into a subcat of "Seas of...", it wouldn't be necessary to duplicate the subcats; but we could still duplicate the articles to make a full list in each "Seas of..." category. Currently the other oceans are inconsistent: Atlantic has it that way; Pacific and Indian do not; Southern does neither, and has no Marginals cat. Note that "Marginal Seas" is a subcat of "Seas". However, I am straying onto your territory here (pun). Bards 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

Category:Arctic islands now has a full list of main articles.

Category:Seas of the Arctic Ocean now has a full list of main articles.

Hey guy, I haven't been online for a couple days. I'm indexing a book this week, and it is so tedious that I don't have any brain power left for the Arctic Ocean (LOL). I'll check in with you when I'm back, probably Monday. CRKingston 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CONSISTENCY

Hello. Please, make sure your contributions are consistent. You created "Islands of Asia" cat but didn't include subcategories to it. I have now made it for you. - Darwinek 11:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek - thank you. There already exists a primary classification of Category:Islands by country, which contains lists of countries. I have been populating "Islands by continent" in a different way, although only tentatively, while wondering if it should be there at all. What are your thoughts? Bards 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As per our traditions here, all countries should be under each continent category, i.e. "islands of Italy" under "islands of Europe" etc. I have done it all yet. As for the Russian Lakes category now at CFD, relocate these articles as you suggested and I will then delete empty Russian Lakes category and close that CFD listing (I am an admin). - Darwinek 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Darwinek. You may notice I have made a vast number of changes to the categories for Islands, and I freely admit to making a few poor decisions amongst them, aiming to clear them up later. See also my reply to you in Category:Islands of Europe. Bards 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, then move 'em. I assume your good faith, you have just made some wrong moves but this can happen when you do such a huge task. Next I wanna talk with you about "Islands by river" cat. - Darwinek 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Islands by river" already existed when I tackled the Islands. However it seems reasonable to me. What are you concerns? Also: I disagree with speedy-rename of Category:Lands with Arctic islands. I have posted my reasons in the speedy-rename list, but I am not sure if that is the right place to talk about it. Bards 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like better something like "Islands on the rivers" and without subcategories. Honestly, how much islands on the rivers do we have here... - Darwinek 13:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't "Islands on the lakes" be more correct? - Darwinek 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many yet, as many of the articles are still improperly classified. Maybe a few dozen? But there may be 100s or 1000s in the world which do not have articles yet. For consistency, I accept your implied argument: we should have "Islands in lakes" and "Islands in rivers". Or we should have "Islands by lake" and "Islands by river", with subcategories. I cannot decide which is better. Bards 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not include "the" in the titles, as it doesn't read well. "Islands in lakes" is fine, honestly. Bards 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

However, there may be proper geographical terms for "Islands in rivers/lakes" which I am not aware of. Is there an expert on this at wikipedia? Bards 13:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it ain't here. However, we have various WikiProjects concentrating on several issues here. You can ask for help etc. there, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. - Darwinek 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As we are posing questions which we cannot resolve, I am happy to join those projects and discuss it there. I will refer them to this discussion, if you agree. However, that may not solve consistency issues, as each project may give different answers. Please advise! Bards 13:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, refer them here. Discuss lakes in Lakes project and rivers in Rivers project. Consensus should be reached to make whole issue consistent. Our mutual goal is the same, to make better encyclopedia. I gotta go now. Bye bye. - Darwinek 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesian Islands

I notice you making bulk changes to the organization of the islands. I would strongly suggest discussing the organization first, rather than making changes with having a consensus on what the changes should be. We have not heard anything about your proposed changes here Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia. (MichaelJLowe 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi Michael, I will talk to you there. Bards 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Space Magnet of Death

Hi Bards. Someone put that in my talk and I have no idea why. I was curious what it was too. –Shoaler (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ok ;) I thought you had created an article cwith that title, and had it deleted. I thought it sounded quite funny! Bards 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Textile arts

Hello, Bards - I see you have been categorizing various stitches - would you be interested in formally joining the Textile Arts project? - PKM 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd never ask ;) Bards 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(grin) - PKM 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)