User talk:Neutrality/Archive 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] nationalities
What is the reason for moving Greeks, Magyars, Albanians, ... to $1 people? I'm reverting this due to a rather obvious lack of an obvious reason (witnessing how nobody is complaining, and Special:Whatlinkshere output for the pages). --Joy [shallot] 03:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, I know that, but I had that in mind when I created e.g. French people or Spanish people where French and Spanish already exist, respectively. However, in the case of many others, the normal word is not ambiguous (the Italian language for example is never called "Italians") so there is no reason to rename. Using the common name follows the naming conventions, let's stick to them. --Joy [shallot]
Er, offended without telling you? How do you interpret the above I'm reverting this [...] other than me telling you? :) --Joy [shallot] 03:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was in the process of examining and moving while writing to you.
I disagree that the nationality/ethnicity/residence distinction is worth having several different articles and disambiguation. When someone says "Italians", they by and large mean one single thing and we don't need to bother them with various marginal meanings (such as naturalized Italians or autochthonous Slovenes in Italy) just because they exist. Perhaps with Template:Otheruses, but even that is pushing it. --Joy [shallot] 03:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups#Adjective_.28people.29 where it's perhaps more pertinent than on our personal talk pages. --Joy [shallot]
Oh, yeah, posting to Requested moves would work too. --Joy [shallot]
[edit] Barnstar
Wow, thanks! You made my day. : ) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stuyvesant
I appreciate your cleanup of the gushing adjectives in your "POV chainsaw massacre" update to Stuyvesant High School, but was there a good reason for also deleting the references to Nobel laureates, Intel scholarships, etc.? (The 1958 study of PhDs certainly deserved to go - almost 50 years old is hardly current and the info is probably wrong by now.) RossPatterson 17:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No response received, and since this has been moved to the archives I guess none will be forthcoming. I put the facts back, without the gushing adjectives. RossPatterson 01:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Did you have a particular reason for opposing my nomination for adminship? Any feedback you have would be useful. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Periods within quotes
I don't follow; why were those changes on WP:3RR either "grammatical" or "arbitrary"? Doesn't the MoS apply? Alai 03:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the controversies hadn't escaped me -- stumbled into three already, and doubtless counting. As I understand it though, there's no provision in the MoS for variant styles of quote punctuation (unlike US vs UK spelling and usage, which is as you say). Non-original punctuation goes outside quotes (UKishly), and serial commas are employed (USishly), according to said guidelines. But as ironically apt as a revert war on the revert-rule page would be, I think I'll let this one be... Alai 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rex
Did you see your (and my) buddy Netoholic's comments right above yours? RickK 07:49, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Three-Reverts
Hello? Where can I draw attention to the fact that the three-revert rule has let to the creation of revert possies like the Jfdwolff, Jayig and Josh Cherry revert possy currently preventing progress on the Nazarene page? sorry if this is the wrong place to post please just move my comment to the right place. All I want to do is be sure there is some quality control going on to allow me to sit back and enjoy reading again. Thank you. 193.63.146.184 19:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gosh.
Stop it, you'll make my head get big! Seriously though, I appreciate your kind words. It's been good working with you and others on this site to make it what it is today. I hope things go well, and you guys continue to be fair and kind to the other users on this site (not that I've ever seen you do anything otherwise!). Look after Neto, Dr Zen and Everyking will ya? Those guys get a hard time - not always deserved. I figure you'll do this cause you are a very fair admin.
I might pop into WP:AN every now and then - after all that is my baby I started. One of my more succesful ideas :) Cya and all the best! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My adminship
Thank you for voting for me for adminship. I appreciate the confidence you showed in me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let me second that! Thank you for your support and the kind words on my adminship nomination. Best regards, — mark ✎ 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] page move vandalism
Your user page was moved around and stuff again. I've protected it from moves for now. ugen64 02:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".
With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1111111111
Please stop deleting 1111111111. If you wish, put it on VfD, but it is not a speedy candidate. Thanks, ugen64 03:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Adminship - User:ABCD
As you may remember, you rejected my nomination for adminship in January. I have recently reapplied. You may wish to vote here. Thanks, ABCD 19:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Loonie" versus loonie
The official name of the currency is the dollar. "Loonie" is a slang term, and should be in quotes. (Furthermore, it should be capitalised, as it's a proper noun.)—chris.lawson (talk) 22:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against Netoholic. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt ҈ 04:06, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
[edit] De-Chomskidize
Looking at this guy's edit history, I don't see any offensive edit summaries. RickK 05:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the guy or his edits, or the history of his edits, to make the call to unblock him. RickK 05:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- The user was blocked due to weaseling by a user who continues to revert war on different articles and provide them with blatant POV. The violations were not major, and the ban is set to expire soon.
FWI, Trey Stone/User:De-Chomskidize is now back as User:The Negotiator. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trey Stone. Thanks. WebLuis 05:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kyrgyzstan
You're very welcome. One time I needed to argue that "tasty" was POV; see this. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 07:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rex/arbitration
Tonight I blocked User:216.153.214.94 (i.e. Rex) for a 3RR violation, which is no big deal, but then I looked at his Arbcom decision, which states that he is banned from reverting at all for six months, in addition to the now-expired four month ban from doing some other stuff. What's the protocol for dealing with a situation like this? Gamaliel 09:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Hey Ben, thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination. I really appreciate it and will do my best to live up to it! SlimVirgin 03:47, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Service Stars
Just like in various milirat/scounting why dont we have "Service Stars" Which Users are awarded a "service" star for each "active" year they are in. (Could be made automated) --Cool Cat My Talk 04:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ranking
While Barnstars are nice we need a more distinguishable ranking system for those who contribute most. (Instead of coming up with new stars we may use a combination of stars to refer to "contribution ranking". Maybe TNG Pips maybe insightful. Checkout Ranks and insignia of Starfleet. Black Barnstar + Gold Barnstar + Gold barn Star = Lt cmdr or significant contributions. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- mebbe, mebbe not. but "awarding" lashes to the problem POV-pushers might not be a bad idea. Davenbelle 04:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
