User talk:Dhartung/Archive 1

Archive 1 (2004-2005) of User_talk:Dhartung

Did you know has been updated

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 14:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sweepstake or sweepstakes

That's a very interesting point about sweepstakes, though I don't think your logic is irrefutable (one could argue that the winner sweeps the "entire stake" or "everybody's stake"). Haven't tracked down a definitive answer yet, but please let me know if you do. Deb 12:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• True, without a citation search (and I don't have OED access now) we can't be certain, but clearly the plural form is used like a mass noun, and you can speak both of "the sweepstakes" or "a sweepstakes" and "all sweepstakes" without using the truncated form, and phrases like "sweepstakes betting" that are certainly closer to the origin than mail-order contests strongly suggest how it was used. --Dhartung 20:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: mathowie

Actually that is one of the better unobstructed photos I could find. He always seems to have something covering part of his face. (his hand, a camera, etc) If you know of a better photo, we surely can switch it.

As for the username, well my middle name is Andrew so I guess Steve @....

I miss Milwaukee!

Linnwood 08:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

test sig

--Dhartung | Talk 13:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page, I'm not going to tell you why you should consider me to be 'acting in good faith'. This is instead your call. However, there is no reason for you to suspect that our interactions will be similar to those between Trey Stone and me. Trey Stone has no interest in compromising; and nothing that I have writen on the talk pages has ever been taken into consideration by him; his goal is to provoke flamewars with me. Note that many of his edits have bordered on vandalism and trolling; note his many sockpuppet accounts as well, such as User:Raghead-in-Chief and User:Master Sockpuppet. I am glad that you have steped in on the Rios Montt page, because this will likely finially get him to stop messing around with that article. 172 21:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Congratulations, the candidate you voted for, Underground Railroad, is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please help edit the article to bring it up to feature standard.

Jody call

Thanks for your excellent additions to the article. This is an intriguing bit of US folklore and folk music that seems to be almost very sparsely collected or studied by folklorists. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COTW

Congratulations, First Indochina War has been voted this week's Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. Please edit it to help raise it to featured article status.

Collaboration of the Week

League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.

re: hey there

..hey, your actually on my watchlist, although I never use that feature other than as a sort of vote for insightful posters. How many MeFi'ers are there on WP? It would not be too difficult to set up a group, if nothing else to list other members for some unknown future collaborations or announcements. (User:Stbalbach) 07:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm a too cheap for membership lurker and MoFite Céçaquiéça 08:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

via AskMeFi

I'm active over here too. adamrice 15:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chicago River

Hey I noticed that you reorged Chicago River at User:Dhartung/Chicago River. There has been no edits on the former after you reorged, so you can probably merge it in. Burgundavia 20:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Sanitary and Ship Canal leads to a redirect to Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, so you probably want to change the link. Thanks, Dralwik 05:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chumbawamba featured article candidacy

Thanks for your comment--I removed chumbawamba from the CotW nomination list. I didn't realize you can only put stub articles on there. --Smooth Henry 04:55, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mefites on Wikipedia

You asked, so I'm telling. I'm a contributor here, as is Jairus (he's User:Twiin). Together we gang up on the industrial music article. neckro 09:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Decolonization, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Tony Jin | (talk) 02:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Colour Revolutions

There is a consensus between Pharos, Aris Katsaris and myself to get rid of the "possible historical predeccesors" section because it is unrelated and has no connection to the main topic. See the "Back to the Real World" section on the talk page. Would you be against this? freestylefrappe 16:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I got your message, it might be a good idea to start by simply pasting in the section i removed. If you want to keep the section though, I think the three of us would be fine as long as some sort of connection is established. The way it was, people were just lumping any revolution that took place in the last thirty years. Thanks for being gracious and avoiding an edit war. freestylefrappe 19:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Culture of Ancient Rome, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Auto History

I changed Automotive History to History of the Automobile per your suggestion. Vote for it? :) ℬastique▼^talk 12:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ladder theory

Hey, I'd just like to tell you I've noticed all of the work you've done on Ladder theory, and I really appreciate it... keep up the great work! -- Rmrfstar 22:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your kudos is greatly appreciated. I see a bad article like that, and nothing's gonna stop me from wading in and improving the heck out of it! Feel free to help, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of finals at school, so I haven't a whole lot of free time. As soon as they're over though, you can plan on it. -- Rmrfstar 10:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tristan Louis

Thanks for the note on my talk page and even more of a thank for the edit. I actually started the page as a stub, hoping that more enlightened people would edit it properly. Thanks for the help by doing so (BTW, I'm also a Mefite so I added myself to your list (same username on MeFi)). --TNLNYC 19:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weird Coincidences

I was just looking at what linked to the Highland Park, IL page and noticed that you had created a Ravinia Festival page as a user page and not a main page. While trying to figure that out I saw that you also went to Beloit College. Anyhow the main reason for my writing is to inquire if there was a reason for not making your Ravinia Festival page a normal entry. Barkeep49 23:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Barkeep, not that coincidental -- lots of people from Chicagoland go to Beloit! Anyway, that was something I created in my User "sandbox" and promptly forgot about, so thanks for reminding me -- I have moved it to the normal location. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Portland COTW

Hey there,

Should I remove Portland from COTW consideration based on the feedback you've given? Thanks for the information by the way, I am still a relative Wiki-neophyte. Jacob 20:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iran hostage crisis

Please explain your reasoning for why this does not belong in either Category:Tehran or Category:Islamism (and why the latter is a "pov" categorization). --Dhartung | Talk 6 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

IMHO, listing the Iran hostage crisis under Category:Tehran advocates a POV that Tehran is a terrorist city. The crisis does not define Tehran. My reasoning also applies to Category:Islamism which does not seem exist anyway. See WP:CLS#Categories which states: "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, [...] except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category"... Scrutiny of my decision is up to users like you, so feel free to correct my change as you see fit. --AI 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Footnotes — Barger story

(Am writing here for obvious reasons; already I'm cluttering the Barger discussion page too much with other stuff, but I just found something else to discuss - footnotes you re-added.) I changed from Footnote style to References when I started working on this article. To properly use Footnotes you are supposed to create a Notes section at the end and a jump link to it, not just plop a URL into the middle of a paragraph leaving a number. The Cite Your Sources section and discussion pages in our style guide has had discussions on the best ways to cite sources and since I have added a source references section it is distracting and redundant to add additional footnotes.

See, I don't see it as redundant. The topic in that paragraph is the online article. By linking to it when it is discussed, the reader has an opportunity to go read it. This isn't a print encyclopedia, it's on the web and not making use of hyperlinks for this sort of thing makes no sense to me. Unlike most referential citations, this is something that many readers will want to go check out, and the way I see it we should make it easy. Why force them to search through an ever-growing list of citations (surrounded by dates, authors, and other extraneous text)?

They will still have to go to the bottom of the page if we add a separate Notes section, which is what you have to do to follow the Wikipedia Footnotes style here for inline footnotes, per the source citation style page at [1]. That is redundant when there is absolutely nothing hard about simply looking for "Boutin" in the alphabetically arranged References section where the webpage is linked in visible blue font and easy to jump to. The paragraph with the two Boutin references is located at the end of the story directly above the References list.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to "go check out" the other citations, by the way (like the Safire or Village Voice ones). I think they will. The Boutin article does not contribute much content about this man's work to the story; it is just a gossip piece that seems to be taking Barger joking about his life and blowing it out of proportion. I think people will just as likely look at the Usenet FAQ citation (unless I ever go back and remove that). An encyclopedia is not a magazine article; it's supposed to go over the highlights of someone's career, not relate every comment a journalist made about a person. We practically retold that whole Wired piece, not that I'm worried about it. I enjoy reading the story as is, but we could tell his story without it. I did the same thing with the Usenet FAQ paragraph, I guess. Sometime I'll go back and think about everything in the article again, but not tonight. The article does tell a story as is. -E

I used to use Footnotes for every statement I put in an article when I first wrote music articles. Footnoting at the end of each sentence is more like law brief style, not really something all that progressive or "pro-wiki." After reading the Cite Your Sources discussions I switched to References sections because they are less distracting in terms of not dotting articles with numbers. If someone feels we must have a Notes section and a References section then I can go in and add a Notes section, but I just think it's unnecessary and not the prescribed style. A lot of new people to wikipedia stick the vague numeric URL link in without reading the style guide; I used to do it too because I thought that was wikipedia's style. Then I found the footnotes style part of the style guide and started using that till I carefully read the Cite Your Sources talk page discussions (which said adding footnotes were controversial for several reasons). I used to have Footnotes in the Kristin Hersh article, for instance, and only gave up the practice of using them grudgingly, but when I had them in the article they were with jump links and a Notes section per our style guide.

I do see that inline links are "discouraged" (and here's the citation, heh: [2]). Forgive me if I demur from the consensus here. I think it's wrong. It's anti-web and anti-wiki. That's opinion, but I'm not doing anything that breaks articles or can't be fixed later, so I'm going to lean on the side of improving the Wikipedia by adding content. --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume what you mean is that when you drop in a link, you aren't breaking anything, and if someone wants to change it to Wikipedia References style formatting, you will let them do so. You seem to say your main concern is adding content. I agree, that is the main thing for people to be concerned about. People like me who spiff up formatting per a style guide or try to make sure wording is precise are doing the less important (but necessary) work, and I think we complement one another in our efforts.

I had started to put a long additional comment here and have instead put it on my own Emerman talk page in "Comment 1" to avoid junking up your page unnecessarily with my endless rambling. -E

So anyway, what is the article mentioned at the top of this page that you created which made the Featured list? I would like to read it. Emerman 00:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't a Featured article -- it was just a Did you know? item, because it was a new article. Thanks for asking, though. I don't have one single article that I'm most proud of, really -- I'm a generalist and like just adding things where I find missing info and so on. I have created a number of "starter" articles, though, e.g. for Mustafa Setmariam Nasar this week.

I have been thinking that I want to spend more time on that one in terms of notes or references due to the controversial nature. There's a lot more blank spots on Wikipedia regarding Al Qaeda and so forth than you'd think. --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, thanks for pointing me to it. -E

P.S. I use the method you used of just dropping a URL in when I am on a Discussion page or pointing to my archive. I do not do that in our official articles because of what I had read in the past of our style guide style (unless it has recently changed). Look at the Kristin Hersh article as it is now and then at an earlier version I had done at [3] for an example of changes I made removing footnotes after reading a Wikipedia style guide discussion page on the preferences of those developing the Wikipedia citation style. The older version of the Hersh piece is the right way to do a Notes section, but those are found by some to be difficult to maintain, excessive and distracting. But let me know if you interpret the style guide differently and for some reason think it mandates we additionally put footnotes in the article when we already have References; if so I'll put in a Notes section for the items above the References section. I find it unnecessary. It is clear which articles are mentioned by simply looking for Boutin in the References and cleaner not to mix styles. I have been told before by admin that References were sufficient. We're just trying to document statements, not muddy up the page with footnotes. Emerman 00:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it's one thing to document statements; it's another thing to discuss a webpage and not link to it right there and then. Jorn was the "first" weblogger by certain definitions, and I was pretty close behind myself -- first hundred or so. To me, this is the way the web works, and it's foolish to deny it. I think the people who created that style consensus are more concerned with standing side-by-side with Britannica or something than being useful to readers.

I don't see why proper references, and inline links where appropriate, can't co-exist. --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I add more comments to this on my discussion page at "Comment 2" at Emerman talk page to avoid junking up your page with more rambling from me. Those comments will eventually be located in an archive #3 at my pages some day. Nice to chat with you. The main thing we both want is a nicely done article. Again, I think both of us can contribute plenty that complements one another. That's the bottom line. I do not mean to sound like I'm bickering. Sadly, I am just too wordy on talk pages. Emerman 01:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

p.s. something I didn't notice before

Weirdly, I only just now noticed that the "working toward a featured article" comment was made by you on the Barger article. I had thought that was someone else who said that! Duh. I started to think the other day that if I want to experiment with different ways to edit that story (some tests with less info in it), I could create a test or sandbox page in my user pages like some people I know do. Then you and I could mess around with different variations of what the thing should look like without me junking up the JB talk page. Well, if I ever have time and put up different versions of the article in a test page on my userpages, I will let you know. Emerman 04:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Wisconsin

I noticed that you're a Wisconsite who sometimes edits articles on Wisconsin-related items. You might be interested in the new wikiproject, WP:WPWI. Cheers. --BaronLarf 21:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just saying hi

Hello there from Cambridge, Mass. AaronSw 18:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Aaron! You know, I read your blog feed and I hope the project is going well. Can't wait to see what you've cooked up. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter Fechter

Nice edit to remember him 43 years after his senseless death, SqueakBox 05:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you! You're right, it should never have happened; what a shame. I think we have a duty to make such "memorials". --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Berlin Wall in the Peter Fechter article

I take your point, but I just can't quite see the Berlin Wall as "curious" in that sense. As a border, it aroused interest at the time and still arouses some interest now, but not because it was novel or strange. The DMZ between the Koreas and the various attempts at demarcating Israeli- and Palestinian-controlled parts of Jerusalem are similarly militarised - with the latter being between two parts of a city on a couple of occasions - so I don't agree with you on that count. BigHaz 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

I take your point about the meaning, but I just can't quite see the Berlin Wall as "curious" in that sense. As a border, it aroused interest at the time and still arouses some interest now, but not because it was novel or strange. The DMZ between the Koreas and the various attempts at demarcating Israeli- and Palestinian-controlled parts of Jerusalem are similarly militarised - with the latter being between two parts of a city on a couple of occasions - so I don't agree with you on that count. BigHaz 09:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fiona Apple

Just wanted to say hi - I noticed we'd both edited the Fiona Apple article. I'm right up the road from you in Madison. NickBurns 16:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes

Dhartung - with regards to Jooler, FYI I let this person know that I felt they were being disruptive and they gave me an earful... Would recommend "being the better person" and just not respond to this person, if they become disruptive to the article then it can go to RfC. Just my two cents. Thanks for being a good editor! -Kwh 04:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's for sure. Thanks for the advice. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Standard order of sections

Hi.

You recently copy-edited the article Qingzang Railway with the comment ':references/see also/external links is standard order'. This surprised me, as I was under the impression the normal order was 'see also/external links/references'.

Certainly this seems to be the order on most articles I look at, and it is the order I've been using for over a year without any previous complaint. This order also seems to make sense, given the way references can become quite detailed and are of less interest to the average reader.

A quick look at the manual of style doesn't seem to reveal any particular mandated section order, other than that intro section comes first. Could you point me at the standard you are referring to. Thanks. -- Chris j wood 10:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; the preferred order is rather well buried in the text and I'd never noticed it there. I too think that references and external links serve quite different purposes; to my mind references is there to back up the facts reported in the article (in effect an audit trail of where the article contents came from), whilst external links is a pointer to additional information possibly relevant to the subject of the article but not appropriate for inclusion. -- Chris j wood 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement

Please vote for the American Civil Rights Movement in the nominations for the Article Improvement Drive. [Click here and scroll down to (Nominated in August or later: American Civil Rights Movement... to cast your vote]. Thanks! Mamawrites 03:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina area affected

Thanks for helping clear up the "area affected."

I am still curious, where are you getting the data based on the definitions you provided. I am not challenging you, just genuinely curious on the source of this information.

Also--on a different note, I was wondering what the estimated square mileage of the hurricane itself was just before landfall.

Utahredrock

ANZUS page edit

The edit to ANZUS called "chronological order" has to my mind disrupted the chain of reasoning in the article prior to that edit. Despite the title it has also not put events in chronological order - the NZ and Aust contribution to the war in Afghanistan and New Zealand engineers being sent to Iraq (November 2001- present) now comes before the September 11 attacks on the US (2001) triggering these actions. September 11 is in turn placed before the East Timor intervention (of 1999).

Obviously this needs to be fixed up but a simple revert will loose many other edits. Any thoughts? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winstonwolfe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 September 2005

Let's bring this to Talk:ANZUS. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

US-Iran hostage crisis

Moved to Talk:Iran hostage crisis. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

Greetings, Dhartung! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Wisconsin page. The page will be removed when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Wisconsin page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin|Dhartung]] to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Black Hole of Calcutta

Dhartung, you edited my "Black Hole of Calcutta" information. I think what you did was fair(more or less).

I've just added to "Siraj", perhaps you could look at this as well. It might need cleaning up.

Tim Barrett

Out of Line?

Out of line how? Because I disagree with him? There's been no stepping out of the guidelines. Xinger 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Madchester has clearly stated that you violated the three-revert rule. I only cared myself when I noticed you had done that. That isn't a guideline, that's a policy, and it's enforceable, as has been done. Please consider this in the spirit of a friendly warning that you are taking things much too seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If you'd take another look I clearly didn't violate the three-revert rule. "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours". I did THREE reverts, not four, and was blocked. Xinger 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. So you're under the impression that it's acceptable to do three identical reverts in a row? What for, to make some kind of "point"? You're posting on my Talk page, so you obviously know how to use the technology, you just refuse to. That makes you at least a Grade-B jerk, so I'm not inclined to listen to much of anything you say here. Do re-read the policy in full, particularly:

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

I hope you'll at least try, grudgingly as it may become you, to argue your case for a pointless formatting issue to lead to an edit war. Rest assured your choice of battles here makes you look incredibly petty and small-minded. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yay for personal attacks! You've got nothing on me, so I sure hope you didn't expect to hurt my feelings with your attacks.

Blocking isn't necessary until the fourth revert, according to the 3RR. So I was obviously wrongly blocked. Don't try to step to me when you don't have your facts straight. You try to claim I violated the rule when I clearly didn't so now here you are whining and pulling out all the stops by insulting me. That won't get you anywhere, son. Better luck next time. I know I'm right, but your stubborn asses don't listen to reason. Nothing I can do about it, I guess this is what happens when just anyone can become administrators. Xinger 07:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you came to my Talk page. I gave you advice, you have laughed in my face, so have a fun Wikipedia experience, although I doubt you'll really be able to with this kind of attitude. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Much love, Xinger 08:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Did You Know? Updated

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Miles Copeland, Jr., which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Scimitar ^parley 22:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Chip in?

Could your introduction of "chip in" into Don LaFontaine reflect a regional slang term? In American English (including advertising technical jargon), it means only "contribute money for a specific purpose or for the one time needs of a specific beneficiary". From context, i would have said "stand in", i.e., fulfill a role intended for someone else."
--Jerzy•t 17:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)