User:Everyking/Talk Archive 2

Talk from June 6, 2004 to August 29, 2004:

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
On VfD I noticed you voted for keeping Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Does this imply that you will also take part in the considerably more complex task of rendering the article into something remotely in conformance with our neutral POV standards? -- Viajero 18:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hazret Sovmen
What was the purpose of moving Hazret Medzhidovich Sovmen back to its original location? Isn't a person supposed to be listed by full name?--Ezhiki 19:56, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Full names?
No, the title of the article should be what the person is most commonly known as. See for example Vladimir Putin and Boris Yeltsin, where their full names (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin) are redirects. Everyking 20:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Two questions. One - can you please let me know where this policy is described?  Two - who decides what is the most common name, i.e., how does one determine whether a full name or a shorter name is more common than the other?  Thanks.--Ezhiki 18:10, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

All I did was spell it right...."Anthony" is an alternative spelling of the original form of "Antony" which is the much preferred version anyways. **Selphie**

Drinking culture
Thanks for cleaning up -- I didn't even stop to skim the text when doing the merge (which was proposed at vfd) &#9999; Sverdrup 11:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moses Blah
Thanks for the edits on Moses Blah, some of those were really stupid mistakes. One question though, in the sentence regarding his fluency in various languages, you changed "is" to "was": is Blah dead? I haven't found any reference on the Internet to his death or really to where he is now. --Jkeiser 07:19, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's the other way around; you had put it in the past tense, I made it present tense. Thanks for expanding the article. Everyking 07:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Spinal Tap
Hi, Everyking, please see my comments about the caption on Talk:Heavy metal umlaut. (BTW: I'm working on starting a Wikipedia:project to liven up our captions a bit.) Thanks! -- ke4roh 21:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lists of teachers
I think lists of teachers by school would be really neat. It would be easy to get a few students from a school to cover their department or grade or most of the teachers there, along with some of the years year they taught there... recognizing teachers is a far better thing than many of the other similarly NPOV things we meticulously do. (:  --(reading old VfD) +sj +  18:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
I have done an initial edit on Adam's article, which I urge all third parties to carefully examine; I think that you will agree that my edit brings the article considerably closer to, not further from, Wikipedia standards on NPOV. I also ask all third parties to carefully watch Adam's "Robust Tactics", which will doubtless ensue.--Herschelkrustofsky 15:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do grow up, Everyking. You know perfectly well what is going on at Lyndon LaRouche. I have almost singlehandedly turned it from a mess of propaganda and outight lies into a reasonably acceptable article, something which no-one has had the persistence to do. Doing this inevitably means fighting a revert war with the LaRouchies. If you don't want to help, fine, but kindly don't carp at the methods which are necessary to defeat such malevolent slanderers. Adam 17:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your vote in the previous VfD on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and wanted to let you know that I have reopened the issue and wish for you to please cast your vote at VfD (My name is James too!)--naryathegreat 23:45, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Srebrenica Article
I would just like to say here that I actually agree about user Bosniak's edits. While I do not agree with replacing the entire current article (although it is indeed very biased. It was me who put the "point of view" label in there and I could go into further detail if you wish), I feel that the Srebrenica page is not meant to be about the massacre, but about the city and region itself, much like the Jasenovac article, which has a seperate link to the concentration camp of the same name. User Bosniak's version of the article should become standard, wikified, and have a link added to it for a seperate page on the Srebrenica Massacre. -- Asim Led 02:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom
You've NPOV'd the article on Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, so it seems futile to add anything more to it. However, please, I would really appreciate if you would add these views to the article as well.

Repression of peaceful political opposition continued. Government opponents, including prisoners of conscience, continued to be detained and imprisoned after unfair trials. Fundamental flaws in the criminal justice system were partially addressed. - Amnesty

Re-elected with 90.28 per cent of the votes in October 2003, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom is Asia's longest-serving ruler. He cannot stand press criticism. Three people who produced an electronic newsletter are in prison. Several independent journalists were threatened in 2003 - Reporters without Borders


 * All right, I added a quote from Amnesty about political conditions in the country, an ext. link to Amnesty, and the additional info on the 2003 election. You can add what you like to the article, but maintain a neutral tone and don't remove the reference to his supporters. Everyking 21:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Hugo Chavez ("2004: Movement to Remove Chávez in a Referendum - i recall reading of a recent poll that put him over 50%"), here's a Bloomberg article mentioning the recent poll putting him at 57%, in case you think that some of the recent data can be added to the article. 172 00:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, I have just read your message. Thanks for the quick response.

--NoMad 00:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jeremiah Clemens
I hate to be a bother about this, but Manual of Style (dashes) says that, yes, the n-dash is preferable, "editors making such changes should be aware that when MediaWiki is set to automatically convert -- in the source to a real dash, all HTML entities such as &ndash will be deprecated and changed back to hyphens in the wikitext." In other words, it's not necessary to edit a page simply to change the "--" to "&ndash".

I also noticed you adding commas to some date ranges (but not in that article), but if you're logged in, the preferences overrule any comma. But yes, if you aren't, then it's probably best to have a comma.--Golbez 18:45, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Don't remove commas." Why? Log off and you'll see the dates show up properly formatted with commas; adding commas is therefore unnecessary. So my previous comments were incorrect. --Golbez 15:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Any revert of what you do is a destructive edit? I suppose I could say likewise, but I'm not taking offense, just trying to save unnecessary work and clean up the format. And yes, it only effects the edit screen, but you say the edit screen should accurately reflect what the screen shows... how will you explain that to people who use the Day Month Year format? That has no commas. I will not edit an article just to make that change, but I am still bringing up the subject. --Golbez 17:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure day/month/year format matters; it has no comma. :P So changing " January 15 2001" to "January 15, 2001" matters nothing for someone whom will always see it as "15 January 2001". In that case, the presence of commas in the editing may be odd. --Golbez 19:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Konrad Henlein
(context: Orthogonal edited over my work and now seems to think I'm some sort of monster for doing the same to him by reverting)

Who died and left you king of wikipedia?

You revert an edit with "rv, don't edit over all my fixes"? If you think your "fixes" should be sacrosanct, you need to put them on your own web site -- wikipedia's about collaborative editing, not peevishly protecting your particular version of an article.

Surprisingly enough, it's not, in fact, all about "Everyking".

Please go back and either undo you revert or find a compromise solution. -- orthogonal 13:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That certainly was hostile. My edits were spelling fixes, minor grammar improvements and such -- pretty noncontroversial stuff, so I don't think I need my own web page for that. You edited over my changes to the article, so I restored them, because I didn't want the article riddled with the same problems I had already spent several minutes fixing. You're the one responsible for merging the edits, not me. Everyking 00:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was hostile. I think you'll find in life that when you act in a hostile manner, you will receive a hostile response. I replaced your minor improvements with what I thought were improvements as good, or better -- and saw no reason to retain yours. I frankly felt the changes were roughly equivalent, and didn't realize you'd be so personally attached to your own prose.


 * Now, in the face of that, you could have high-mindedly merged back in any changes of your you felt really were superior, or mentioned to me on a talk page that you felt slighted, or in a fit of pique, you could choose to behave hostility and revert. That you chose the latter course, rather than one more moderate or conciliatory, speaks either to an essential lack of maturity or an excessive attachment to your own edits.


 * In either case, it's evidence of a hastiness to anger and a tendency for precipitous action that calls into question your fitness to continue as a wikipedia administrator. If you can so quickly and so easily turn what should be two people both trying to improve an article into a potential edit war because the only response that comes to your mind is to revert with a hostile message, I can't see how you be expected to defuse conflicts between other editors, or be trusted to ban users.


 * If you can't better channel your anger, perhaps it is time for you to reconsider your role on wikipedia. -- orthogonal 13:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You restored spelling mistakes and removed wikification! Everyking 13:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If I did, I didn't notice. Had you pointed that out on a talk page, I'd have humbly apologized and immediately endeavored to correct that. But that is not what you did. Instead, apparently deciding that two wrongs might actually make a right, you wiped out my improvements with a revert with an attached snarky comment. Was that the best way you could see to handle the problem, or were you just being lazy and throwing your weight around?


 * Is that why we elevated you to adminship, to allow you to impose your arbitrary will wherever you feel slighted? To create more hostility because you prefer to begin edit wars rather than discuss matters politely? This is rapidly going beyond the article in question, as you continue to demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise or even consider the possibility of error on your part, to call into question your fitness for the role you play on wikipedia. -- orthogonal 13:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't notice, but you just edited over me with disregard for the standard etiquette that whoever receives the edit conflict should merge the two versions. Anyway, it looked like all you did was split up some paragraphs, which I had already done to a lesser degree, while simultaneously restoring a bunch of problems I had spent several minutes working on. I wouldn't have reverted it if you had actually added content. And I don't see what being an admin has to do with anything, considering I used a standard revert and not a rollback. This seems like much ado about nothing. You're welcome to go back and do whatever work you did over again, as long as you don't restore any bad spelling or remove any useful wikification. Everyking 14:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, had you said that at the time, I wouldn't have taken issue with your actions. This has to do with your being an admin because the principal duty of an admin is to prevent conflict, not to start personal conflicts. That requires a certain maturity, which you insist on not demonstrating. You make this even more clear with your arrogant and dismissively words: " You're welcome to go back and do whatever work you did over again, as long as you,", as long as it's done subject to your conditions. You seem to have some idea that you own wikipedia, or have some right to give commands to other users. I think at minimum you should undo your revert and merge both changes, rather than telling me what I am "welcome" to do. That you think this is "much ado about nothing" simply suggests that your arrogant and bullying conduct is "business as usual" for you. -- orthogonal 14:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Thanks for fixing up the omission, Everyking! -- orthogonal 19:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Edit
Why did you revert my edit on John Connally? It's very valid and I'm adding it back. Mike H 19:41, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your input on the recent changes by "Señor NPOV" on People's Republic of Poland will be helpful (I saw that you made some minor changes to the article). I expect the recent changes to be reverted entirely right away (Adam doesn't take to kindly to POV changes to his work, of course), but I think some of the new content is salvageable. 172 21:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops!

 * James, I'm sorry about the mix-up regarding my administrator nomination. I really didn't know that you'd posed a question to me directly.  Might I impose on you to ask me the question once more so that I can properly answer your concerns?  Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 17:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Malicious Deletion Attempt
Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --Gene_poole 10:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Typos :-(
Thanks for fixing my dreadful typos. Seems I never catch 'em all in preview... Lupo 15:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X edit
Man, you're quick. Thanks for clearing up the aeon thing, I wasn't sure how to fix it. StellarFury 20:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar
James, from the moment I arrived here, I've admired your fantastic edits that truly are what Wikipedia is all about. In honor of your contribuitons, I'm awarding you this barnstar. Display it on your userpage as you see fit. :) --Neutrality 02:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie template
I have to say that I'm embarassed about this whole template thing. I thought it was a good idea at the time, and I'm kicking myself for pushing you on the "oppose" side of the fence. Sorry about causing such a ruckus. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alex Rider
Thanks for helping me clean this somewhat questionable page ;) ··gracefool |&#9786; 03:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GTA
Why did you revert the GTA edit? It sounded rather lame which is why i tried changing it, though I grand you what I put was probably not much better :-) Can you try to come up with something that isn't so bad?

sheer curiosity
I am getting increasingly curious: how do you manage to fetch all my political articles all the time? Mikkalai 21:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)