User talk:AnnaAniston/Archive1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).

Who was Michael K?
Michael [Kazura] was the son of a Pennsylvania mine worker and became an activist in the 1960s, ending up in Ann Arbor MI, home of the SDS and the Weather Underground. He subsequently became involved in union politics, notably in the Industrial Workers of the World [IWW or wobblies] and later helped organize the graduate student assistants at the University of Michigan, eventually leading them out on strike. He was killed in a car crash in the early 1990s. During our visit to Chicago for the 100th anniversary of the Haymarket Event Michael took me to the statueless pedestal and informed me that he knew what had happened to it, but that he would never tell. The picture and the enigmatic caption are a sort of tribute to Michael. Does that belong in an encyclopedia? You be the judge. If you think not, then remove it. Carptrash 21:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed the caption beneath the Michael K picture to insert the appellation "Activist". It now reads : "Activist Michael K at the statueless pedestal of the Policemen Monument, Chicago IL. MK took to his too early grave whatever he knew about the 1969 and 1970 bombings". I think this adequately describes MK's reason to be in the article. He sounds like an interesting chap. I like your story that he 'would never tell' what he knew about the bombings. An An 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the touch-up on the Michael K angle. He was an interesting fellow for sure, as well as a major pain in the ass.  He was born without a compromise or accommodation gear in his personal transmission.  He also had no reverse, so he was always pushing forward.  Usually a good thing, but  .  .  . . . . ...  His most compassionate side was the one he had for his mother, who still lived in Minersville PA [if i remember correctly].  He would fequently drive back to see her and on one of his trip a woman driving the other way on the expressway had an attack of some sort, crossed over the divide and met Michael head on, full speed, just like he had lived his life.  Carptrash 03:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS. Have you checked out my piece on Tina Modotti. You might like her. It needs work. You might be inspired.

W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism
Interesting article. Thanks for adding it. SlimVirgin 22:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

the Ballad of Michael K
I noticed that you had posted at the IWW enty, so, thought I'd try posting a picture here to see if it works. Or, to put it another way, I've never done this kinda thing before. Carptrash 04:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * whoooops. Ingrid was/is his widow. Carptrash 04:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nihilist movement
Hi, An An. I just realised that I didn't change the nihilism page, but the nihilist movement one. Could you have a look at it and see if everything's fine? I need some feedback. Maybe you'll get interested, as it was a precursor of Nabatism. Mr.Rocks 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Narodnaya Volya. They seem to have had their major influence on Ukraine. Also, I reckon they don't mention this much on Wikipedia pages, but the biggest job of those Nihilist-led movements was to distribute banned literature (the Tchaikovsky circles). There is a missing link to Society of Chaikovtsi in Sophia Perovskaya's page. I think they've misspelled it, and I think we should create this page. Kropotkin was active on one of those circles, and he describes it very extensively and positively. Much earlier, even Bakunin seems to have been part of the book smuggling effort as well, before leaving Russia. This was a major thing, and we should refer to that, 'cause it's an important part of the picture. A guy from the portuguese Wikipedia is writing lots of stuff about those XIX century russian movements, and he suggested me a book we have at Jura. Mr.Rocks 05:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Circle of Tchaikovsky is up!!! Don't forget to check all those types mentioned there, especially Sophia Perovskaya. Except for Nechayev, they were all Kropotkin's buddies. Mr.Rocks 12:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Can't add much to the People's Revenge, as I still have to discover how the Circle of Tchaikovsky ended and/or how its former members spread out to form other more radical organisations like Land and Liberty. Ah, and that last one had close ties with the revolutionaries in Kiev, Kharkov and Odessa. Does that ring some bells? Mr.Rocks 08:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge
Hi there! If you want things merged, you can just be WP:BOLD and do so, it doesn't require a VFD vote. Please see merge. Radiant_* 14:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Votes for deletion/Steven Soliah, Votes for deletion/Michael Bortin, Votes for deletion/Russell Little, Votes for deletion/Camilla Hall, Votes for deletion/Willie Wolf, Votes for deletion/James Kilgore, etc: Actually, I'm glad you didn't merge these without a vote, because I think that these articles should be kept as they are. I'm curious as to why you nominated so many good articles to be deleted. Your copy and paste description "They are not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page" doesn't really make much sense. My dictionary defines encyclopedic as comprehensive in terms of information, which many of these articles certainly are. If what you actually meant by "not encyclopedic" was "not worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia", I've got to ask, why? We're trying to build an encyclopedic encyclopedia here. There has been clear consensus that Wikipedia should keep articles on far less "notable" people than these. See WP:BIO. But unfortunately, even though these people all clearly meet the criteria, because you nominated most of them seperately there is a chance you might succeed in getting one or two of them deleted (though most will certainly be kept). And I wonder, how do you think that will improve wikipedia? ~leif &#9786; (talk) 21:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought out reply! While I am throughly convinced that you're acting in good faith, I still strongly disagree with your premise that wikipedia is better served by having this type of article consolidated into a larger main article. Aside from the standard arguments of Wiki is not paper etc, it is especially useful to keep separate articles about people for the metadata I mentioned earlier (most often, the birth/death categories, but also all of the other person-specific categories that are often applied to articles about people). In the future, better browsers will make much more use of type of information... but if there aren't separate articles about a given person, then that person can't have that metadata applied to them. I think that losing this kind of useful semantic metadata hurts wikipedia significantly, and despite your lengthy reply, I still don't understand why you think wikipedia is "better served" by consolidating. Your comment that "The vfd process puts the value of these pages on the collective agenda, it inspires authors/editors to improve them or to cull that which is less than useful." is particularly disturbing — there is Cleanup and other tools for drawing attention to pages, and most of the subjects in wikipedia could be called "less than useful" by some peoples' standards of usefulness. I'd say that these articles are all useful to the person who types one of the subjects' name into the wikipedia search field and finds the article, I don't think any of them met any of the VfD criteria described at Deletion policy. It does look like all of the articles are going to be kept, and only one of them due to lack of consensus... I do hope that this will encourage you not to nominate more high-quality articles for deletion in the future. ~leif &#9786; (talk) 02:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, lets agree to disagree. I am truly sorry if I sounded patronising, that was not my intent but re-reading my comments now I can see how they could be interpreted that way. Happy editing... ~leif &#9786; (talk) 19:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyright
Regarding the image, I usually only upload publicly available police mugshots to crime related articles, however this image doesn't look very mugshot like I must admit. I don't recall where it came from sorry. If it must go, please delete it. -- Longhair | Talk 10:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...then again, this character was known to laugh at his sentence of 55 years. A grin like that doesn't surprise me in a mugshot. Allow me to check :) -- Longhair | Talk 17:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD and the SLA members
I have been closing out a number of the VfD nominations you made about members of the SLA. I agree with your original statement that these people are not significant except for their involvement in the SLA and think that we do our readers the best service by discussing the subjects in their proper context. When you run into this situation next time, may I suggest that you be bold and redirect the articles. Redirects do not have to be decided through VfD and are often far less controversial. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And now I see that you've had this same conversation with others above. As leif's comments make clear, merging can be controversial too.  But those are discussions that get held on the article talk pages and not VfD.  For that reason alone, they tend to be more civil.  Good evening.  Rossami (talk)

Self-induced abortion
Not that I want to nitpick over terms, but you changed "mother" to "woman" in one place, and left it unchanged in other places. I personally hold to the opinion that a pregnant woman is a "mother", and that this status is not at all inconsistent with her having the right to terminate the pregnancy. Either way, I'd like the article to use consistent terminology. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 00:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Well, this could make for an interesting discussion... people have roles that they assume, either volitionally or by their actions. You, for example, are a woman, but also a law student - a role you went to some lengths to acquire (taking the LSAT, applying to law school, etc.). A woman who becomes pregnant usually does so through some intentional, volitional act (though the consequence may be unintended). Since most women who become pregnant do not terminate their pregnancies, they necessarily assume certain duties (e.g., don't drink or smoke or play contact sports) for the benefit of the child which they anticipate having. I opine that the assumption of these duties (or at any rate the decision to go ahead with the pregnancy) are enough to justify the label of motherhood, and that those duties should attach during any period of indecision with respect to the pregnancy. Of course, this somewhat contradicts what I've just said about you being a law student, as you were not one during your preparations for assuming that role, but at least I would not have been amiss to label you as an intended future law student. Also, there was no guarantee that you would be a law student until you received an offer of admission, while there is a fairly high probability that a pregnant woman who chooses to bear a child will, in fact, bear a child. Just my thoughts on it, but thank you for contributing to the article - it's an important topic. Cheers! -- BD2412  talk 00:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on the POV-loadedness of the term. -- BD2412 talk 01:27, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
Hello Anna! We are starting a major project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law to improve and standardize articles in the major areas of law derived from the common law of England (contracts, torts, evidence, etc.). Are you interested in working on this? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
 * Hi. Did you leave a note on my talk page? If so, you were not signed in - if not, please disregard this query. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 01:08 (UTC)
 * Click the "Remember Me" box when you log in, and it won't log you out. -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 14:18 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that U.S. and UK consideration are not all that different - I'm not even sure why we have separate articles on them. Perhaps we could have one article with a section explaining national variations? -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 23:57 (UTC)
 * I'll pitch that to Francis Davey, and to some of the folks who have done a lot of work on the UK version. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Feminazi revert
I reverted to the version I wrote a day or so ago

18:16, 8 July 2005

which is pretty much this one

19:07, 28 June 2005

with some text defining misandry picked up from this one

19:43, 23 June 2005

Trying to accurately described the way the word is used and eliminate the flimsily disguised partisan claims about its appropriateness Monicasdude 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Cat Law Stubs
No problem. :) It's taken me a year to figure out how all the links and stuff work around here. :) Btw, you have two really great blogs, which I stumbled across a little while after stumbling across your user page. :) func (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Advice, please?
I'd like your advice, since you're a regular contributor to rape, and I trust your judgment. I was just writing an article where I used the term rape culture. I wanted to wikilink it, so that readers could get a good explanation of the term and the concept behind it. Thing is, there's no article for it, and on rape, I couldn't find it mentioned, either. I went ahead and made a red link to rape culture, figuring I can put an article together for it tonight or tomorrow or some other time very soon. But then I got to thinking, maybe it would be better to put rape culture in as a section in the rape article. What do you think? Should rape culture go as a section in rape, or should it get its own article? The Literate Engineer 06:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looking at the history and talk pages for rape, and even at the article's contents, I think I'm definitely going to create rape culture instead of putting a section for it in the rape article. The Literate Engineer 19:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

SCUM Manifesto
I'm sorry you're finding me hard to deal with. You're probably used to scaring people with your aggression and tone and don't like being challenged on what you consider to be your territory. Still, I've done nothing but ask you to consider the policies of Wikipedia in your editing and to source your edits rather than fill the article with your own personal opinions. You might find that objectionable in itself but I've been polite enough in doing so.

I haven't said you're not important. I've said that Wikipedia ought not to include the opinions of any of its editors. You are reading that as a personal attack for whatever reason. I am not "trying to shoot you down". I've taken account of what you said -- I even removed a sentence you felt was objectionable -- and I'm perfectly happy with what we have now. Clearly, you're not, but if you want to claim that the manifesto is "satirical", I don't think it's unreasonable that you cite someone saying so, rather than insist the article should say so because you think it's plain that it is. Philip Arthur 05:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Law getting on the move!
Hi. Please join the discussion at Portal talk:Law - we're getting things off the ground for featured articles, pictures, cases, and a collaboration of the week! -- BD2412 talk 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Law student Wikipedians
Heya, I've created Category:Law student Wikipedians - thought you might want to add yourself to it. BD2412 T 02:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

so .   .   .  .  .  .  . . . . . . . . ...................
does it make me a small-minded Americans who can't conceive of himself as part of a larger world if I correct typos on your user page? Carptrash 09:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There. The deed is done.  Carptrash 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Poem A Tribute and a Claim
Please update me, but are poems relevant to an article not Wiki eligible ?I have seen them elsewhere within an article, is there a difference ? See Buttevant, origins of the name. Is there any way around the issue ? Or have you the authority to delete on the grounds that it is a poem and not a text article ? Thanky for clarifying Osioni 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC),

I am in possession of the original (signed) A Tribute and a Claim document (happens to be written by my grandfather) What is the Wikisource ? Osioni 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand, that is a possibility. I am just trying to find a section where I acn place it. I suppose I can just copy and paste ?.

Is there then afterwards a way of linking from a Wikipedia page to a Wikisource page ? . Osioni 15:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again AnAn, I have set up a page in the Wikisource for Author:D.D. Sheehan, and transfered this poem to it. The links between it and the Wikipedia work fine. Thank you for your suggestion and help. You may now delete A Tribute and a Claim from the Wikipedia. Greetings Osioni 22:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

taking cases yet?
Welcome back skippy - max rspct  leave a message  13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)