User talk:Ardonik/Summer 2004

I added this text only so that I could watch my discussions page.

Oh. It's already watched by default. My mistake. Ardonik 09:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check out...
...what I wrote at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Template messages. I showed this to several other Wikipedians and still no one has responded. 66.245.23.108 00:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but I don't think it's necessary. Placed my response in the talk page above.  --Ardonik 01:02, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Kirk/Spock Slash
The relevance of the slash fiction xref for the articles on Kirk and Spock is that Kirk/Spock slash is thought to constitute the earliest specimens of this kind of fiction. ShutterBugTrekker 15:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * But if a reference to slash fiction is relevant there, why isn't it relevant for every other fictional character article, such as Uhura, Harry Potter, "Bones" McCoy, or Data? Would you see a reference like that on a regular encyclopedia Star Trek almanac?  I think it's pointless, but if you want to put it back, I won't revert.  --Ardonik 22:04, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I hereby overrule my own objection. I recently discovered that the Harry Potter article, too, mentions slash fiction; I guess there's really no good reason to reject its mention from the Star Trek articles at the same time.  --Ardonik 10:33, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I might know a lot about the Star Trek episodes and movies, but I know very little about fanfiction. I've read about Kirk/Spock slash, but I have never actually read any slash fiction. ShutterBugTrekker 16:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent not-even-a-stub articles
Hi there Ardonick. You are right, my comments should be on the talk page: that is what it is for. However I have found that putting my question at the top of the article is an extremely effective way of getting quick answers. I feel that Wikipedia has a bit of problem wiith writers who are so engrossed in their subject that they dive right in without a proper introduction as seen in the articles you mentioned. My questions are intended to provoke that introduction. Cheers  ping 10:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If your technique wasn't effective, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now, would we? :-)  I fully agree with your sentiment.  No harm done.  --Ardonik 10:33, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sometimes being right "in yer face" works.   ping 10:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey
Hey I read your note and decided that I will try to add on. I found Ulla was a Asherite, but he wasn't mentioned very much in the Bible.


 * Hi, Spl2. I hope I didn't come across as harsh when I asked for the article to be fleshed out more; if I knew anything at all about Ulla, I would have done so myself.  Searching online, all I can really see are mentions in biblical concordances.  The most "informative" link I found was here!  I'll keep looking.  --Ardonik 18:38, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Melancthon W. Jacobus, D.D. (former dean and Hosmer Professor of the New Testament Exegesis and Criticism, emeritus, from Hartford Theological Seminary): Ulla: the ancestor of a family of Asher (1st Chronicles 7:39


 * I don't think you will find ANY more on Ulla, so I'd call that article finished / remove the stub labelPedant 06:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Deletionist that I am, I'd rather see a red link than a substub, but I guess Ulla will just have to stay as it is for the time being. --Ardonik 06:35, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
On Sarajevo, though you had the edit summary of "rv vandalism", you added in a whole bunch of advertising links. I'm hoping that wasn't deliberate. Ambivalenthysteria 06:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who added them &mdash; the anonymous user before me did. I must have reverted to the wrong version, for which I apologize.  (I'm on "anonymous vandal patrol" tonight.)  --Ardonik 06:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, I figured so. Ambivalenthysteria 06:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Be Bold
Please feel free to use my "Be Bold" image however you like! -- Wapcaplet 15:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Outstanding. Thank you!  --Ardonik 18:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Taking you up on IRC help offer
I did read the IRC article. I think I have a general idea of what it is and how to use it when it is set up. However I couldn't find any details of how to get started and set it up. I'm on Win XP using internet explorer via a verizon DSL connection. Do I have to download new software or is this a function in IE? Do I need to change settings in the control panel internet settings section? What is the first step for setting it up? Thanks for your patience. Alteripse 19:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Put some instructions on your talk page. Keep in mind that I'm using XChat right now, not Gaim, but I trust Gaim will be easy enough for you to figure out.  --Ardonik 20:07, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm partway there. See my talk page. Alteripse 20:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not only did you make it to #Wikipedia, but you copied my instructions to the IRC page to help others in the same situation. Mazel Tov!  --Ardonik 02:51, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Said change was reverted a short while later :-) --Ardonik 19:29, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

VfD Footer
Just to clarify, the change in the VfD instructions from Votes for deletion/PAGENAME to PAGENAME/vfd was deliberate and in response to repeated complaints that it made maintenance harder. The decision to move the "add to this discussion" link out of the header line was also deliberate because it kept causing the table of contents to fail and the link in the VfD header (that is supposed to take you directly to the relevant entry instead of just to the top of the VfD page) to fail. I'm okay with the reversion if it wasn't working, but I would like to know what went wrong. It seemed to work the several times I tested it. Thanks. Rossami 02:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. It looks like I screwed up; tell me what to fix and I'll fix it.  --Ardonik 02:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt message back. There's no rush and maybe no need to change anything. I'm okay with it either way but was trying to be responsive to the requests of others on the VfD Talk page and on the VfD footer page. My thoughts are below. I don't see an obvious "right" answer. Rossami


 * Should the "add to this discussion" link be on the same line?
 * Pros: Takes up less space, automatically gets bolded
 * Cons: The header link is really hard to make work right, the TOC is cluttered


 * Should the sub-page be a sub of the VfD page or a sub of the article? (Either way, the new Deletion process requires us to keep the page and not copy the discussion anywhere.)
 * VfD page: more text to type (or mistype)
 * Article : discussion shows up on Special:Newpages, links won't break when moved to VfD/Old


 * Replied on your talk page. In short: "probably yes" to the first (provided subst:vfd links to the subpage directly), and "subpage of the article itself" for the second.  --Ardonik 19:38, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Homework
It's hard to get it across sometimes in text, but my response on the Ref Desk was, at least on this end, laced with sarcasm. ;) See you around, Mark Richards 16:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I knew that.  :-)  --Ardonik 19:15, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

User:Patricknoddy
I just saw your post on his talk page. It wasn't caustic or anything, but you do realize that he is seven years old, right? Mike H 14:56, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I normally speedy-delete junk contributions by anonymous users, so I thought it would be more appropriate to leave a message on the user's talk page before he wondered what happened to his article.  It may also encourage him to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.  Patrick seems pretty bright for a 7-year-old.  --Ardonik 06:02, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright astronomy images
You found Whirlpool Galaxy, I found Andromeda Galaxy. He may have more... see Special:Contributions/Freelancer_lsf. -- Curps 02:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I left a message on his talk page. I hope the images can be replaced; I thought they were quite lovely.  --Ardonik 03:01, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gohdan
Oh, I understand your concern and personally think such articles should be merged (if not deleted; but one must be careful with such talk or risk being labelled a deletionist! *gasp*). In the case of Gohdan, I'd merge it with The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. But like you, I've no knowledge of the series and wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. VfD is the best option, but from what I've seen, it'll probably end up being kept or merged, though perhaps someone who knows Zelda will see the listing and do the merge.

In either case, I hope I've not discouraged you from using the CSD tag. It's a very useful way of making sure nothing gets overlooked, and I appreciate your efforts. Cheers, -- Hadal 03:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess for now, I'll just leave the articles as they are and sneer at them from afar.  (By the way: as far as I can tell, you're the first Wikipedian to actually put their message inside this div!)  --Ardonik 03:33, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Kerry Photo
Look, it's a commercial photo. If we get to use it under fair use, what photo could we possibly not get to use? Why have copyright at all? The burden of proof is on us to argue why a recent commercial photo can be used in the Wiki under fair use. I have no knowledge of where the other photo came from, that's why I didn't delink it. Why do you call me dishonest? I said nothing about my motivations for delinking. All I said was that it was a copyrighted picture, which it very clearly is.
 * Hi, User:67.180.24.204. I saw your message at Copyright problems, and I have replied to you there.  The gist of it is that I will accept that you're more concerned about copyvio than you are about Image:Kerry.4CF2.jpg's controversial nature (though you still have yet to remove the second image on Alexandra Kerry, for some reason), but I won't revert your removal again.  Let's wait for some more input.  --Ardonik 05:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you know the source of the second image? I don't, so I haven't removed it.  I'm curious since you question my motivations: Why don't you question the motivation of those who included the image and spent more than half the text talking about it?  I suspect it's either a horny 15-year old or a right-wing nutcase.  But, frankly I think such a triviality has no place in an encyclopedia; this is not a gossip column.  I don't care that it's controversial; I just find it completely tangential to the purpose of the Wiki.  I was thinking about arguing that point, but figured it wasn't really worth the effort.  But then, I noticed the attibution to AFP & realized we shouldn't be using the photo anyway.  Even if I wanted the photo to stay, I would have unlinked it at that point.
 * Good point &mdash; I assumed that both images were from Agence France Presse based on the comments by Johnleemk in the article's talk page. Upon further examination, it's clear that the Snopes article only refers to the first one as being from AFP and makes no mention of the origins of the second.


 * As for questioning the motivations of those who included the image in the first place, I think that the incident at the Cannes film festival was newsworthy enough that at least a cursory mention should have been made of it in the article, and without an image, there is no context for such a discussion. As you can read in the talk page, I did not feel that the image was dignified, but upon re-reading the article, I realized its relevance.  That's why I did not remove it myself and why I reverted your changes when you removed it.  I dislike censorship, and I interpreted your actions as such.  It appears that I was mistaken, and I apologize for that.  But I would still like the image to remain in the article; I feel that we are at least as much in our rights to use it as Snopes.


 * I'm no conservative--my loathing of President Bush runs very deep. However, I do not feel that including that image represents either a pro-Bush statement or that it somehow smears John Kerry.  The woman is independent--she does not represent or explify the political ambitions of either her father or stepmother.  Her photo at the festival, while unfortunate, has nothing to do with Kerry's presidential campaign.  I feel that we should truthfully report what happened in a NPOV and then simply leave it at that.


 * In any case, we've both laid out our cases, and I'm willing to let the community decide. --Ardonik 06:51, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Shouldn't categories be more broad than the articles they contain? (Thus Music notation would not be in Category:Music notation but, the next level up, Category:Music, least of which because of the obviousness) Hyacinth 22:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's just the opposite--an article ought to only be classified in the most specific categories possible, so that you can always "drill down" from an article to the next lowest category, no matter where you are. I recall reading this somewhere in the Wikipedia: namespace, but I forget where.


 * It makes sense to me to do it this way, because
 * It would bloat the broader categories if we put every article there, and
 * If there are a bunch of articles in the Musical notation category, then it stands to reason that Musical notation should also be there so that it can link to them. Then we can simply put the entire Category:Musical notation into Category:Music in a single stroke.
 * Just my opinion, but I think it is a reasonable one. --Ardonik 22:25, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Great points. You probably read the suggestion at: Categorization. I am editing so as to make this more clear. Hyacinth 23:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha, there it is. Thank you!  --Ardonik 23:20, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I wonder
It seems that you have eaten your cat

&#1071; &#1089;&#1098;&#1077;&#1083; &#1084;&#1086;&#1102; &#1082;&#1086;&#1096;&#1082;&#1091;. Two can play at the "end on a language quip" game! --Ardonik 03:59, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

is it true? Are you the legendary cat eater of &#1075;&#1088;&#1080;&#1073;&#1099;? &#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;? &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  05:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (Ardonik snickers.) Alas, no, it isn't true. I took a class in Russian a while ago, and though I've forgotten much, things like "I ate my grandfather" (&#1071; &#1089;&#1098;&#1077;&#1083; &#1084;&#1086;&#1102; &#1076;&#1077;&#1076;&#1091;&#1096;&#1082;&#1091;) and "I ate my cat" are easy enough to remember.  I've also learned how to say the cat phrase in French, German, Telugu, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, and Hindi, but I can't write in any of those languages, so I cannot type it out for you.  Now, what's this about legendary cat eaters?!  --Ardonik 06:00, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * Umm...nothing? I natively speak russian, but I don't have a cyrillic keyboard, so I can't show you much. Also, why can't you type French, German, or spanish in english letters? Aren't the basically the same (aside from accents and the double-s thing that looks like a beta in german) &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  20:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Get Linux, friend! (Or at least the gnome-character-map application.)  Typing in all of the world's languages isn't the problem--it's that I can't spell in any language but English!  In French, it's "Je mange mon chat" (sp?)  In German, it's "Ich essen meine katzen" (sp?)  In Spanish, it's "Yo come mi gato" (sp?)  Beyond that, I can't even venture to guess at the spelling.  --Ardonik 22:32, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * You have a place where I can get that gnome-character-map for Windows? I can only find it for Linux, but I don't use my distro of Linux for internet. &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  04:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Belay, that request/order/etc. I found an on-screen keyboard! [User talk:Ilyanep#Some Russian to Myself|See for yourself]] &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  05:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. There's also start->run->charmap.exe.  If you have a more recent version (greater than '98?), you can simply click on "advanced view," select Unicode, group by->Unicode subrange, find the Cyrillic subrange, and then click away.  Not as fast as your solution (which is also faster than gnome-character-map), but it does the trick when you're in a hurry.  --Ardonik 05:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a quick tip...don't add the closing tag for the 'div' that makes your page blue (I didn't remove it, but you can) therefore when people click the 'plus' by 'edit this page' the background will always be blue because the div never ends (I do the same thing with the table on my talk page). &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  20:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * But if I didn't close the DIV, the page's markup wouldn't validate! You're supposed to close tags in XHTML.  (Also, until you pointed it out to me just now, I didn't realize what that "+" was for!)  --Ardonik 22:32, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * I didn't know DIV was XHTML! I thought it was plain n simple HTML. Happy to help with the + tho. :) &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  04:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texifying expressions
Hi, we generally don't texify inline math expressions; i.e. we only texify them if the entire line of text is math mode. Otherwise, the result is often visually ugly. This is discussed on the mathproject talk page. I realise you probably just didn't know, so it's cool. Revolver 09:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My mistake.  Replied on your talk page.  --Ardonik 17:53, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * Update: proposal created in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. --Ardonik 19:31, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

I reverted line bundle back to TeXified. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I find that I can't decide which TeXifying camp I belong too. I definitely agree with most of your comments on the talk page, but also think that inline expressions can be a bit ugly. I reverted since I'm not prepared to begin arguing with any user at this early stage in my WiKareer. Best, mat_x 21:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be afraid to voice your opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with me or anyone else, be bold!  --Ardonik 21:20, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Dog article--you deleted the caption
...when you did whatever you did to the Elkhound picture.

I'm not reverting because you say that it was hard to fix, but can you put the caption back? Thanks Quill 23:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I'll try to restore it.  --Ardonik 00:02, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)


 * On the same topic--I'm trying to figure out what it was that you were fixing. I had to put back the "none" in the image markup or else the image sat off center, meaning that now the only change is 1 pixel of size difference. I looked at the revision before your edits in firefox and it looked fine, so I'm just dying of curiosity what the issue was. Inquiring minds want to know! Elf | Talk 02:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm using Mandrake Linux 9.1, and under my Firefox (9.1 again), the image did not display at all--just the caption.  I was curious, because the markup showed that there was obviously an image there, so I tried to restore it on my system, evidently much to the consternation of others.  It looks like there's some sort of 250px threshold for...something...for some reason.
 * I'm not quite sure what's going on, or how to fix it so it works for everyone. --Ardonik 04:59, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the dog image displays fine for me now, so I guess it's best not to touch it again. --Ardonik 05:07, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)


 * You notice that I didn't touch it. :-) So now I'm curious whether you have a problem with any of the dog breed articles, which all have a 250px image width. Pick any--Boxer (dog), Australian Shepherd, or any from the List of dog breeds.  (I'm using some version of firefox on the Mac occasionally, so results may vary--)  Elf | Talk 00:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Australian Shepherd, Boxer, and Bulldog work fine; do I really have to go through the entire list? :-/  --Ardonik 02:32, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
 * Only if you want to! ;-) Elf | Talk 19:01, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello
I got into a dispute with you maybe a week ago about copyright on the semi-nude Kerry photo. I was brand new then, and may not have handled it the best way. I still agree with my earlier position, but I just wanted to apologize if I seemed snarky to you. Regards, Wolfman 05:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You didn't seem snarky to me at all. You had a legitimate point, your arguments were well thought out, and you demonstrated that my initial assumptions about the photo were incorrect.  I tend to argue a lot; there's no need to make amends for that!  --Ardonik 05:46, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Do you mean my joke sock-puppettry?
I was annoyed at apparent sockpuppetry in the Votes for deletion/Ewnion, Ontario discussion, and chose to express this in a way that I thought would be clearly understood as a joke. Because my "sockpuppets" did not actually cast votes, and were given "giveaway" names and very short "opinions" that immediately followed by own, because they were not actual usernames but simply links to a subpage&mdash;User:Dpbsmith/sockpuppet, I did not think they were harmful.

If they offended you, my apologies. Would you like me to remove these lines from the discussion? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's my mistake. I really thought someone was trying to attack you with sock puppets!  As you know, true kookery is often indistinguishable from parodies thereof.
 * You can keep the comments; I'll post a correction. Sorry about that.  --Ardonik 10:05, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Plainsong
Hi Ardonik, I noticed your comment about adding to plainsong and I think that's a great idea--and thanks for pointing out the mistaken redirect (I fixed it) since Gregorian chant is a subtype of plainsong/plainchant and not the same thing at all. Do you think the major article should be a plainsong or plainchant? Feel free to fix it if you have a preference. I'm glad to see there is at least one other wikipedian interested in this stuff. Best wishes, Antandrus 14:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) I'm an engineer by trade, so my knowledge of the subject is limited, but I'd love to learn more. Plainchant in all its forms is such beautiful music. To underscore my point, I hope to eventually upload a few public-domain .ogg files for these articles. That comes later, though; for the time being, I shall wade back into the flames of the VfD. --Ardonik 20:31, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * My preference is plainsong (with a redirect from plainchant), as plainchant and Gregorian Chant are easily confused. To make matters more interesting, there appears to be a (Catholic?) movement to have the genre renamed to "Gregorian Chant," dismissing "plainchant" as a neologism designed to deflect the importance of the Church in establishing and promoting the genre.  However, there are a number of musical scholars who disagree with this perspective.  I learned about the issue through a series of web pages; I sorely wish I had preserved the links to them!  I'll try to dig them up and add the information to the plainsong article.

Wikisource:User talk:Pedant
Wikisource:User talk:Pedant thanks for the advice... I was just looking for that info. Please glance at my talk page on wikisource and give me some advice on format, and file structure/heirarchy and a naming convention for subpages - for this 'Capital'/das Kapital project. (not a marxist, just was on the request page)

(specific question: as downloaded, this included the text string 'Marx's greatest work' - should be deleted, No?)

(also the title: Capital? or das Kapital?)Thanks!!!!Pedant 06:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) Of course, the POV "greatest work" thing will have to go. I think the title should be "Das Kapital," since we tend to keep the original foreign language titles (from what I've seen.) --Ardonik 06:25, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) the original is already in chapters, so I am just going to put it on the same way to make it easier to compare to the original source. Das Kapital it is, then. I'm using html-kit out of familiarity, if you can suggest a better - or favorite one that would be great. It's not intended that there be links within the text to external (not part of das Kapital) links? correct? as this is a historic document and not a wikipedia article? Pedant 06:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. You may have an easier time importing the whole thing in one blow and then wikifying the headers and such one by one, instead of importing one chapter at a time.  But who knows?  Your way may work better.  (I tend to use automated text replacement when I want to wikify huge excerpts of text; see, for instance, Wikisource:Talk:Powers of two.)
 * thanks.
 * My understanding is that we are strongly discouraged from editing original sources (except to make them easier to navigate, as you are doing.) As I wouldn't even copyedit a single spelling error, I'm pretty sure adding links is not a good idea.  As for tools to convert plaintext to formatted HTML, I tend to do it the hard way by writing custom programs.  I'm starting to accumulate quite a few of these, and they're only good for one article.  I may have to look into HTML-kit one of these days, but programming parsers keeps the brain exercised.  :-)  --Ardonik 08:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Helmholtz Watson
The substub was incomprehensible, yes. If I'm remembering high school lit correctly (it wasn't THAT long ago)...he was a character from Brave New World. Mike H 02:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I read Brave New World a while back and I don't remember the character. I do remember the dumb ending, though:
 * "...He loved Big Brother."
 * "...He loved Big Brother."
 * "...He loved Big Brother."


 * Dumb, dumb, dumb! I didn't like the book, but it's uncanny how quickly the future seems to marching in the direction Orwell predicted.  --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 02:59, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I liked the moral of the story: Soma is good. Everyone should be a hobag. Mike H 03:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Article deletion
Dear Ardonik,

Thank you for the helpful pointers.

Is this the correct way to contact you?

How else may we defend the piece we contributed from deletion?

66.82.9.79 02:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)Camilla Van Sickle & Bill Pennington hotsprings@el-dorado.com

In order for the article to stand, it will need to be wikified--that is, brought in line with the standards that the community has adopted for other articles on the Wikipedia. The community will often do this for you, if some kind editor can see the potential in a raw article, but what are we supposed to do when we can't see that potential? That's what VfD (Votes for deletion) is for; in addition to being a chopping block for articles without encyclopedic merit, VfD is a place where many articles have been beaten into a workable form out of sheer desperation. It happens to many people, so please don't feel as though this process is singling you out. I was the one who nominated the page for deletion, so I do not feel that I am eligible to vote for either its retention or its deletion. As I know next to nothing about the topic at hand, I can only offer you my personal opinion.
 * (This is in regards to the Naturist hot springs article.) This is indeed the correct way to contact me, or any other Wikipedian (though it's our talk pages that you should edit rather than our home pages.  No big deal.)  We generally don't respond to people by e-mail, so there's no need to sign with your address.
 * First, I think that throwing around the term "naturist" and implying that ancient Native Americans considered themselves naturists is not helping anyone understand your intent. There also appears to be some confusion here between naturalism, which is the study of nature, and naturism, which is the term modern nudists prefer to "nudism."  I think that the focus should instead be on how Native Americans used hot springs and what specific religious rites were associated with them.
 * Secondly, I think that the meat of your article ought to become a section of the hot springs article. As contributors to hot spring publications, I'm sure you two have plenty of useful material to add.  Don't feel as though any text currently on the Hot springs article is sacred; Wikipedians exhort contributors to be bold in updating pages.  Your changes will, of course, be mercilessly edited later by others whom we also exhort to be bold.  We usually like the results.
 * Third, whether the article is merged or stands on its own, I think it could be vastly improved by references that allowed for independent substantiation. Add a ==References== section to the article for specific citations, or a ==Further reading== section so that people can learn more about the history of hot springs and ancient societies.  No specific citation format needs adhering to as long as you provide enough information for people to find the material.  We really like ISBN codes, though, if you have 'em.  --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 05:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Your Deletion of my Mozilla Firefox link
Ardonik, firstly can I say thanks for the respectful and informative message you left regarding the deletion of my link.

Admittedly my link is down to my own POV. I felt compelled to respond to the disparity between the IE / Firefox encyclopaedia entries. As you've seen IE has had more than its fair share of condemnation on this site and I merely wanted to highlight the fact that Firefox is not invulnerable.

I respect your decision and will abide to better etiquette in my future submissions

Thanks.

Chris Beach chrisbeach.co.uk
 * Hmm. Reading over my comments again makes it look as though I'm some sort of final authority that must be consulted before any new external link is added to Mozilla Firefox.  I hope that's not how I came across--you shouldn't feel compelled to avoid an edit just because some fellow called "Ardonik" didn't like it, and if you disagree with him, by all means revert his stupid changes and leave a comment on the article's talk page!  That said, I do see the point that you were trying to make, and I think the best solution to the problem will be to remove the POV additions from Internet Explorer.  The article as it stands now essentially condemns the browser, and though (1) I don't like MSIE, and (2) the things the article is saying are essentially true, we'd do better to report IE's flaws and benefits from a neutral point of view.  It'll be a challenge for an anti-Microsoftie like me.  --Ardonik.talk 00:32, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Whirpool Galaxy image
Err... it's on the same page of the article: That's NASA's APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day). Good resource. Here's the image credit:


 * Credit: N. Scoville (Caltech), T. Rector ( (NOAO) et al., Hubble Heritage Team, NASA

In other words, PD-USGov.

&mdash;Joseph | Talk 01:41, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * But then see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/about_apod.html#srapply, which states that images are credited to the owner or institution that made them. Who owns the image, NASA (which is PD-USGov), the Hubble Heritage Team (definitely PD-USGov, see ), NOAO (probably NoncommercialProvided with a copyright notice), or CalTech?  Maybe we can assume PD-USGov because of the Hubble Heritage link?  And how should it be cited?  --Ardonik.talk 01:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Writing about oneself
Hi, Thanks for your comments to my page -- I still don't know whether dialogues should be in User or Talk or replied back to the person making the comment -- it's veddy confusing....

In any case, a couple of months ago I wrote some comments about people submitting articles about themselves that I posted in one of my own pages, and also in a Wiki group that evidently argues about this sort of thing -- right now I can't find that group so I'll just copy what I wrote on my own page:


 * [I do realize the problems with high school students and so forth writing vanity articles about themselves] ...but I *do* think that Wikipedia ought to be encouraging living people to writing about themselves in a substantial way, however, even though this may seem like vanity to others. For instance, right now, the American author Allen Drury, who wrote the famous (and wonderful) Advise and Consent and a *ton* of other books only has a 1-line entry about him. He died a year or so ago at age 90, more or less. It would be nice if someone like him had written several thousand (or more) words about his career, as seen by himself. Now that perspective is lost forever. I think that most people who actually *have* a career, or achievements, worthy of writing about will tend to be over-diffident about themselves if anything. I think that the "vanity" factor that a lot of Wikians worry about is overstated.
 * Since writing the above I've seen a lot more real vanity articles inserted and then deleted but basically I haven't changed my opinion that people ought to be able to write articles about themselves, as long, of course, as it's done in a dispassionate and neutral fashion. In the couple of months that I've been hanging out in WP I've run across dozens of people whose lives ought to be in these (electronic) pages and who don't even have a stub about them.  Wouldn't it be nice to have Jack Kramer and Pancho Segura, two great old tennis players who are now close to 80, give us some of their perspective?  And there are innumerable thriller writers who are also either v. old or recently dead that it would be nice to hear from.  The true vanity articles can easily be seen for what they are and then be deleted.  But once a Jack Kramer, or Allen Drury, or (you name your own favorite but relatively obscure S.F. author) is gone, then a lot of priceless info is gone too....
 * Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, and I'd be glad to hear your comments if you'd care to give them. It's a situation, I think, in which there can never be any hard and fast rule to apply to all cases, but I think we want to take care that WP doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  (For instance, this asshole Wile has edited out what I wrote about Heinlein saying that "Harsh Mistress" was his best book.  I put my own name in there because someone else had said earlier that this comment had no attribution to it and had deleted it.  So if this comment is allowed to stand deleted, either because my name is there, or because my name isn't there, then WP has lost an important fact, I think: What Heinlein actually thought about his own books....) Best, Hayford Peirce 20:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal comments
Please do not post your opinions about me as off-topic comments on discussion pages. They clutter and de-rail the discussion at hand. Please use my Talk page instead. Thank you. -- Netoholic @ 01:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Do that, and from now on, my comments about your conduct will go on your talk page (or to RFC, as the case may be.) --Ardonik.talk 01:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) But removing VfD notices is still vandalism, and the fact remains that you rarely make attempts to reach consensus with aforementioned cabal. (Say, am I part of it? I started in June.)  But that's not all--you delete some people's comments and respond to others, you act self-righteous, and your repeated edits border on trolling or vandalism. It's sad, because you make good contributions elsewhere and sometimes you even provide useful input in VfD. Alas that your single-mindedness on this one issue clouds your ability to reason with others who are just as rational as you are. Netoholic, there is no cabal. I don't think any useful reform of VfD will stem from your input at this rate. There, I got that off my chest, and there's no chance you'll "refactor" my words here. --Ardonik.talk 01:50, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) I'm a self-described deletionist, but I find archinclusionism to be just as silly as archdeletionism, and I've yet to see you vote to delete any article (you seem to prefer to abstain from voting on crap articles that aren't candidates for speedy.) Me, I see a VfD process that works beautifully, though the bloatedness cannot be denied, and is bound to get worse in the near future. It will be great if we can get the "VfD enthusiasm" transplanted to Cleanup or Requested Articles, but the VfD system as it stands is a great way to clean up the Wikipedia. That you seem to think that almost everyone participating in the VfD process is doing something wrong is why we're having this exchange. --Ardonik.talk 02:13, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I find comments about your behavior on the VfD subpages to be relevant within them. Nevertheless, your request is a fair one and I will comply with it, provided you can do me a favor in turn: please cease at once your off-putting refactorings, VfD subversion, and the lectures you deliver to people who dare to vote delete.  As someone noted earlier this weekend, you're beginning to piss a lot of people off.  I know you'll see that as a personal attack, but it really is true, and I can provide proof.
 * I have challenged the other editors to show me any policy I am directly violating. I cannot find one. Any comment about me, specifically opinion rather than verified actions I performed, will be removed for the reasons I mentioned. I see a solid team of VfD regulars who are opposed to my ideals, and are uniformly challenging my right to improved articles in any way possible in order to prevent deletion. If those other editors had done half the work I am, they would have my respect and quickly realize that they are abusing VfD by listing fixable articles. Its sad that some of them fish Special:Newpages and list first versions of articles on VfD.  I consider that lazy action, since doing the research and making improvement is what is needed.  I am not the only one that feels this way, and you can see many VfD listings being challenged by other users now. -- Netoholic @ 01:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's what you see.  I see a lone Wikipedian who fancies himself a maverick of sorts, fighting against what he perceives as a cabal united against him (perhaps by blood oath?)  You don't like VfD, you don't like the people who regularly participate in VfD, you don't like the votes they make.  They're lazy, unwilling to make the Wikipedia better, unmotivated, rabid deletionists, a Good Old Boy's Club, stupid bloody fools.  Okay.  Good and well.
 * Nah, I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories. All I see is that the VfD process has become bloated, and noone seems willing to make the minimal effort to improve bad articles rather than "thumbs down".  -- Netoholic @ 01:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ignoring, of course, the arguments from myself and others that not everything that isn't a candidate for speedy deserves an article or even a redirect on the Wikipedia. Some articles are crap, and have to go.  If this were the TriviaPedia instead of the Wikipedia, perhaps less stringent standards for inclusion could be adopted--having an article on everything that anyone bothered to wikify or somesuch.
 * Aforesaid off-putting refactorings continue in Votes for deletion/Redgrave speech. How long do you think you'll be able to act unilaterally before an RfC is written on you?  I wrote to RickK on that page (though you subsequently deleted my comment) that I did not agree with him blocking you, that you made valuable contributions, and that attempts should have been made to reach consensus with you on your talk page first.  But I'm starting to think that I was wrong on all three counts.  --Ardonik.talk 16:41, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Aum
Pls. feel free to remove Aum. Pls see my reply at my talk page. The torus looks awesome.--Jondel 02:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks (x 2). --Ardonik.talk 02:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Image:FahreinHype_9/11
i am waiting for that movie webmaster's reply
 * Hi, User:*drew. Replied on your talk page.  --Ardonik.talk 19:04, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

"I am sick of the solace of sorrow..."
I am afraid you are the victim of a prank.

"Aloysius Charles Swinburne" is supposed to be the tipoff that there is something dodgy about that stanza; I think I may have also posted it once and attributed it to "Winceburn." Some of the postings in alt.quotations begin with the line "And who could possibly remember," which is also intended to be a tipoff, as one might say "who could possibly forget" a famous quotation, but nobody could possibly remember a fake one. I probably should have included one of those tipoffs in my posting.

Anyway, I wrote it, and that's all there is&mdash;it's not part of anything longer. Please do not include it in any Wikipedian main namespace. If you feel that you must, indicate that it's a parody and attribute it to "Author unknown" or "anonymous." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather clever for something that was intended to be a prank. I like the way it rolls off the tongue.  It's a worthy poem!  If you don't want it put up anywhere, I will respect your wishes, but I do ask for one small favor: can I put it up in an infobox on my main page, attributed to anonymous (or whatever entity you prefer?)  --Ardonik.talk 16:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * You could have made a nice living 120 years ago writing knock-offs of the real article -- I sure couldn't tell the difference.... Hayford Peirce 17:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Firefox and external links
hi there. i see what your saying, and i didn't know it had been put up and removed already (and recently). i assume you know about the content of the site. i still don't really see it as a silly 'fan site' as it is there to inform about firefox. still, i wont put it back up as you seem to really want to keep a tight ship. i understand. I think I'm going to blame TechTV for this. Apparently, they promoted this spreadfirefox.com site in a recent show, so a bunch of totally random, well-meaning people now think the Mozilla Firefox article automatically deserves a link to it. Were you lured to the spreadfirefox site by TechTV, too? Spreadfirefox.com's advertising is aggressive, but it seems to be better at tooting its own horn than aiding the cause. Time will tell if my words prove true, but in the meantime, I can use all the help I can get to keep the "fanlinking" from overwhelming the article like it did last time. --Ardonik.talk 06:19, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, JoeSmack. Thanks for understanding.  I don't have anything against the page, but as you know, Google indexes us heavily, so the Wikipedia should not provide free advertising for non-notable sites (that's strike one), spreadfirefox.com is recent and not yet notable (that's strike two), and the external linking on the Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla articles tends to get waaaaaay out of hand (that's strike three.)  I know that everyone means well, but we really have to fight to restrict those areticles to being just encyclopedia articles and not Mozilla community portals.  Strangely, no other web browser articles have this problem with "fanlinking."

Surrealism
The article was already intact. The vested self interest is dominated by Daniel Boyer and his friends vested self interest in monopolizing surrealism and how it is presented to the public. I do not like to be falsely categorized as a, "vandal" by you, which is just another form of attacking my edits to preserve the integrity of the surrealism article. Also, please do not force your position in such an adverserial manner. I only edit the Surrealism article since I desire the information to be intact. If reggae is considered surrealism than so are the people that I mention in my edits. Please be fair.


 * If you would actually bother to read the article you will see that it does not state that "reggae is surrealism". --Daniel C. Boyer 17:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's just that I don't take kindly to people who ruin articles by deleting large amounts of material, substituting vague edit summaries for actual attempts to reach consensus; you must understand that we have far too many actual vandals here who behave the same way. I was, in fact, thinking of reporting you to Vandalism in progress in order to prevent you from altering Surrealist movement in the United States again. But now that you're here and evidently willing to engage in dialogue, I will not pursue that line of action. Let's drop negative remarks like "kook" (that was me) and "vested interest" (that was you), take the conversation to Talk:Surrealist Movement in the United States, and get this edit war settled once and for all. --Ardonik.talk 18:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:63.169.104.2. My understanding is that you appear to have an axe to grind with User:Daniel C. Boyer, requiring photographic proof of the existence of some of the groups mentioned in Surrealist Movement in the United States.  Quite frankly, my opinion of your edits has diminished since I learned that Daniel was an actual surrealist painter and began conversing with him &mdash; what reason do we have to doubt that what he added is true?  At one point, I called you a "kook" on Daniel's talk page; my words are there for all to see.  Perhaps my words were unfair.  But you will have to demonstrate this to me.  Provide solid reasoning for doubting the veracity of the article.  If you have citations, documents, or any other counter-evidence, produce them.  Take the effort to do this and I will retract my remarks and apologize to you for them.
 * Please see Surrealism and Talk:Surrealism for more from this user ~leif @ 21:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good lord, reading that will take all night. --Ardonik.talk 22:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you SO much
It really is nice to be back. Your comment was hilarious! I guess I only got through about ten steps of the twelve-step Wikipediholics Anonymous program. :^P Anywho, I plan on steering clear of any page that causes contention and just have fun for a change. Please stay in touch. - Lucky 6.9 06:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem. I speak for all of us when I say that we were sad to see you go.  --Ardonik.talk 06:03, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

NASA templates
Since you seem to be the only one who expressed an opinion on TfD, why don't you replace the template names then let me know and I'll delete the templates you want. :) Snowspinner 16:56, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. I thought I had to wait for some sort of response before proceeding!  --Ardonik.talk 17:07, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Userpage
Your userpage has been vandalized by two anon IP's. I hope you don't mind that I reverted them ;).  &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  19:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really appreciate it.  It looks like a couple of kids are mad that I exposed their trolling at Votes for deletion/Nigger6.  I'm going to list these idiots at WP:VIP.  --Ardonik.talk 19:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

0/0
Hello, I've just completely rewritten the article 0/0 and thought you might like to pop over and have a look. I've tried to explain the issue of 0/0's non determinacy from the point of view of other previously undefined concepts. I think we should incorporate the material on the page somewhere on wikipedia or possibly just leave it where it is. What do you think? (We probably don't have much time for a resoltion). Barnaby dawson 16:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I left a similar message on User:Dpbsmith's page)

Hemanshu
And he doesn't know where to find me?

I'm not set up for IRC, which is what i think you referred to.

--Jerzy(t) 17:15, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Well, I can help you set up IRC if you'd like. It's really simple: download Gaim. But you can also just leave a message on his talk page. I'm glad that you're both here, anyway; once he responds, I think you should de-list him from WP:VIP. --Ardonik.talk 17:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

You seem to think you're mediating or something; that there's something i should initiate right now. I've been there (User talk:Hemanshu), done that, and no T-shirt. If they finally have something civil to say to me, i may be able to reply civilly in a week or so, but my being on IRC with them is the last thing WP needs right now. --Jerzy(t) 17:31, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
 * Jerzy, I strongly recommend that you talk it over with Hemanshu. I don't want to be thrust into the middle of an edit war.  He seems genuinely willing to communicate and express his concerns to you (anbd the rest of us) at #wikipedia, and he's also waiting for a message from you on his talk page or WP:VIP.  I've been exhorting him to talk, and I'm going to exhort that you talk to him also.  Refusing to communicate is what gets us into edit wars to begin with, and they do nothing to further this encyclopedia.  --Ardonik.talk 17:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

He has an unanswered msg on this talk page. (Well, a verbally unanswered one.)

If you'll look at the contribs and histories you'll see that i'm avoiding an edit war by lying down like a rug (tho i won't lie by act or silence about the situation), which is my style in conflicts. I responded at length to his only msg, IMO (as i said in it) more kindly than he deserves. He has not responded to the explanation that he asked for. IMO, every indication -- and notably the fact that you are here begging the one who has sought discussion with him, for nearly a year, to get things rolling -- is that we are not going to interact fruitfully, and that i would end up inflaming the situation by trying to discuss at a point where i think i've said everything helpful that i could say.

The sub-headings are worthwhile, but not worth fighting for. And they can be put back when he gets banned or goes away mad over something else; i'm good at using diffs for that sort of thing, if it doesn't seem just as efficient to recreate them from scratch. If the usefulness of LoPbN hasn't ended first, as the Cat system takes over. In the meantime, i have a backlog of splitting of pages of LoPbN to do, and if he wants to talk at some point, i'll be less likely to lash out then for not having struggled to get him to talk.

Believe me, the key to this is that one side understands this isn't worth an edit war. --Jerzy(t) 18:11, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

This is to thank you for your kind and valuable, and public-spirited intervention, even if i may have seemed pretty ungrateful, or perhaps sarastic (not to say sArdonik [wink]), at the time. My state of mind has improved much faster than my pessimistic prediction, and i've just posted at User talk:Hemanshu.

I consider your removal at WP:VIP a wise approach, especially as the contested edits had reached a natural end point and ceased, 1.5 hrs since, so that clearly no V was IP.

Thanks again for what i think was needed, which promises calm and hope of objective improvement. Please regard this as an expression of satisfaction, without any request either to stay with it or to call it done, as i am quite happy to rely on your fine judgment as to that. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 15:43, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. What I did really wasn't that special.  :-)  --Ardonik.talk* 16:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. We seldom mention the banality of goodness in so many words.... --Jerzy(t) 17:27, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Pro-mutilation Bias
Ardonik, why exactly do you feign neutrality with regard to involuntary circumcision? Just saying "anti-circumcision" over and over is your way to give up neutrality, as using the anti prefix is a clearly inflammatory loaded term, as if anyone against cutting children doesn't know NPOV from a hole in the ground. I have no problem with allowing and being fully tolerant of your favoritism of circumcision. That is fine with me, even if you are sincere in saying you are neutral. But why do you persist in deleting out opposing points of view? As I read NPOV there is clear reason to let both sides present information. And you go farther to claim my statements are a "rant" when I made no assertion of right or wrong whatsoever. I guess your superior powers or whatever give you that privilege? So those are my two cents. I'll stick with the real definition of NPOV that is defined as allowing both sides to be stated rather than allowing neither one. DanP 21:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) DanP, I think it's time that I stopped attempting to be civil with you &mdash; it's getting me nowhere, so I'll employ frankness instead. I'm getting sick and tired of your childish rants, paranoid accusations, and idiotic assumptions about the motives of both me and others (you've made up your mind that we're part of the pro-circumcision pro-mutilation camp as of late.) You're trolling, even if you don't see yourself as doing so. You're making a god-damned fool of both yourself and Intactivism at Votes for deletion/Circumciser. Making this encyclopedia better is only a fleeting interest of yours. You're mainly here to inject and enforce your POV and vent your spleen at anyone who doesn't agree with you until they grow bored. Well, I've grown bored, DanP. Go bug User:Friends of Robert. Brookes will be glad to type things back at you! But I have better things to do; making this encyclopedia better is an all-consuming interest of mine. Special:Contributions/Ardonik, Special:Contributions/DanP; res ipsa loquitur. --Ardonik.talk* 22:33, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have never, ever deleted a single word of yours; the most I've ever done to you (besides attempt to reason with you unsucessfully) is put a useless article up for VfD. If you can't already tell, I'm ineligible to vote in there, so my opinion about Circumciser doesn't matter.


 * Well, I apologize for upsetting you. My motives are not to upset anyone, or enforce POV at all.  I do not "represent" intactivism as you clearly suggest.  I'm sure I 'could' count all of your accusations  and similar childish rants against me just as easily, though I'm not so bitter.  I am fully interested in making this encyclopedia a better encyclopedia -- that is not trolling.  When I see inconsistency, bias, convenient omissions and falsehoods in an article, should I just let it go?  Is that your suggestion to make our encyclopedia better?  Man, nice way to encourage contributions.  But aside from that, keep up the good work.   I can at least appreciate and value your response. DanP 22:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Ardonik.talk* 04:44, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)