User talk:C12H22O11/archive06

Advice?
Hi, I speedily deleted Brandon bowman, but there is a text on the talk page. Do I delete that as well? I'm sorry for bothering you with this, but I've just been promoted and am not sure about this kind of thing. Izehar 17:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion
I consider this edit vandalism because the user in question is removing paragraphs of sourced info that have been here for a very long time. I was wondering what your opinion is on the subject? Yuber(talk) 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW Yuber, since you will read this. And for Ulayti also.
 * The fact is it's blatant personal POV by you and completely unsourced.
 * Your various Avoid weasel words, "Some critics say", "has attracted controversy" "critics have viewed the following quote as racist" (with a link to a page that has no mention of "racism" or "racist" at all, and instead talks about her anti-Islam point of view) make it quite clear you have no interest in maintaining WP:NPOV on the article and just want to brand her as a racist for daring to criticise your religion. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Ulayti. Thanks for abusing your admin status to rollback edits that were not vandalism, and removals of unsourced POV material added unilaterally by Yuber.


 * This and your obvious favouritism for some users will be mentioned, don't worry. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

(reply pasted from User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle:)


 * First of all, this discussion should probably happen at the article's talk page. Secondly, it says anti-Arab, not 'anti-Muslim' (which is not the same thing - I'm a Muslim, but not an Arab). That is criticising an ethnic group, not a religion, and qualifies as racism. In addition, you removed all of the criticism instead of just those words.


 * And there's no policy that says the reverts should only be used against vandalism. And favouritism - what? I had never even dealt with Yuber before he contacted me on my talk page about your removals. - ulayiti (talk)  18:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Ulayiti! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. Have you heard about this Birmingham Meetup? Cheers -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Fonky Family
please provide sources for the material in this article. Thnx. TheRingess 02:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The ongoing and wide-ranging discussion regarding stub redirects
Greetings:

I notice that you have recently expressed an interest in the discussion regarding stub redirects and where they might be properly addressed. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion, and hope that you might wander by to provide your insight.

All the best. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Welcome
You're more than welcome, there wasn't much vandalism this morning! Compu ter  Joe  21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

re: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy
I've been trying to figure out the discussion at Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. It's rather a confusing mess. In trying to follow the conversation, I noticed that you'd struck out several "invalid" votes. I understand your reasoning and do appreciate when someone notes problems like probable sockpuppets and people who've voted more than once. But we've found that using the strikeout feature on someone else's comment is often perceived as far more hostile than we intend. In my experience, a note under the comment either in small text or italics is generally sufficient. The closing admin will notice it and adjust the decision accordingly but the person who made the comment tends not to take it so personally. I don't want to meddle but wanted to share that thought for next time. Rossami (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't take offense to my being stricken for being a tad dumb :), and I use the strike myself, when I think the person needs to learn by demonstration. If I'm feeling cuddly, I'll add a note below that I'm sure the mistake was in good faith.  In the case of the folks at IJID, I didn't feel cuddly -- they are too intelligent to be granted much grace for their belligerence.  Ordinary calm politeness is all that is warranted under the circumstances.  And while I'm here, Ulayiti, may I add that you have a splendidly admirable set of beliefs expressed in your userboxes. :) Xoloz 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Finnish Agrarian Party
I corrected some names of Finnish political parties that have been used in the article "True Finns". You seem to have reverted all my appropriate corrections back to the old and incorrect version. Can you tell us why you reverted back the incorrect names? The correct information is that the True Finns party was founded on the ruins of the Finnish Rural Party (in Finnish: "Suomen Maaseudun Puolue"), not the Agrarian Party. There has never been any "Agrarian Party" in Finland, and neither has there been any party called "Agrarian League". Instead, the article cleary refers to the Agrarian Union ("Maalaisliitto" in Finnish). Wikipedia should not contain such incorrect information. I think that when doing this incorrect revert back to using the incorrect names, you have acted against the very basic edit rules in Wikipedia. Can you explain this apparent vandalism of yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.9 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you get a user account on Wikipedia, since using an IP address makes communication very difficult (especially since you seem to have used two different IP addresses to leave that comment). I also suggest you adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of assuming good faith and no personal attacks. My edits were not vandalism, I was simply correcting the names of the parties to the same forms that are consistently used in all other relevant Wikipedia articles. As you no doubt are aware, these parties do not have 'correct' or 'incorrect' English names, only Finnish (and Swedish) names, since they are Finnish parties (and extinct ones at that). - ulayiti (talk)  20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that the parties have no 'correct' English names? On what grounds do you say so? Even if the parties themselves may not have chosen an 'official' English name, at least The Finnish Parliament and Statistics Finland have adopted 'official' English translations for all present and historical parties. It would become a terrible mess if different English names were used instead of these 'official' names. Why should Wikipedia be in favor of such unofficial names, which are misleading, to say the least, if not totally incorrect? 130.188.8.9 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most articles relating to those parties on Wikipedia currently use the names 'Agrarian Party' and 'Agrarian League'. These names are used consistently throughout the encyclopaedia, and your edits broke that consistency without offering any kind of explanation by way of an edit summary. If you want to change the practice, you are allowed to do so, but it would be good if you did so consistently (not just in one article), provided references to show that these are indeed the 'correct' names, and most importantly, used edit summaries when doing that so that your edits would not be considered vandalism.
 * Also, may I suggest you take a look at the benefits of creating a user account? - ulayiti (talk)  20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding these names, you both seem to be slightly mistaken. The anonymous user above is indeed correct in that Suomen Maaseudun Puolue is, in English, Finnish Rural Party, or Rural Party for short. The True Finns Party's homepage says so, and one would think they know their history. However the anon is incorrect about Maalaisliitto, current Suomen Keskusta, or Centre Party in English, as its name was indeed Agrarian Party, which the Centre Party article correctly states. All this information is readily available in Finnish Parliament's (eduskunta) website, see party history and especially this statistics PDF which consistently use Agrarian Party for Maalaisliitto and (Finnish) Rural Party for Suomen Maaseudun Puolue. What name Eduskunta uses, should be used here, any other way is not only wrong but misleading, especially in this case. After all, look at the 3-line article of SMP/Rural Party founder Veikko Vennamo: in its current form it states that he founded the Agrarian Party in 1959 after a dispute in Centre Party, when in fact he founded the Rural Party after a dispute in Agrarian Party (as Agrarian Party only changed its name to Centre Party in 1965). Of course to further complicate things, Vennamo's party only took the name Suomen Maaseudun Puolue in 1966, between 1959-1966 his group was called Suomen Pientalonpoikien Puolue, and I can't say whether Finnish Parliament's English documents reflect this change.
 * Anyway, as seen, making your own translations of these names can be a bad thing if a translation of such an official level already exists. Words like puolue or liitto can easily become party, league or union interchangeably, and you both seem to have some guilt of doing this without checking towards sources. It doesn't matter that there are ten or twelve articles in Wikipedia mistakenly stating that "Suomen Maaseudun Puolue" equals to "Agrarian Party"; they are still wrong, misleading and contradictory to what name Finnish officials use, and therefore should be corrected with even more haste. 210.187.49.65 23:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did not 'make my own translation'. It was there before I ever even read that article. - ulayiti (talk)  00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank 210.187.49.65 very much for acknowledging the corrections I have pointed out concerning the name of the Rural Party. As he/she very well describes, the current references to "Agrarian Party" in the articles for "True Finns" and Veikko Vennamo are both quite misleading and incorrect. However, he is still wrong in claiming that I was incorrect by insisting that the correct English name for "Maalaisliitto" is The Agrarian Union. This latter name is, indeed, the most correct English name for the "Maalaisliitto" party. The ultimate criterion for the correctness is the fact that the party itself adopted that name (see for example an original English brochure of Maalaisliitto, published in 1949 by Maalaisliitto, titled "Maalaisliitto = The Agrarian Union"; this publication can be found from the Library of the Finnish Parliament: ). Among the other official sources, the statistics bureau of Finland (Statistics Finland) also regularly uses this correct original English name for the Maalaisliitto party (see e.g. ). It is unfortunate that, as 210.187.49.65 points out, in some documents of the Finnish Parliament the name "Agrarian Party" has also been used for Maalaisliitto, because this name is not the correct original English name adopted by the party. However, as it has been used in some official documents, I suppose it could also be barely acceptable. I can only hope that all the incorrect names of the Finnish parties that still appear on Wikipedia will be eventually corrected. I tried to do some of it myself, but all my corrections were reverted. 130.188.8.10 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to apologise. Your usage of Agrarian Union is on solid grounds, and Finnish statistics office certainly is an authoritative source (although, I must note, a couple of stat.fi pages do in fact refer to Agrarian Party, though that is probably an error). It was I who hadn't done enough research. I also have to apologise to you both for asserting that you would "make up" names. Anyway, all this makes the whole Maalaisliitto affair confusing. Maybe it's so that Parliament and, for example, Foreign Ministry like here (again, virtual.finland.fi appears to suffer from occasional errors, though) use the "Party" variant to make it clearer for foreigners that it is an actual political party that is being talked upon, and not, say, a trade union? While statistics office and academic research etc. continue to use the correct "Union" variant.. All more interesting is that when you search for both words, "Maalaisliitto" and "Agrarian", in the Eduskunta library from the link you provided, you will find the 1949 brochure already mentioned, but also two Maalaisliitto publications from the year 1964, called "Leading priciples of the Agrarian Party of Finland" and "Agrarian Party of Finland: its origin, basic aims, organization and position in Finland's political spectrum". So it appears, to my eye, that between 1949 and 1964 the party decided to change the name it used for itself in an English publication. You could easily argue that both names are equally correct.
 * It is true that Finnish parties only have official names in Finnish and Swedish, and any attempt to refer to them in a language other than these two is a result of translation, often less than perfect. But the name the party uses for itself should usually be accepted. Also official sources like those mentioned in this discussion must be carefully examined, and if there is a general usage outside of these, for example mentions in foreign newspapers that could be verified, then those must also be considered. Against all these, an intra-Wikipedia consistency means nothing, as it's the encyclopedia's duty to reflect the real world. From these we can easily say that the party which was "Suomen Maaseudun Puolue" in Finnish and "Finlands Landsbygdsparti" in Swedish, must be "Rural Party" in English (whether it's "Finnish Rural Party" or "Rural Party of Finland" doesn't really matter) as every source uses it - Wikipedia's consensus is therefore wrong and protecting it by reverting every attempt to correct the situation is uninformed to say the least. On the other hand the former name of Centre Party, which was "Maalaisliitto" in Finnish and "Agrarförbundet" in Swedish, can in English be either "Agrarian Union" or "Agrarian Party", or it can be both. An article regarding Maalaisliitto / Agrarförbundet should thus acknowledge the situation by stating the official names in Finnish and Swedish, then discussing the Union/Party terminology, and proceed by using either of the names as neither can be clearly said to be better. What do you think? 210.187.49.65 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with your (very detailed) comment, and I think every reference to one of those two parties should be corrected to depict this consistent usage. There should also probably be articles for both at Rural Party of Finland and Agrarian Union (which is currently a redirect to a Bulgarian party with a related, but not the same, title). I also suggest both of you to create user accounts, since it will make you look like much more convincing editors here. - ulayiti (talk)  23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would find it difficult to not to concur with the meticulous analysis carried by 210.187.49.65. I am glad that the two of you reached such a good basis for a new wiki-consensus concerning the English names of these parties. Thank you! 130.188.8.10 12:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Award
Sorry for this late message. Thanks for the award! I really appreciate that. See you around or maybe in Birmingham. Cheers -- Szvest 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

So you like Sheffield United ? Can't blame ya
Template:User_SUFC Userboxes/Football

Thanks for welcoming me all those weeks back, and I hope this gesture will make you update your profile userbox. Enjoy mate, Captain scarlet 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

Speedy restored
An article that you speedy deleted is now at Articles for deletion/Ayu Khandro - brenneman (t) (c)  13:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Inclusive Democracy
After the latest developments, I want to propose you to withdraw the ID copyvio and restore our page (instead of the stub) on the grounds that after the latest explanations by our webmaster there is no copyvio. I want also to ask you to help restore the other pages (IJID and Network) and of course keep the pages on D&N and Takis Fotopoulos and secure the permanent banning of Paulcardan. We will be then willing to reconsider our decision to withdraw from Wikipedia. --TheVel 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic Perpetrator
We think that what happened for that hour in the Inclusive Democracy copyvio page was horrible, and we don't want it to simply pass by. TheVel did some research and found the exact photo that was placed in ID's page that day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circpn_reduced.jpg. Is it possible for you to not only find out who retrieved this photo that day, 27 December, and put it in Inclusive Democracy's entry, but also who deleted it? Your technical research and assistance in this matter is appreciated. john sargis 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ulayiti, thank you for your research. Is it possible for you to locate the specific place of origin of the porn IP ? I will send this message to hirudo also.
 * OK, thanks for that origin info. Your response was so quick I now do not have to contact hirudo. john sargis 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you afraid of. The truth? While it is true it is "just a picture of a penis" it is salacious. Again the definition of pornography you sent me says,"is the representation of the human body or sexual behavior with the goal of sexual arousal." Human body-sexual arousal. So what are you talking about it is not pornography. Are you saying that the vandal is just calling us a dick or a prick? Or really maybe honoring us with the Shivaist lingum? I really don't want to go off on you ,because you are too easy. john sargis 17:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

civility
Thanks for the award that you left on my talk page! It did arrive at a good time, since I was getting the usual treatment of receiving complaints from both sides of a dispute. Also, thanks for tracking down the fact that the penis image came from vandalism of a template. I recently became an administrator. Since I am still learning my way around as an administrator, I have not yet reached the point of being willing to place the standard offer of "this administrator can help" on my user page. I guess I should just post a note saying I am a new administrator. --JWSchmidt 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Delete not allowed?
Why's that? I agree that Merge/Redirect is better, but...--SarekOfVulcan 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If content written by someone is pasted into another article without explicitly stating that in the edit summary (or somewhere) then it's essentially a copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Ulayiti, I'm ViolinGirl, and I saw you deleted my template from the Christian Management Partners...thanks for helping me with it. Do you think it should be in, or do you think it is actually a good stub and should be kept? To be honest, when I put up the I had forgotten about  ...so, please advise. :) Thanks!-- Violin  G  irl ♪ 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah...ok, thank you!-- Violin  G  irl ♪ 12:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CSD
I have replied to your message on my talk page. --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
Hey, thanks a lot for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Performance review
Hello, since you have helped me understand Wikipedia but have had almost no contact with me since then I have decided to ask you to review my actions on Wikipedia. Recently Nufy8 offered to nominate me for adminship. I think I should be ready soon, but would like an outside opinion. If you would tell me how you would vote if I had an RfA now, the reasons for voting so, and any reservations you have, I would appreciate it. Also, I had an argument with Purplefeltangel, not long after joining, and although when she left we were on good terms, do not forget to include this in your decision. I understand this is somewhat unorthodox, but I believe knowing of any potential problems would allow me to edit more effectively. Thanks,

P.S. I will, of course, supply an e-mail address before accepting any nomination for admin

Prodego talk  17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Prodego  talk  18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Doc Gynéco
Just saw that line you dropped on that article I created on the man -- clicked on your name, and saw we have a few things in common: we both like french rap, both hold an IB, both go to uni in england, so just like to say HELLO! to you... PS: Except for that Lib Dem thing; we do disagree on that peace

Coffee in Finland
You might consider re-inserting coffee - Finland tops the world statistics in consumption per capita! --Janke | Talk 11:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right - coffee isn't a particular Finnish habit - like drinking Koskenkorva vodka - so maybe it is OK to remove it. OTOH, I was also surprised that we top the coffee stats - especially since I drink none of that poison myself... ;-P --Janke | Talk 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Turku
You really know your Turku, don't you? I'm almost starting to become jealous of your contributions, I wish my similar contributions to Helsinki were as good. I've lately had quite a boom in expanding categories about Finnish cities. Currently the ordering of the categories by amount of included material looks roughly like this: Perhaps eventually we'll have a category for every Finnish city. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Helsinki
 * 2) Turku
 * 3) Espoo
 * 4) Vantaa
 * 5) Tampere
 * 6) Oulu, Kuopio
 * 7) Jakobstad
 * 8) Kajaani, Lahti

3rr
I'm aware of the rule, and I'm not breaking it. If you compare the diffs youll see none of them is the same. I've been participating with you in this. Thanks--Urthogie 14:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)