User talk:Erachima/Archive 06

This archive contains topics 126-150 made on my talk page. Its history on the main talk page ends at this edit.

US Authorities editing proessionally on Wikipedia issue
Hi Tjstrf,

I had replied to your remarks at the village pump and then found myself on your user page. After reading your profile I was surprised to see you not take such an issue seriously. Like you I too value the level-headed, good writiers and community conforming editors we have here on Wikipedia: and so many of them too. But to have editors who are paid to push a particular pont-of-view goes against Wikipedia's very purpose. You yourself even say you "think it is the responsibility of those with little or no affiliation with controversial subjects to edit their articles in a responsible manner. Clearly editors hired by the pentagon have an affiliation. How can they make a positive contribution to Wikipedia? I don't mean to be confrontational, but the is an issue that concerns me a lot. --Cplot 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic J templates
Why my talk page? Anyway, Izak's concern stems from the traditional approach of evangelizing groups of pretending to be a valid part of Judaism by expropriating jewish dress/custom/observances/speech/names/food/etc. and putting this facade of Christian context, in order to make it easier to swallow. The obvious concern is that they got to Wikipedia as well... - crz crztalk 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NotJudaism
the template has been deleted....thank god. MetsFan76 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I see that now. Looks like one of the admins was on the ball tonight. --tjstrf talk 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah i'm glad about that....it was just a ridiculous template. MetsFan76 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure, but I think they ripped a lot of Judaism articles and nav templates and edited them to fit their thing. Compare: JudaismMessianic Judaism Essentially, a marketing scam. Come, Jews, check out Judaism... er... Messianic Judaism. Instead of simply calling it Christianity, which would earn them zero converts. - crz crztalk 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a disclaimer template
Hi Tjstrf: you should have discussed the issue first. That was not a a "disclaimer" template as it was not disclaiming anything it was stating what may not seem evident: That even though some articles may seem to have the words "Judaism" and subjects related to it in them, they are in no way connected to normative Judaism at all because (and this I left out) they actually belong to Christianity which is an entirely different religion and thus the article itself may be a deception to the novice reader. Would you prefer that I put the standard Christianity templates into those articles instead, which they should have. Kindly consider your moves before you make them. Thanks. IZAK 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey kid - don't be rude to me again
--SandyDancer 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I made any comments directed at you, let alone rude ones. I also congratulate you on being the 6th person to bring up my age for no reason whatsoever, it reflects wonderfully on your reasoning. --tjstrf talk 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So not five minutes ago on Talk:William Connolley when you made this comment immediately after SandyDancer's comment, were you talking about SandyDancer, yes or no?

''I agree that William Connolley is a vanity page. If you disagree - shoot me. --SandyDancer 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) '' From all appearances, the people who show up whining about this article are trying to get some sort of passive-aggressive retribution on the user. He passes notability as determined by 3 AfD's and WP:PROF. We don't care if you dislike him, get a life and make some productive edits elsewhere. --tjstrf talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)''

MarkThomas 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, wasn't addressing Sandy, I was addressing the topic as a whole. I tried to represent that by unindenting it so that it wasn't formatted as a reply to anything in specific. --tjstrf talk 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's just that it strongly resembled a personal attack and was at least somewhat intemperate in tone. In what sense for example do we all need to "get a life"? What exactly did you mean by "people who show up whining"? These are insulting remarks and as you have just confirmed you were talking about all of us who contribute to that talk page, I feel personally offended both for myself and for the other editors you just insulted. Perhaps you might consider an apology and toning it down a little? MarkThomas 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh Apologetic....
Heh I guess I can be softie however I'm not so sure that I reflect as tender hearted with vandals. I simply wanted to explain in a respectful manner to the user that regardless we cannot discriminate the contents of Wikipedia. Anyways I took a look through your contribs and I must say you deserve this:

Tjstrf, I see you helped MONGO.
 --ILOVEMONGO 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, I'm being thanked by the conspiracy troll. How rewarding. --tjstrf talk 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recluses
What's wrong with "recluses"? All of them are included as examples in the article.

Would "people considered recluses" be better? Daniel Case 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that conveys the idea as well. What, exactly, is wrong with "recluse"? Semantics? I have thought of creating a category "Notable recluses" or something like that, under which being included would result in images automatically not being considered replaceable.

How about "recluses or others who purposefully evade the public eye"? Daniel Case 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone else has been busy copyediting the page. So, as a compromise, I added "generally referred to in the mainstream media as recluses", to distance us from any negative connotations (I don't consider it derogatory when applied to celebrities, but I'm aware there are different attitudes to it). Daniel Case 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Abortion debate
Thanks for catching that. I guess I accidentally reverted too far back in the history. Sorry. I agree that those terms are subjective qualifications. -Andrew c 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a policy
I understand. Regardless, I feel that that thread of discussion ought to be deleted. Squallhart's comment, at least. He is a sockpuppet and has already been blocked from editing.

As for Themasterofwiki's thread, the talk page is supposed to be discussing the Naruto page itself, not a specific editor who's trying to deface it. Themasterofwiki asked his question, and he recieved his answer. I removed the inflamatory thread and left the relevant conversation for a number of reasons which I believe are valid. I linked to Deny recognition to explain myself in the short edit summary field. My actions weren't prompted by the article, if you understand my meaning.

Well, anyway. Please strip Squallhart's comment, at least. –Gunslinger47 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, banned sock comment removed. Discussion of vandalism is on-topic to the article in most cases, though. --tjstrf talk 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. –Gunslinger47 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing WP:Not censored is not an argument for keeping any particular image
It also says that "obviously inappropriate content...is usually removed immediately" - that still leaves up to the editors to determine what is inappropriate. Citing WP:not censored is equivalent to linking to a policy that says "Editors decide what should go in the article, unless it is illegal or violates other policies". Citing WP:not censored does nothing to prove that an image should stay. Johntex\talk 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page. --tjstrf talk 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaving just a link to WP:NOT smacks of jingoism. It could also be interpreted as a scare tactic in that the word "censorship" carries negative connotations for many people. But most of the time the word "censorship" can more accurately be replaced by "editorial judgement", which carries a positive connotation for many people.
 * If we decide to leave something out, it is not censorship, it is editorial choice. Censorship is action taken by a government or other central body.  It is not a relevant term to use in a discussion about whehter something should be included or not.
 * At AfD and other places, people scream "Deleting my article is censorship", yet they still get deleted if they meet the criteria for deletion. Editors may say "Don't delete my addition to the article, that is censorship."  In reality, we have to prune articles and remove bad prose, useless links, etc.  All of those things are individual judgements.  There is no 100% foolproof way to say if an external link or bit of text or image adds to an article or not.  We have to discuss it.
 * In the end my point remains the same - simply linking to that policy is not a good argument for whether something should stay. Johntex\talk 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood the original poster's comments. They make an analogy that we do not show child pornography on the paedophilia page.  Showing child pornography is illegal.  Many lolicon images would be illegal.  They are saying that we can't show an image that is illegal.  Citing WP:not censored does nothing to refute this. Johntex\talk 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if an adult is saying that an image offends them, then linking to a policy that claims "we don't censor for the protection of minors" is still meaningless. If we want to argue for a particular image to be kept, the best thing to do is to explain what it adds to the article. Johntex\talk 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about some image other than the main one on the lolicon page? That one certainly isn't bad or illegal. I'm also pretty sure U.S.(or where ever you're talking about) laws don't apply to Wikipedia that much. Nemu 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (This is in reply to Nemu) No, I am not talking about any image at all. I am not certainly not criticizing the current image on the lolicon page.  I think it does a fine job of illustrating the concept without crossing any undesirable lines.  My post was simply intended to discuss whether linking to the WP:not censored policy actually achieves anything in this case.  It is my contention that it does not.  The policy does not force us to keep the image if we decide we want to remove it, for whatever reason.
 * As for being subject to US law, I can assure you that we are subject to US law, being as we are headquartered and employ people in the US. Johntex\talk 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (This is in reply to Tjstrf) I was not replying to your post. I was replying to the post by Eyrian.  Eyrian is the one that linked to WP:not censored without making any sort of actual statement.  I did not criticize the current image, or any image.  I am fine with the current image.  My entire point is that some people link to WP:not censored as if that policy prevents us from removing things.  That is not the case.  If we think something should be removed, we can decide together to remove it.  That's all. Johntex\talk 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey
I decided to come check out your user page to see what makes you tick. I'm impressed in that I would not have guessed that you were 17. Not that 17 is that young, or incapable of reasoned argument, but generally there would have been clues to your age that I didn't see. Let's just say that maturity is hard to fake.

That aside I like your statement of personal views. Being an exclusionist my view on your second point is that fiction-based articles need to be both good quality AND relevant. There is a level of fantasy detail that regardless of quality just doesn't belong here. However, I didn't come to debate our view differences, but to tell you that despite being on the other side of the river in the current discussion, I respect your position and ability to express it. Maybe someday I'll earn a spot on your high-respect list.

Best regards, —Doug Bell talk 05:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm flattered. That makes you one compliment on my age vs. 6 people who have used it as some sort of ad hominem tactic against me.


 * Regarding my view on fictional subjects at AfD, I think I'm generally mergist in practice since most articles nominated for deletion are quite badly written or at least badly divided. In this specific situation the articles were mostly written in an incomprehensible manner so I really don't mind their deletion in the slightest, only the mass nomination practice used on them (which I view as poisonous and destructive to consensus, but you've already heard most of the reasoning on that and I'm too tired to attempt any more stirring rhetoric). Under a different AfD format I would have given a mix of deletes and merge/cleanups.


 * But "other side of the river"? Nonsense. If everyone's here to improve the encyclopedia, then there shouldn't be an opposite side. I consider splitting people up into little parties based on deletionary leanings silly anyway. Differences of opinion allow you to open your mind, brush up on your reasoning, and lead to better decisions in the end. Your supposed "opponent" in a debate is nothing more than a friend you are consulting with on a decision. It's easy to forget this sometimes of course, like when some hellish bastard just put your incredibly valuable garage band article up for deletion or some demon-spawned fanboy is keeping you from getting rid of what is obviously a vanispamcruftizement about a Fortune 500 company, but isn't that what WP:AGF is all about?


 * Also, it looks like you're going to get to pick the shortcut for the mass afd guideline proposal after all. Congratulations. I do get the vague impression that most people missed my point regarding the invalidity of an AfD where no-one (but you) read the content it was supposed to evaluate, but this is understandable given that most DRV's do not attempt to build original arguments. So much for my attempt at policy building from the judicial bench.


 * As for my respected user list, so far that's been for people who have significantly inspired me as an editor through their actions. Ynhockey was the guy who first made me realize that this place was worth my time, while GTBacchus has led me to lift my sights towards eventual adminship (I'm stalling a bit on that due to my current schoolwork load, but if I can get an edge there I'll probably run). Maybe if you inspire me to run for arbcom? --tjstrf talk 08:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice response. BTW, you took me a bit out of context there.  I said "other side of the river in the current discussion", and it was of course intended as an extension of my analogy about people wading into a discussion from opposite sides of the river and muddying the water.  In no way am I splitting into camps here, it's simply that you are arguing that the deletion be overturned and I'm on the other side arguing that it not be.  Ah well, I think I'm killing a dead cat here. :-) —Doug Bell talk 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I tied it together with your comment about exclusionism. Makes sense now. --tjstrf talk 09:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem updating image
I tried updating your image of Rukia's zanpakutō. Image:Rukia initial release.jpg I seem to have failed somehow. I see the proportions of the image have been changed to that of the file I tried to upload, but it's still using the manga graphic. Anyhow, if you know what's going on, or could fix it, I'd be happy. Here is the image I tried to upload: http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sodenoshirayukirp8.jpg –Gunslinger47 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It works for me. You just forgot to purge your cache. Add ?action=purge onto the end of the Rukia page's url and then load it, that shoudl fix it. --tjstrf talk 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried clearing a number of different caches, ending with ?action=purge. I guess I did it in the wrong order?  It works fine now.  Sorry for the bother. –Gunslinger47 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

JoJo
Thanks for getting back to me Tjstrf. The page that Wyss was talking about is the page on Fred Noonan. The author refers to him as JoJo. I am really curious as to there this has come from. In 9 years of research I have never seen him referred to by this name. I am wondering if it is a misunderstanding because his wife was called Jo and may even have been called JoJo as her name was Josephine but she also appears to have gone by the name Joanna or both.

Jackie

Below is copied from Jackie's talk page.


 * It could have come from his middle name Joseph, but honestly that's just a guess. Since Wyss is gone now, your best bet for asking is at Talk:Fred Noonan. If you think that the nickname is actually incorrect, then what you should probably do is ask for a reference on the talk page, and if you don't get one within, say, a week then it's probably best to simply remove the nickname. You could also try asking at the Reference desk. Sorry I couldn't be of more help than that. --tjstrf talk 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I'll try these suggestions. (Jackie Ferrari 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

GSX-401FW Stargazer
Why was the GSX-401FW Stargazer page deleted? Please restore the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AgentJ38 (talk • contribs).

Good work on the Cplot sockpuppet find
You're a credit to the nation. --HoComeNobodyLikesMe 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. --tjstrf talk 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget about who's a sockpuppet and who's a Whitehouse meatpuppet. the important thing is that we follow Wikipedia policy
Forget about who's a sockpuppet and who's a Whitehouse meatpuppet. the important thing is that we follow Wikipedia policy --NPWA 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Namely, the Banning policy. --tjstrf talk 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the block.
Mind blocking another User:Cplot sock while you're at it? --tjstrf talk 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Might as well get the one who just vandalized the page while I was adding this comment as well... --tjstrf talk 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:TenOfAllTrades beat me to it but I have left the notice as per usual. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

explain
Why did you delete movelists in an article about video game characters, apparently after complaining about too much trivia on said page? Isn't the most important information about a fighting game character the move list? 24.245.34.53 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Wikipedia is not a game guide. --tjstrf talk 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I appreciate your deleting the article without warning so I cannot put it in a valid place, also. Goodbye.
 * It's still there in the page history. --tjstrf talk 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia
I am talking about ThisLandIsOurLand. I assume this user seems to be paranoid and dosn't understand the facts of fact-gathering. Articles are made to be neutral so a majority of the other side of the story dosn't become offended. There seems to be a belief of his that this was made by the United States government to control fact distribution, but on the contrary Wikipedia existed before the year 2000. I hope ThisLandIsOurLand realizes that there are those who don't agree with the government's policies either, but aren't radical and make assumptions which can be labeled as paranoid. He now seems to be deleted but people like him might come back. Eiyuu Kou 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have tried telling him that 50 sockpuppets ago. --tjstrf talk 19:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At the least he is blocked indefinatly now... (Misspelling) Eiyuu Kou 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, for the next 5 minutes until he pulls his newest account out. --tjstrf talk 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be an IP blocking program made to block certain IPs. Can you suggest that to an admin? Eiyuu Kou 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one. We've done it, he keeps getting around it. --tjstrf talk 19:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Maybe the average area of his IP should be checked then... Eiyuu Kou 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been done. We're not banning all of Chicago from account creation indefinitely. --tjstrf talk 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad there aren't IP exact locaters, otherwise there would be a lot less vandals. I wonder if there can be a petition for that? Eiyuu Kou 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They have that as well. The problem is, for people as persistent as him the only way to deal with them is usually to contact their ISP and make them scare the guy off/disconnect their internet service/whatever it is they do. --tjstrf talk 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is slightly off-subject, but do you think I would be nominated to be an admin one day? I don't want to nominate myself because I wouldn't know what to say. Oh, and good luck for becoming an admin! Eiyuu Kou 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not running right now. I probably will eventually, but I have too much schoolwork on my hands at this point. And pretty much anyone can become an admin if they can demonstrate knowledge of policy, civility, and productive contributions, so you probably could as well (if not now, later). --tjstrf talk 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

{smile_1}

Re: Middleschool notability

 * tjstrf, notability for schools is decided with the Schools Wikiproject. (aeropagitica) 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. --tjstrf talk 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

plz help
hey would you support Metalocalypse trivia it is up for deletion by someguy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthehun2 (talk • contribs).
 * I'll help get it deleted, if that's what you mean. --tjstrf talk 01:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Modularity in networks
I still disagree. Whether the page creators are the same is irrelevant if their contributions are released under different or possibly different licences. Take this example: a Microsoft employee writes some code for Windows, using the Windows licence, then submits it to Linux, under the GPL. Would that be a copyright violation?

I think for content to go on Wikipedia, it has to have a complete, unrefutable copyright history.

Actually the problem is more simply solved by just rewriting the article so it is suitably different; then the copyvio tag may be removed.

Cheers!

Yuser31415 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with your suggestion. Yuser31415 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Asking User:Wuyilin might get you an answer�:) Yuser31415 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a very simple way forward. Ask the user to place a notice while logged in on that wiki (not this one), agreeing explicitly to license his/her contributions under the GFDL.  Then any version of the page over there which is edited only by that user is also usable here, regardless of the licence generally in use on that wiki.  (And also then there is no need to worry whether the two users are really the same person.)  &mdash; Alan✉ 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Hanukkah
Happy Hanukkah Tjstrf I know you're not Jewish but I am so I feal like spreading the Hanukkah feeling.Sam ov the blue sand 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)