User talk:Harmil/Archive 01

Royalty Naming
hi there, i´m trying to get a discussion going on naming non-european royalty, maybe you care to join in?  cheers Antares911 00:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Took a look. Don't really have anything to add, as it seems fine to me. Harmil 18:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Script
No worries. I was hoping it would annoy someone enough to create an article there 'tho. Feel free to start something. Josh Parris &#9993; 12:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed you tried to dab Camera diet. Wow, that one's hard, but I think it relates to either an Artificial Intelligence term script (AI) or maybe cognitive psychology term script (psychology), neither of which appear on the Script page. But I didn't know, so I left it. Perhaps a little research project for you? Josh Parris &#9993; 12:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
3RR is not meant to apply to vandal fighting. I'm willing to be convinced it is not vandalism, but the expletives certainly indicate that it is. Fuzheado | Talk 15:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed Poor is taking a stab at trying to refactor and help out, so let's see what he can do with it. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 17:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Locals
I'm from New Bedford, and I've lived here most of my life. We probably didn't go to high school together though, because I attended NBHS and graduated in '99. -- LGagnon 21:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cuttyhunk
Thanks for the compliments! I did use one written source (now way out of print), but also personal knowledge of the island for a lot of the article. I was not sure if I could source myself. I intend to update the page myself, drawing on some other web-based resources, but if you would like to edit it, that's great - I suppose that's what Wikipedia is all about.

In the article, probably 60-70% of the facts come from my source, and about 10-20% of the wording. The structure and organization of the article is 100% mine, I researched the links, I added a whole lot of "color" details to the text, and I re-wrote almost everything I used.

I love Cuttyhunk, and wanted to make sure there was more than just a stub on Wikipedia. My grandfather was one of the people William Wood sold property to on the island. My dad was one of the kids Wood wanted his kids to be able to play with. I've been a visitor to the island almost every summer since I was three (30 years ago). My dad is buried in the cemetery, as are my paternal grandparents and my uncle. My cousin now owns the house right in front of the cemetery. So, I've heard island stories all my life, and know the geography, waters, culture, and ecology of the island pretty well.

I look forward to checking out your pages - it looks like you have an interest in Cuttyhunk and New Bedford, as do I.

CrimsonLine June 30, 2005 11:16 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at what I have for off-line sources (my grandparents have a ton of old info on Buzzard's Bay that I can draw from). Hey, who knows. Maybe we can get this article into a state that could be a feature! -Harmil 30 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)


 * I think we have a good start! I've gone in and linkified a few more phrases, and made sure that some of the links go directly where they need to, rather than to a disambiguation page. What the article really needs, I think, is a good map. I don't know if there are any in the public domain, though. -CrimsonLine June 30, 2005 18:39 (UTC)

VfD on The Poppykettle Papers
Without it meaning to sound terse, I'll reply to your points in the order you raise them.
 * I'm afraid the VfD was not accidental, as I explained in both the related VfDs here and here. So I'll let the VfD run its course; if it's notable enough the process does no damage. Incidentally, I'm not sure that policy allows for such a withdrawal.


 * I have no problem whatsoever with your voting record (though you do seem to have some with mine).


 * I agree, the article is entirely factual, verifiable and NPOV. Unfortunately, I don't think those verifiable facts are of encyclopedic note, hence my nomination. I believe firmly that attempts such as yours to improve/expand/etc articles on VfD are exactly what the process should be about &mdash; not the endless castigating of silly vanity that takes up so much VfD space and time. However, the creation of a new article in an attempt to support a VfD is slightly unconventional and, it being a new article, it must stand alone on its own merits. Since the existing VfD for Poppykettle doesn't cover your new article and I don't think the new article should stay, I had little choice but to VfD it. If you had made the changes in situ, in the original article (e.g. below a horizontal line for clarity), then I would have voted delete both before and after your change so there is not much procedural difference.


 * I'm fully aware you are no 'relation' of the author of Poppykettle, but the article most definitely is. I think each article should be judged alone, so that's what I've asked the community to do.


 * The question of the notability of other articles for books can only be resolved by VfDs on those. IMHO, the statistics I quote on the VfD render this one non-notable.


 * The illustrator may be notable; I haven't looked into that. The article is about the book, however, not the illustrator. A sentence mentioning the book in the illustrator's article (or a list of their work, or whatever) would meet no resistance from me.


 * You are wrong to imply that I do not contribute. Take a look through my contributions list. In particular, I have written or re-written almost completely from scratch several substantial articles e.g. University of Bristol (major rewrite), Office for Fair Access (from scratch), Master of Engineering (section from scratch), Phase-shift keying (major rewrite), Quadrature amplitude modulation (major rewrite), Space-time code, Space-time block code (from scratch), Space-time trellis code (from scratch) and others etc etc. I've also got a respectable number of other contributions under my belt, along with plenty of activity in VfD, CfD and TfD and cleanup work in various places as well as RC and New Page patrol. Numerically, my contributions between article space and Wikpedia space are roughly even (it varies). In any case, I should not need to defend my contribution record to justify a VfD &mdash; it's about the article, not the nominator.

I am not merely "tearing asunder" out of some non-contributory geek-malice as you suggest. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia &mdash; the thing with the Wikipedia is that each of us tries to build it in our own image. I've seen your general trend of voting on VfD, and I'm quite happy to say that I admire those users who try hard to 'rescue' articles; sometimes I just think there's nothing to rescue but that's no reflection on the rescuing-author's general work. -Splash 6 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind and my vote/nomination as a result of your excellent research. -Splash 17:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the work on St Simons Island, Georgia. That's a great rescue, and it's delightful to have the article look reasonable now. Geogre 6 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

VfD on LSOL.com
Harmil, thanks for the message on my talk page. We could probably have had a discussion about that. However, I have to make clear my complete dissatisfaction with your reporting of my finding on the article's talk page. I did not provide any sort of the statistic that you claim I did, and you imply I would have voted keep, when I voted delete. I merely looked up the Alexa rank as did another voter. I had other reasons, detailed in the VfD for deletion.

I have left a note on the article's talk page expressing my dissatisfaction. I'd appreciate it greatly if you could go and clarify your comment too; misrepresenting what I said is not good faith behaviour.

While I'm here, you have not commented on the fact that you accused me of being non-contributory and destructive when I am highly-contributory and non-destructive. Do you think your comment might have been slightly too heated?

I'd appreciate your clarification on both matters. -Splash 6 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Harmil. The second comment I made referred to your comment on my talk page about the VfD for The Poppykettle Papers, which I replied into the section-above-last. Now that you've said you were only commenting on my response to that particular page, I have no problem. Nevertheless, not contributing to a particular article doesn't mean I'm trying to "tear your work asunder"; it just means I contribute elsewhere. -Splash 6 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

VfD on innate_bisexuality
Voted to keep it. This has a lot of merit and could even be developed further. Its far from a deletion! Nice work on what you've contributed. I'll be adding this to my "to do" list to fill it out a bit more. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Yea! its being kept! I've added it at the bottom of my list of a million and one articles to improve....--Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Schmidlin
You mentioned on my talk about me saying that WP not in the business of giving out honours. My interpretation/meaning was peculiarly British. Honours are given out to many people each year for a variety of reasons. Some, like Ellen McArthur for significant achievment. Others, especially the MBE, are given out to people of minor, local note as a thank-you for service over many years (there are numerous examples of e.g. an old lady serving tea in a disable kids home for 25 years being honoured). These people are not, IMHO, of note until they get their honour. So when I said "not in the business of giving out honours" I really meant "not in the business of making people into notable persons as thank-yous for doing good stuff somewhere". But I agree that the particular person in question is notable enough and 'deserves' a WP page! -Splash 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I did not know the distinction between British and American interpretation of honours / honors. -Harmil 7 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Excellent!
Just wanted to tell you that I thought your vote on the VfD for Great Game Screenshots was outstanding, I actually did laugh out loud! -Splash 8 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)


 * I came by to say exactly the same thing. Very nice. &mdash; mendel &#9742; July 8, 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * What they said lol :P --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 13:38 (UTC)

verses
on Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, could you specify which of the proposals it is that you would vote yes for?

thanks. 9 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

P.s. the vote does not concern notable verses such as John 3:16, and would not affect verses notable enough to form the basis of a whole christian sect (although such verses may better be discussed at the page for the sect). 9 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

P.p.s. Please note it is a VfD and not a poll. If you vote "merge" it will only be interpreted as a vote to merge, rather than agreement with the merge outlined, which would require a vote of "merge per above" or "merge per Uncle G".

If you change your vote from "Keep" to "Merge", I can assure you that it will not be interpreted as being a vote for Uncle G's proposal, but rather simply a vote to merge in some as yet not discussed manner. 9 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Songs
Hi. Just to inform you, I responded to you on the VfD page. -R. fiend 00:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[Actinic keratosis]]
See: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a discussion of the linkspam complaints from some anonymous contributors. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * While it would be possibly useful for you to go and "scrape back" useful links to the mayo clinic, I don't understand why we necessarily want these links. For hypothermia, for example, there are tons of websites out there on the subject.  If we include the link from the mayoclinic, why is that so much more useful a link than the link from somewhere else?  We try to prevent wikipedia from being abused as a pagerank linkfarm.  While Mayo is a respectable research facility, I would wait til a consensus emerges on WP:AN/I before taking large-scale action to put the links back in. Cheers, --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the process described on your todo page, and it sounds good to me. I might check with JFW too cause he was involved with this long before I was. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mayo
My response is simple. If the Mayo page is better than the Wikipedia page this means the Wikipedia page needs to be expanded. By preserving the Mayo link we are implicitly rewarding the awful spammer. I am much more in favour of MedlinePlus links. JFW | T@lk  21:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Agorami VfD
Hi, I just noticed that my reply to your abstention on Votes for deletion/Agorami might have seemed a bit harsh. Sorry if it came across that way; when I aim for brevity, sometimes I sound irritated. All the best. --Scimitar 20:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have spare time
I'm looking for an editor who doesn't know me or my history so as to find someone who can assess something for me. If I told you that the word around English Departments around the world was, "There was no drama in England in the Augustan period," would my article Augustan drama explain to a researcher why that is? (No, I have no skeletons. My closet is quite clean.  It's just that people assume good things about my articles, and my usual collaborator(s) are so well aware of the period that they can't assess what an outsider would get from the article any more than I can.)  What needs explanation that isn't explained? What's laborious? Geogre 01:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm not really grooming this one for Featured Article, necessarily.  I'd like for it to be a possible FA, but I'm not going to nominate it any day soon.  I just wrote (with Bishonen) Restoration literature, and that's a Featured Article.  Two weeks or three later, I nominated Augustan literature for FA (99.9% of the text is mine, but Bishonen was a huge help in cutting out sections to make new articles and stitching up the resulting holes), and it succeeded.  Augustan literature had been comprehensive, and it was over 90 kb.  We spun Augustan prose, Augustan poetry, and Augustan drama out of the main article, left quick-hit summaries in the main article, and got the length down to 60 Kb.  What I'm doing now is just making sure, one at a time, that the spun-off articles take advantage of their new scope by being as comprehensive as possible in a concise format such as a general encyclopedia.  Geogre 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruth Parasol
Please do not remove Votes for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in votes for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose its deletion, you may vote at the respective page instead. Thank you. -Harmil 16:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not do so. 212.183.98.70 did. Please check the edit history before making allegations of this seriousness as this sort of mistake is liable to cause great offence. The false allegation will live on in the edit history and so far as I know I cannot have it deleted from there. CalJW 16:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

advertisement
Started a discussion at Talk:Queef about your edit. Please comment. --Easyas12c 05:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

GASB VfDs
Just to let you know that I have combined all 11 into a single VfD for efficiency. People often don't bother to vote on multiple VfDs like this one. If you think the combining was inappropriate, please do split them apart again making sure to copy the nomination and your vote into each of them. Cheers! -Splash 21:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Trudy LeCaine
You are right, Trudi is the correct spelling. The spelling can be comfirmed at. And, if you want, the new article should contain the Post-nominal letters C.M., to show that she is a Member of the Order of Canada. Though she has died, her family is still albe to use the post-nominals. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Amphibious cargo ship
I appreciate your work on the Charleston class amphibious cargo ship page. But I'm a bit concerned about the redirect from Amphibious cargo ship.

The US Navy actually had at least one other class of these ships (the Tolland class). And one might suspect that other navies might use an amphibious cargo ship as well. Perhaps we can work together to create a page about the general type of ship that is used as an amphibious cargo ship. Then the Charleston class amphibious cargo ship page can address that class specifically. This would follow the typical ship type/class taxonomy followed in Wikipedia. See destroyer and Wickes class destroyer as examples. Jinian 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LGBTI vs "intersex", "trans", "gay", "lesbian" on Heteronormativity
First of all, I would appreciate if you would sign your entries like the one on my talk page; that way, I don't have to go through the history to answer you. Second, I don't think that linking to LGBT is the way to go here, since lots of people probably won't know what that is - lots more people will at least recognise some of the expanded words, though. If you are really worried about bisexual people (who are nowhere else mentioned in the article) then add that word, and don't just revert to the acronym. Not to mention that the article that it links to references intersex people rather sparingly; they are rather important at this place, though. So kindly stop this mindless reverting, since it is nothing but ill thought-through reverting for reverting's sake by now. I may also add that I just restored the previous version, so if you want any changes, change it to something that makes sense at this point. -- AlexR 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hu, I was removing content? You might want to have a look at the history of that page, boy! And your personal offenses do NOT excuse your practical removal of intersex people, since "LGBTI" leads only to LGBT, meaning somebody who doesn't know what the I stands for has to search through the article to find that info. I also have no idea why you consider linking to an article that does also not explain actually what these words mean, but only links to them as well is somehow better than linking to those terms directly, which makes a lot more sense. If you can't edit here without being personally offended when somebody actually reverts your BS edits, then maybe you should go looking for other places to spend your time. -- AlexR 13:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: LGBT Changes
Hello, Thanks for the explanation of your edit on my talkpage. I agree with your point of keeping summaries short and your improvement looks good to me. Best regards, Sietse 20:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Occaneechi
See Talk:List of State Recognized American Indian Tribal Entities for info regarding Occaneechi recognition.

Xlation

consensus
The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were
 * Delete - 21 (58%)
 * Keep - 11 (31%)
 * Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ( ! | ? | * ) 09:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey...
... not a problem (all my material is GFDL)! I've never been sigged before :-) Quite an honour! Now if only I could get this swollen head of mine through my doorway I might be able to leave the house... doh! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)