User talk:Harmil/Archive 02

Archive of User talk:Harmil for the month of August 2005. -17:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

TODO
This is my personal TODO list, but feel free to add comments below in a new section with regard to my planned projects, and/or take any of this on for yourself if you feel you have something to contribute.
 * Fix ambiguous and/or incorrect referneces to decades such as "in the early 1900s" which should actually be "in the early 20th century" or even "in the early 1900s"
 * Script - The disambiguation page is fine, but there apparently used to be a Script (performing arts), which went away and is now a redirect. A good treatment of what a dialog/direction script is, and how it's structured would be good. I have some thoughts on that.
 * Camera diet - User talk:Harmil lists some thoughts on the nature of the word, "script" in this article. I should see if I can figure out what it's all about and update, clean up the article.
 * Ongoing work on User:Harmil/Indian Entities, the complete list of all United States-recognized Indian Tribal Entities in 49 states.

Thx
Thanks for your corrections and expansion on the Wanda Gertz article. :)--Witkacy 22:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the edit== ==

Hi Harmil,

Since I have proved without a shadow of a doubt that the JPS incedent was not the first time that heteronormativity was in the public eye, could you go over the rest of the proposed edit that I made and see if you find anything else that you believe is not NPOV. Your comment on my post was only in reference to the point that it was 'one of the most well known' instances, but you didn't address the rest.

I'm not sure if that was just because you were concentrating on that point, or didn't see any other issues. If its the later, please let me know... or just insert the edit.

Though if it makes you feel better that FNN quote took me for-freaking-ever to find. And I had a jaw-drop when I did... because I know you don't particularly like that comment either, but felt that it was necessary for scrupulous NPOV. So I did a little happy-dance for both of us. ;) NickGorton 22:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dyke
I notcied your Dyke contribution. It is a really common mistake, but on diambiguation pages: All of this info is at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). --Commander Keane 05:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * links should not be piped
 * extra links should not be added unless needed
 * dictionary defintions are not included

Okay-
Okay, but I'm reverting the page... Michael 15:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel
The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

PL/I

 * I am of the opinion that Burrough's Algol was before PL/I (compiler written in its own language)
 * (and Burrough's PLI for the B6700 was written in Algol)
 * --ClemMcGann 13:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This was discussed last year on alt.folklore.computers, have a look at  and seach for the string "Suspect Algol on Burroughs mainframes might have compiled itself first"  Or go to message 164 - regards --ClemMcGann 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Harmil. If its ok with you, could we continue this at Talk:PL/I I have taken the liberty of copying our postings to date there, regards --ClemMcGann 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

New Bedford image
Ya, I've never been found of images on the left, as they tend to make reading feel a bit akward. I guess it stems from the fact that we read English print from left to right. Whatever it is, it looks more professional IMO (can't remember ever seeing a professional website use images on the left in their news articles), and at least I find it more readable that way. But I'm not complaining about alternation or anything like that. :) -- LGagnon 23:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

About chobot.
It is strange. Chobot is a simple interwikibot. The first change is done by Chobot. But the second one is not. I think it is a problem on the log of wikipedia. -- ChongDae 21:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Syrian terrorism
I would like to develop an article on this. There is one on Israeli terrorism so I think it's not necessary to redirect it, if that's OK with you. Coqsportif 15:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I have a lot of material I want to add to make it a proper article. For convenience I'll do that in the article itself intitially which I'll knock into shape over the next hour or so. A Google search shows no shortage of material, I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Coqsportif 16:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif
Aloha. User:Coqsportif has never claimed to live in Hawaii. He merely copied the category from my user page during his recent trolling. I'm removing the category from his user page since it's only for Wikipedians who live in Hawaii. Finally, Coqsportif has admitted that he does not live in Hawaii on my talk page. Whether or not he has lived there in the past is still under debate. The category is for Wikipedians who live there presently and he admits that he does not. --Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the user's claim -- Coqsportif has admitted that he does not live in Hawaii. So, why is the category on his user page? You may be interested in visiting Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --Viriditas  | Talk 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's noting absurd about the fact that Coqsportif has been trolling Wikipedia (he's a disruptive sockpuppet) and that much of what he writes is based on provoking responses by the users that he trolls. This means that much of what he writes indeed indicates something other than what it is.   I'm sorry that you're not aware of it, but I've given you the link above.  Perhaps you haven't had much experience dealing with these kinds of trolls, but I have.  In any case, I will let his little charade play itself out without removing the category, even though he has explicitly stated that he does not live in Hawaii nor does he seem familiar with the names of the islands or town in which he was allegedly born. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Harmil for your assistance. Hopefully the maatter has concluded. Coqsportif 13:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

copyvios
Concerning this recent edit of yours: It is not necessary to request speedy of an article that you already tagged as a copyvio. As per our criteria for speedy deletion, "copyright problems are not candidates for speedy deletion unless they meet one of the above criteria." Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, whenever you tag an article as a copyvio, don't forget to list that page on Copyright problems too. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Tanadgusix Corporation
Hi Harmil, thanks for your kind words & comments about the Tanadgusix Corporation article. Looking back I think you're right, the article would be best in Category:Alaska Native tribes. I mistook it for an Alaska Native Corporation, when instead it is a Alaska Native Village Corporation. I've moved the article back to where it was. Thanks for your work on this subject & for bringing this up, Kurieeto 16:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Computer/Temp
As mentioned on the Talk:Computer page, because of dissatisfaction with the current Computer article, I forked it at Computer/Temp and it's now at the stage where I think the organisation is good enough that it can serve as the basis of future work on the topic. Seeing you have edited the Computer article recently, I'd be interested on your view. --Robert Merkel 22:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Image width
I saw your comments about image width at User talk:Gdr, and I'd like to point that taxobox style is defined by no mean by Gdr's nomialbot, but at Wikiproject Tree of Life, who maintains the guidelines around which Nomialbot is based. Circeus 22:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

You make an interesting point Circeus, perhaps the definition of "taxobox" could be presented by an official of the Wikimedia Foundation. I look forward to the diagnosis of this so called "Nomialbot". Once again I must stress the immediate urgancy of this request and insist upon its instant resolution under ruling 7.21 of the Wikipedia Procedural Manual.

VfU
May I ask what VfU stands for? --Fenice 05:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea, didn't know that exists.--Fenice 10:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that is interesting, I really did not know.--Fenice 11:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop talking to yourself Fenice - it clogs up the Wikipedia. I suggest someone with greater authority remove this pointless section.

what comments were u wanting to add
Hamil, What comments were u wanting to add to my view point of evolution. I cannot see any.Pls advise.

Thanks Monami

Cherokee editing
Hi, I see that you removed all the information from the Cherokee page that we added today. Your note says it needs to be edited down because it makes the page 'less useful.' However, I noticed you even removed a book reference we added from the suggested reading list as well as a sentence we added to 'famous Cherokees' that stated "Composer Louis Ballard is a Cherokee, as well as flutist Tommy Wildcat and composer/keyboardist Lisa LaRue."

The page, prior to your removing our additions, is very biased towards the Cherokee Nation. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma is one of three federally recognized tribes of Cherokees, as is the Cherokee Nation. I feel that the history, the one book reference, and the addition of 3 names to the list of famous Cherokees is QUITE useful.

Please let me know what I can do so that our 12,000 tribal members can be represented. (unsigned comment by User:UKB Cherokee)

League of Decency and my vote
Thanks for communicating with me. I'll try to explain my vote a bit. It has two parts, really, "parties" and "illegal activity" (illegal for Wikipedia, not illegal for Florida): As for the issue itself, the issue they represent, I think we should always opt for the least obscene illustration that is adequate. I don't think it takes any reach to say so, either. A graphic photo is not better than a clear but less graphic photo. Further, a lot of things really don't need much illustration. After you describe fellatio, I can't imagine how the photo helps. Also, Wikipedia is not giving out rare information in these photos; the web has just a wee bit of porn on it, for those wanting to see more. Were these folks wanting to remove all illustration of sexual or scatalogical acts, I'd see how one would argue that they're extremists, but, so far as I can see, they always have a substitute that's also illustrative. One of the side effects of the demographic skew of Wikipedia's editor population is that the contributors really, really like their porn and really, really think it's cool to put it in an official-looking place. Well, I've got my own stack of pornographic magazines, but the giggles and grins of getting a dirty word or dirty picture into a "book" like Wikipedia wore off with teen angst. However, my vote wasn't about how much unnecessary porn there is on Wikipedia, but really about how we allow parties (and shouldn't) and about how this particular one isn't really advocating disruption. Geogre 16:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I hate political parties on Wikipedia. Seriously.  I believe they're in the top 3 reasons to leave the project and never contribute another byte to it.  Informal, jocular associations are one thing, but there was a spin-off from m:inclusionists about a year ago that started a new and vicious trend.  It was an alarm section, where people were supposed to immediate go to VfD and vote "keep" on an endangered article, without rationale, either.  This then turned into Schoolwatch.  I thought then that what this did was advocate, essentially, the destruction of one component of Wikipedia.  It was an attempt at destroying VfD by applying a universal reasoning to all articles of a sort.  I.e. they figured that schools were, with nothing else to say about them, "inherently notable."  Therefore, it was sufficient that the topic was a school to go vote "keep," even if the article had been nominated for advertising, for being an attack page, etc.  When a VfD deliberation that usually attracted 5-8 voters suddenly got 5-10 more voting, "Keep! And stop deletionist trolling," the very process was destroyed.  It was destroyed because there was no individual deliberation of an individual article or nomination.  I'm going on about this particular thing because I believe what it was doing was being a party and being wiki-illegal.  However, that went ahead.  No one wanted to delete those pages, largely for fear of getting sucked into the name calling of the debate over schools.  (No matter what anyone said about the argument about block votes, it was always assumed to be about schools.)  I really think that all block-vote and political party pages on the project should be deleted.  Really, I do.  Take the m.deletionism, m.inclusionism, m.mergist, and all the rest.  In fact, since block votes on any subject, pro- or con-, destroy consideration and prevent discussion, I'd even say that forming a voting block should be a blockable offense.  However, we've allowed it.  Having done so the once, for that group (the deletionists and mergists never block voted), I don't know how we can deny it now for the anti-porn group.
 * 2) Supposedly, pages in project space and on meta have a different standard from article or user space, and so the presumption is that they get kept unless they do something really nasty. From what I can tell, these folks aren't doing anything very nasty.  They're trying to influence votes, but I don't see any difference in quality between them and the other block voters.  Further, since they don't have a "watch list" like Schoolwatch and encourage "vote your conscience," they're not advocating vote floods.  I.e. they're not advocating something wiki-disrupting.


 * It would hardly be the first project to exist to push a POV. Don't worry it will probably die out of it's own cause these things normaly do.Geni 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if switching is necessary. In a sense, it's kind of down to whether this is the first party/alert page you've seen or not. As I've said, above, I'd love to see all of them deleted as counterproductive. People who watch areas of their own interest are important, but people who militate over them are destructive, in my opinion.

I think Jimbo's comments show very well in some of the gender issues, although the interest of transgendered Wikipedians in gender pages can lead dissenters to say that there is a POV mafia there. I don't think that there is, as I've yet to see any of those folks have neutral, scientific support for their position nor see any of those interested in the gender topics refuse to allow a carefully worded NPOV statement in.

However, when the issue is "Wikipedia itself should" as opposed to "this discussion of asparagus should," we get into a different realm, in my opinion. One is inside a set of rules. The other is attempting to change the rules. The same affiliations that work so well in the former case can be (can be) destructive in the latter case. It all depends upon what happens next. I can name 4-8 people who agree with me about applying high standards to content. We moan and groan to each other about the junk left in. That's normal. When we make a page that says "Alarm! Quick!  Go speedy delete Sailor Moon's dress before the facruft people see it and start protecting it", I think we've crossed over from normal to insane. I just got the vibe from the folks who started this Decency thing, at least, that they were still sane about it. What happens next will be the issue, I suppose. Geogre 17:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dead Authors Society
I'd like to ask you to re-consider your vote at Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch. I've cleaned up the page, and added another of his books. If Wikipedia lists people only on the basis of how well their books were received, it seems to me that we're crossing a rather dangerous line into reviewing rather than building an encyclopedia. -Harmil 11:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you're arguing this in the wrong place. My vote follows the guideline in WP:BIO - it's pretty clear that you can't say 'yes' for Gotch to "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" - he does however pass the very lenient critera if he were alive: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". If I felt there was any prospect for future expansion of the current stub, I'd change my vote, but as it stands I don't think casual editors can do better than 'he wrote a book on latin names'. Most cruft stubs will inevitably expand - people are interested in it, there's a lot of information around and so on - however this isn't true of many subjects more 'worthy'. Wikip's cruft bias doesn't have to mean the lowering of the bar for all other topics. --zippedmartin 12:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hectares and square meters
I see you asked Bobblewik to refrain from converting areas in acres to areas in m2 instead of hectares. He's just done the same thing to one of my articles, plus made an unsubstantiated edit changing 250 acres to 450 acres. Did he ever get back to you about this m2 / ha thing? I don't want to step on any Wikipedia policy here, but this seems like just his POV. Tonywalton | Talk 12:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Great work on Mass. towns article
Thanks &mdash; Friejose 21:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I belive you're owed a barnstar. (See above.)

see discussion page for Image:Orange_flight_suit.jpg
See comments I posted on the above mentioned page in the subject/headline. Michael 14:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nikolai Tesla
Thanks for reverting there, I think Klonimus may be finally getting the message that he can't push his POV all over the place. Good work! Karmafist 03:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Tykell
I see what you mean. I've reverted a couple of his unexplained "fairuse" tags, and I've contacted the Web site which he claims to have given permission for his use of a number of photos. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I would personally disagree - while the administrator of uboat.net may not have given us permission to use the photos, the photos are not licensed to him in any way, shape or form. Tykell should obviously not be claiming to have license from him, but since the original photographs are the work of the Kriegsmarine (and are no larger than necessary to illustrate the article, and portray no artistic value), then I would think they were each a poster-child for the concept of Fair Use policy. I welcome your opinions on the matter, since I have slightly more than a passing interest in the wiki articles on WWII characters and would love to see each of them with a photograph attached. Sherurcij 05:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)