User talk:Helohe/Archives/2006/February

2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising
The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review/Userbox debates
I noticed on the debate about you suggested banning DocGlasgow. Just to let you know that if you care to file an RfC I will gladly second it Cynical 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Police state
Thank you for your comments. But could you provide sources to back up your statements? This is not meant as opinion poll, but we try to get a substantiated list of police states. Sincerey Nomen Nescio 16:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but could you place a link to these sources next to your comment on that talk page? Furthermore, several criteria must be met, and you should comment on that with links to i.e. HRW, that substantiate your opinion.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

template:user fsm
I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Deletion_review/Userbox_debates. Janizary 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit counter
Here's the editcount tool. It's quite useful; it breaks down the total count by functional area. And please don't take my "oppose" vote personally. You may make a great admin some day, but I think admins should have more experience. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I encourage you to do more editing in the "mainspace" (that is, in actual articles). That's the lifeblood of Wikipedia. By the way, I just reverted an anonymous user's edits to your user page; it looked like vandalism. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Whiskypedia

 * Scope: Reference and reviews of alcoholic drinks: wine, whisky, grappa etc...
 * Details:
 * Proposer:--Helohe 10:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments: Too limited in scope for the Wikimedia Foundation, but it would likely Wikicities would welcome it with open arms. Perhaps title it Drinkpedia or Bar Encyclopedia, in order to not confuse people into thinking it's only Wiskey? The only thing, it must not be deemed to be promoting alcohol, that's against Google AdSense's policy, the method which funds Wikicities. Only reviewing and cataloging, and noting which users believe which drinks are the best. --  user:zanimum

PDE

 * Scope: Encyclopedia of psychedelic substances.
 * Details:
 * Proposer:--Helohe 10:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments: These substances are all covered in Wikipedia. Unless there's some benefit of splitting this content off, there's no point in doing so. Otherwise, we could have a project dedicated to socks. --  user:zanimum