User talk:ICE77

Stereotypes of white race ethnic groups
Hello :-) The article Stereotypes of white race ethnic groups is nominated for deletion. I really hope you could oppose it being deleted and ask to keep it. It's a nice interesting article, and only the polit-correction fanatics oppose to it (but those oppose to everything. I myself am white, Russian by the father and Jewish by the mother, and i really enjoyed the article and even created the Jews section and added information to the Russians section). Your oppinion on the article should be stated here. Thank you. M.V.E.i. 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, as you requested i made an Italians section there. I used the stereotypes i know, but i dont know how to portrait what you requested. P.S. I have big respect for Italians and i created the 6-people image and the Contribution to humanity section in the Italian people article. M.V.E.i. 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ICE77 user page
I've added the "" template to your user page (User:ICE77), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).

Please note that the purpose of a user page is not as a personal homepage or used as a general webhosting service, but as a way for active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. If you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues here or on my user talk page. You may remove the deletion notice, and the page will not be deleted for the moment, but note that it may still be sent to Miscellany for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I restored your user page. You might have better luck if you log in before making edits. As it stands, most of your edits are assigned to various IP addresses and just a few, all but one to your user page, are actually linked to this account. --CBD 12:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cooldenny, thanks for the invitation. I finally found some time to fill out your survey. I assume the questionnaire was designed for the second pilot study.


 * ICE77 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Apollo
Hello ICE77, I saw you had rearranged things on the Apollo page. Just thought I'd mention that the reason I had added the photo of the gold coin was that it showed Apollo with bow and arrows, illustrating that aspect of his attributes. That's why I thought it belonged in the section on Attributes. Not sure what your thinking was in moving it here. Rani nurmai (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Rani nurmai. My intention was to move images around and try to spread them evenly throughout the article for a better and more pleasing layout. Feel free to put the image back where it was if you want if you think it fits better in the section about attributes.


 * ICE77 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, have done. I also restored the image with the kithara to that section, where it was originally.Rani nurmai (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apollo with the kithara is more appropriate in the "Apollo in the arts" section since the kithara is mentioned there. That's why the image was there.


 * ICE77 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your work in mythology
I see that you've been asking for specific sources in several mythological articles, and this work is to be applauded. I wonder whether you are familiar with the website Theoi.com, which is a good place to start a search for the ancient sources on a particular deity or other Greek mythological figure. At this point in Wikipedia's history, it seems that you're unlikely to attract a fleet of editors who will scurry off to find the answers to your questions, so you may want to satisfy your inclination to pin these things down (I share this) by doing a bit of scouting at Theoi, where the alphabetical index makes it easy to find a usually quite thorough collocation of ancient sources. The PD translations, however, are often necessarily fusty.

An accessible mythology handbook from the 21st century that I recommend is Bill Hansen's: the 2004 Oxford University Press edition may be available to you in preview here, or the 2005 ABC-Clio edition here. He doesn't always cite sources, but is a generally sound modern source for an overview. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I noticed that many articles on Greek mythology lack sources, especially when "versions" or "stories" are mentioned. I generally list and ask about them because I don't have the time to do additional research. I already proofread, correct and reorganize articles and it takes time. I leave some things in a list for most articles. I'm not sure people will follow my pointers and contribute but it's a start. I can always go back in the future and do the work myself although I am primarily interested in the form and style of articles.


 * ICE77 (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon
I've noticed you have been editing image placement, but you must be unaware of the Manual of Style for Images, as the images are mostly no longer in compliance with that guideline. Please review the section on placement, specifically squeezing text between images and left aligned images. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read the section of the article on style that talks about location of images. It says it's not a good practice to place text between two images. That is exactly what I try to avoid as I parse through articles. In fact, there is at least one instance in the article on Portland in the Transportation section. Regarding images at the top of the section, I don't see why it is not considered good practice to have an image on the left at the top. That is a standard in hundreds of articles on Wikipedia. In my opinion, it doesn't even look that horrible. All I'm doing is space images and alternate their location for a better layout. Clustered images are not elegant nor necessary. The sections on Law and government or Planning and development of the article on Portland illustrate exactly what the article on style says it shouldn't be done. Maybe you could help fixing things like that by placing the indented text before the image.


 * ICE77 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey uhm.. theres an image that says something along the lines of "the five quadrants of portland". Obviously someone is retarded. Please fix this. Thank you! 98.88.121.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC).


 * No, I won't fix it because fixing it would be wrong. The article at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Portland,_Oregon says "Slang-names for it include "NoPo" (shortened from North Portland) and "the Fifth Quadrant" (for being the odd-man out from the four-cornered logic of SE, NE, SW, and NW)."
 * By the way, sign yourself with a name like everybody does.


 * ICE77 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit at Talk:Lamborghini Countach appears to be a personal attack. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in incivility. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of RfC tag
Hi ICE77, please be careful to not remove rfc tags, as you did with this edit. Thanks, Haminoon (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What is an rfc tag? Since the entire page is about the same topic is seems natural to have a single title. Also, what is "weak keep" and "strong keep": it should be "keep" and that should be the end of the story.
 * ICE77 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * see wp:rfc. The tag ensures it is listed in other places such as noticeboards so people who aren't watching the page can comment on it. As the process is by consensus rather than a formal vote, it is reasonable for people to write "weak keep". Regards, Haminoon (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Light-emitting diode
Please don't manually fix image sizes, as you did, without a good reason for why the image shouldn't be small or large. It causes users' image-size setting (settable in your preferences) to be ignored. See the second bullet point at Manual of Style/Images for more info. Thanks, and happy editing! – void  xor  01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for light-emitting diode
I have requested a peer review for the Light-emitting diode article. Apparently, my issue is that the article makes little to no distinction on green vs. pure green LEDs, even though the former has existed since the 1970s while the latter wasn't introduced until the 1990s. The article seems to consider both to be one in the same, even though they are not. ANDROS1337 TALK 18:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Capicola move request
You previously participated in discussions of the title of the capicola article. I have opened a formal RM move request with a discussion here if you are interested in participating. —  AjaxSmack  13:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Amish
I tried to answer your questions. Dan Holsinger (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Giants (Greek mythology)
Thanks for your close reading, and improvements at Giants (Greek mythology). Paul August &#9742; 12:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks also for your "Questions and Comments" you left on talk page. I've tried to address some of these here. Paul August &#9742; 10:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Paul August, thank you for the feedback. It was nice to re-read the article. I will take a look at your comments. ICE77 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Theogony
Hi ICE77. Could you please join the discussion at Talk:Theogony? Thanks, Paul August &#9742; 15:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged, see for example Manual of Style/Layout which says: ”The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text”, and Writing better articles which says: ”One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.” Since Katolophyromai concurs, and you've yet to respond I've decided to restore the original paragraph structure. Paul August &#9742; 11:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Judgement of Paris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bibliotheca ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Judgement_of_Paris check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Judgement_of_Paris?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

These Days (Bon Jovi song)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:These Days (Bon Jovi song) are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering the fact knowing what kind of harmonica is played on These Days (Bon Jovi) is pertinent to the article and asking about it is completely legitimate, I consider the repeated removal of my question by FlightTime and you (Sum mer PhD v2.0) nothing but an infringement to my right of acquiring knowledge, free circulation of information but, most of all, sheer disregard and a bunch of fascist bullshit.
 * ICE77 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The question seems harmless enough to me, and conceivably related to article content. I see no reason why the edit needed to be reverted. Paul August &#9742; 18:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Mussolini and Hitler, those looking to play the song are looking for some fairly specialized knowledge which is outside of the generalist nature of Wikipedia. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ;-). But to be fair to ICE77, asking about the key does not necessarily imply "looking to play the song". And even if it did ... (shrug) surely not worth edit warring over?  Paul August &#9742; 19:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ICE77 is using talk pages for general discussion of the article's topic, contrary to policy. In this case, it seems to be to gather data that would not generally be included in the article. It's trivial, unless you are looking for specialized info to play the song, as here. It was removed once, by FlightTime (a talk page warning would have been a good idea, though "Not a forum" didn't seem to lead to any consideration of the idea). They restored it without comment. I removed it and placed a consensus notice that talk pages are not for general discussion.


 * This resulted in the snippy response that I'm a fascist and Wikipedia's policies block a supposed right, restrict knowledge and are bullshit.


 * (Your suggestion that my backing up a policy-based revert with a consensus note discussing the issue somehow constitutes edit warring on my part doesn't seem to be a helpful addition.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to Seattle
Please follow the Edit summary guidelines by giving a descriptive summary rather than something generic like "improved layout". Image size should not be set using a fixed width in pixels, per WP:IMGSIZE.  Sounder Bruce  02:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Gothic Architecture

 * I have taken another Sabbatical, this time of about five months duration.
 * I notice that in May, you left a comment on the page Gothic Architecture to the effect that it had been a good and useful article, but that it had gone  downhill
 * You state . It looks like the butchering started with Amandajm on the 10th of March of 2020.
 * I am the said Amandajm.
 * So just to get this straight: at the point at which is was a "good" article, that one might want to copy, it was, in fact, largely my work, of about five or six years earlier.
 * I had left Wikipedia for a time, because of the unrelenting and uncurbed harassment of female contributors by some male contributors.
 * I left, but I left behind me a string of the largest and most significant articles on architecture, and a major contribution to many others.
 * Architecture, Ancient Greek architecture, List of Ancient Greek temples, Romanesque architecture, Romanesque secular and domestic architecture (this was a ground-breaking article, as at the time no such overview of the subject existed), Gothic architecture, Architecture of cathedrals and great churches, Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England, Cologne Cathedral, St Peter's Basilica, St Paul's Cathedral (architectural section), Wells Cathedral (the architectural section), Chester Cathedral, Leonardo da Vinci (pulled it together from a mess that focussed mainly on his sexuality), Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci,  Michelangelo, Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, Italian Renaissance Painting, Renaissance architecture, etc etc.


 * I returned in Early 2020 for just one reason- I observed that students who posted their assignments about Gothic Architecture on You Tube were consistently making a very significant error.
 * I deduced that the source of the error must be the Wikipedia article, and indeed it was.
 * Let me say that the error was THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ERROR POSSIBLE, i.e. students were omitting to mention the "Gothic" or pointed arch as the most significant feature of the Gothic style.
 * I came back with the specific intention of putting this to rights.


 * I discovered that the sections had been swapped around so that the order no longer conformed to other such articles.
 * I set about fixing this. I have a large library of books, but I do not lift sections out of books for an article of this nature.
 * The expression needs to be concise, exact, non-judgemental, ... but at the same time use words that convey a sense of the characteristics of the architecture.
 * My aim is that if a student reads the article, they will walk away knowing something about the subject.


 * My attempts to fix the article were met with continual opposition.
 * The two editors concerned seemed to be dead set, on sabotaging everything that I did. I am not sure that this was the intention, but it was certainly done from an arrogant sense that with little knowledge between the pair of them, they could "fix" what I was doing, without waiting for the finished product.


 * It has been impossible to educate either GPinkerton or SiefkinDR into an understanding as to
 * How to adapt information from books to create a coherent text. (See the absolute mish-mash in the first section of the body text to Sistine Chapel ceiling where junks of narrative are jammed together without coherence or explanation).
 * How to order an article- e.g. It is pointless to insert a lengthy history of the way in which a style developed, when the reader has not yet been given the vocabulary of the style. You don't use words like ribbed vault within the history, until "ribbed vault" has been described as part of the architectural style. A lengthy history of the development of the style within France must be proceeded by giving the reader a sense of what a Gothic building actually is.
 * The inherent lack of understanding has led these two people to question the emphasis withing the article on cathedrals and large churches. It has ben impossible to get through to them that the style evolved specifically within these types of buildings.  Rather than carving off an article on Gothic cathedrals, there needed to be a second article on Gothic secular and domestic architecture, in parallel with the one that already exists- Romanesque secular and domestic architecture.
 * There is an ongoing problem that it seems frustratingly impossible to educate editor Seifkin to use his eyes.  It seems that he cannot learn to tell the difference between the major stylistic periods within English Gothic, and can put up an image of part of the building 250 years later than the part described in the text.
 * Similarly, clues as to which buildings really ought to appear are ignored. The interaction, spread over several different discussions and several different articles, goes something like this:
 * "Wells Cathedral was the first fully Gothic Cathedral in England".....
 * "Wells Cathedral is of major importance to the period" ......
 * "Wells Cathedral is vital to an understanding of the development of English Gothic"
 * "This is not complete without a mention of Wells Cathedral".......
 * "Wells Cathedral needs to be included here"........
 * ...and by this time, I want to ask "Why the F**K have you not included Wells Cathedral?"
 * Understand that this makes me want to weep, because it means that I am failing this person as an educator.


 * The ultimate way of containing and controlling any Wikipedia editor who is knowledgeable about their subject is to say to them "You do not own the article".
 * And this is perfectly true.
 * But there comes a time when an editor of lesser experience needs to simply stand back and own their own ignorance or lack of experience.
 * It is both ignorance and arrogance that has brought the article Gothic architecture to the state it is in now.
 * You will have observed that a great deal of my writing in the article is now without references. I needed to come back and do it. I don't like disrupting the flow of writing by the process of formatting references, which I am not good at. It would have been very much easier to attend to this at the time that I had all my books on the table, and the sources still fresh in my mind, not to mention the place tags in the books.
 * However, I am not prepared to put in hours and hours of work, in the face of an uphill battle, with a couple of ignorant people who do not know the difference between a Lancet Gothic Lady Chapel and a Flowing Decorated chancel.
 * Johnbod is aware of these problems.


 * Amandajm (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Amandajm, I read your comments and then I read the replies to my comments from GPinkerton and SiefkinDR which apper to me legitimate and in line with my observations. My recollection of what I have witnessed after reading a printed copy of this article and seeing what it looked online months later was a state of shock in the sense that the article was once a great one and then it got ripped apart. I do not recall being able to make any substantial improvement because the structure was completely different. I have not been part of the conversation between you, GPinkerton and SiefkinDR. It's not clear if this is an issue of style, ignorance or simply a political position. All I know is that I have been reading and fixing Wikipedia articles since 2006. I always strive for flow, layout, style and punctuation. I have been in the situation where I contested points or issues on several topics. I am not an expert on all of them but, when I am, I am not ashamed when it comes to destroying the ignorance of whoever thinks he/she knows everything when, indeed, knows little or nothing at all. I had my fair share of uphill battles with articles I tried to fix, most famously one on the Chevrolet Camaro (third generation), an article I fixed repeatedly but that somebody constantly reverted because he/she felt he/she owned the article. I eventually gave up because it was pointless - interestingly, I do not see traces of that but I clearly remember the image of the red Camaro and looking at the older versions from 2009 I can confirm. Ignorance is an issue on Wikipedia and and this is no longer the age of common sense. Lost of people talk before thinking and fix before reading. Fixing an article should lead to an improvement and it should be made if it's necessary. I spent time analyzing the status of this article a few months ago and I noticed it drastically changed shape and content on the 10th of March of 2020. I do not know if GPinkerton and SiefkinDR are experts on Gothic architecture. All I know is that I completely disagree with your revision that dates to the 10th of March of 2020. That was clearly the point of inflection. The modifications you made did not look like a improvements to what was there before. You completely twisted the content of the article and it turned into something else I did not like.

ICE77 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mace (bludgeon)
In that article lot of description have no sources but yet are displayed this will lead to a flow of misinformation.please can you rectify it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Yellow Tomahawk and Kanab
Hello. I saw your Talk entry on the Kanab page re The Yellow Tomahawk, so I added it to the article. (Not sure why you didn't add it yourself.) In case you're not watching the Kanab page, I'm telling you here. And thank you for mentioning it! Also, I like your User page; it may motivate me to finally getting around to building mine up. Yesthatbruce (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing of "See also" links for Pope
Your recent editing history at Pope shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Kashmiri, what's the rule on listing additional links at the bottom of an article? Does it have to be by alphabetic order (completely useless) or by relevancy with the subject (practical and logical)?


 * ICE77 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)