User talk:Inter/Archive1

 Leave me a message if you wish!

Fumblerules
I want to make article about famous short text. (Maybe this text is copyrighted, maybe not.) What should I do?

Googlebombing
Point taken about the current googlebomb thing regarding poker - apologies..

Singular/plural rule
Hi, Inter. I'm afraid I had to redirect your disambiguation page, "Warrants". There was already a disambiguation page (with more definitions) at Warrant. It is standard to use the singular form for all article titles, apart from exceptional cases, such as the names of bands. Deb 18:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Me stupid for not checking. :> Inter 22:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Wolfe Bernheim
In the vfd for this person, you said you would vote Keep if the information could be verified. I have verified the information and edited the article if you would like to have a look.

Best wishes.

Capitalistroadster 10:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

redirects
Deleted your redirect of Warendorf to Warendorf (district) as they are different things, this is like redirecting Washington D.C. to Washington State. Grunners 17:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rumours ain't fact
I agree with your edit to the HF II article (or rather your revert). I know from personal family knowledge that Henry was pressured by Clara, his wife... but it needs a little more backup to make it into an article. Pmeisel 01:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) by the way would be interested in your thoughts.....

VFD
Hi,

Just noticed you put in a VFD for a "Michelle Stephens" article. For an obvious vanity page like that, surely a speedy delete would be more appropriate? (I might be wrong, though :-) )

AndrewH 12:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

peer review of talk pages?
I don't quite get it. Why peer review talk pages? Or am I missing an idiom in which the peer-review request goes on the talk page rather than the article page? You never know when a new wikipedia wiki-idiom is going to sprog itself into the meta-meatspace... --Blair P. Houghton 19:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I get it now. But y'know what? The text of the oldpeerreview tag blows. So I'm going to put the first half second and the second half first so the first thing you read is "the peer review has been archived" and it makes most sense that it's meta. Go dunk your paste-key finger in that beer. It probably-needs it. Blair P. Houghton 19:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Held it down and pounded on it until it fit. Had to do some rerouting in the pr-instructions tag as well to get rid of oldpeerreview's red links to the peer-review discussion, but she's purrin' like a kitten now, boy. Blair P. Houghton 20:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Removal of that link wasn't too helpful. The template itself will show the link as red, that's normal. I've reverted back. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not that I want to spoil all the fun, but what exactly is the oldpeerreview template for? I don't really see much usefulness in "this article once was on peer review" and the other infos presented in that template, and it seems that there's no timelimit for it, so more and more talk pages will be filled with it. So, what was your intention with the template? --Conti|&#9993; 00:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me like a page never really leaves peer review because the reviewers likely keep it in their watch list. It is kind of a long tag just to say that the article is no longer being considered for peer review. It could probably be reduced if the bulk of it was moved to an old-peer-review list page and the peer-review archival process was restructured to create that page. Consider it the pancreas of wikipedia; mysterious, ugly, but crucial in a mysteriously ugly way. Blair P. Houghton 17:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anon 69.231.123.244
From what I've seen, I think his edits on Kobe Bryant are just attempts at improving the article. If anything, I think this is a content dispute. I'll send him a friendly reminder about how the wiki process works. Please try to engage him in conversation, rather than calling him a vandal.

I've only seen minor deletions, that did something good to the flow of the text. If I'm completely wrong about it, please provide me with some diffs. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Socket 940
Hi Inter. I'm looking at your additions to the Socket 940 page. I'm thinking they might be more useful if you moved them to the CPU socket page or even better List of AMD CPU slots and sockets.

Just to be clear, I like what you put in (I didn't know that Socket 939 came after Socket 940); but I think that if I wanted a history of AMD sockets, I'd go to the List of AMD CPU slots and sockets page. :-)

I've been nosing around the various AMD pages for some time. They're a mess: redundant, inconsistent, and disorganized. I've made some (so far) small efforts to re-arrange them; there's much more to do. Perhaps you have some ideas on how we could bring coherency to the AMD entries.

And BTW, do you know the answer to the question about multiplier that I posed at Athlon XP talk page? I've been deferring cleaning up the CPU tables until I understood them better.

DanielVonEhren 15:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello again Inter; I saw your message to me. I've put a (slightly rambling) note on the AMD talk page as you suggested.  You had a good thought in suggesting that place for the discussion.


 * DanielVonEhren 00:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fingerprint
You will be reported to the military police. Watch that page to see your name appear.--212.100.250.210 13:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But no. I am not a vandal, I'm a military commander operating from a mental hospital in Canada. But I'm actually in Mauritania.--212.100.250.210 13:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am making military victories, not nonsense edits. I have re-taken fingerprint.--212.100.250.210 13:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've re-taken fingerprint. You'll never get it. Not no-how.--212.100.250.210 13:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rhydfelin
hi. the Rhydfelin looks like a sincere attempt at a geography stub. is it still a quick deletion candidate? Nateji77 15:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

to delete or not to delete??
why not delete Playboy Brasil?? I don't see how this could be a valid encyclopedia article??


 * Do you know how many 'notable' magaziens there are in the world?? If it's really that notable than why is there no portugese article about it. English Wikipedia is not the place for it (that's my argument now). Thanks --130.161.31.76 15:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Debacle
I'm glad you left that message on Dave's page. I feel really sorry for him, and a bit embarrassed about it. Like many others I've gad a couple of run-ins with Mr. Windcoote and unless people agree with him this is how he becomes. Should ignore him I suppose but I don't like to think of him getting away with it all the time. All sorts make an interesting world I suppose. Regards Giano 15:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for botched attempt to fix vandalism.
Argh. Sorry about mistakenly thinking that the article on Leet had been vandalised when it hadn't. I mistakenly thought that the previous revert before mine was an attempt at vandalism, but then realised that it was actually a revert to an earlier version before a failed attempt to revert some vandalism. I tried to fix it myself, but you fixed it before me. I thank you for your vigilance. 194.109.21.4 11:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Witwatersrand
User:155.232.250.19 and User:155.232.250.51 are strongly suspected to student-available terminals in the University of the Witwatersrand. They also did edits to some of the articles discussed in Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering. Today's vandalism may be revenge for what I have done to them but is more likely to be by different people. -- RHaworth 11:57, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Help!
Hey Inter, quick question for you, would you mind looking over Talk:New York City and adding your comment? It looks like its set to turn into a large edit war. Thanks, and talk to you on IRC. Páll 03:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletes
I don't see that Cheran Chenkutuvan or Mulibrey nanism were speedies.

Charles Matthews 17:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar


More schools on Votes for deletion
As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:


 * VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
 * VfD: Franklin High School
 * VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
 * VfD: Red Lake High School
 * VfD: The Sage School
 * VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

Good vandalism work
Seeing as you've spent so much time reverting vandals today, I thought you'd appreciate some recognition, so after one particular incident this morning, I decided on the best way to do this... :-) Anilocra 14:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New User Fights Vandalism
Hi. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this, but I've been reading up on what others have been doing and just following the example. Maybe I just do catch on pretty quick. Anyway, I just wanted to help out with this encyclopedia b/c it's an awesome service, and I've come across a few vandalized pages and it really pisses me off!

(Also, how do you do that cool sign-off tag where it inserts the date and time and everything? Thanks!)

-TheGWO

re: dimebag site - im just putting a link to the site on the relevant pages! chill out dude!

Adminship
Congratulations - you've just been made an administrator. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the administrators' reading list before you get to work. Happy vandal hunting :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:29, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I noticed you have got a barnstar for mediation skills, and that's why I have a little request.

The poll that jguk has listed for VFD is for assessment of each categories and articles, on a case-by-case basis, whether the political NPOV section of the naming conventions applies and applicable.

The matter has been discussed thoroughly at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#..of China or ..of the PRC &rarr; of mainland China. While my view is not supported unanimously, jguk's view is not agreed by the majority either. *

I suggested I was going to proceed to polls to assess the applicability of the naming conventions to each page at #A poll? on April 4, and there was no objection.

In my opinion, I have done whatever necessary, including, but not limited to, initiating discussions, giving arguments and getting consensus for anything that is to be changed. It has been annoying that some users keep making accusations. I do hope the matter can be solved in a peaceful way. Your help to mediate will be helpful. &mdash; Instantnood 14:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

* Please note jguk does not even agree with the political NPOV section of the naming conventions. The attempts by her/him and several other users to change the naming conventions has been rejected by the majority, and some of these users have a record of changing the conventions unilaterally without any consensus.
 * Thank you. &mdash; Instantnood 06:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello again Inter. A request for arbitration has been filed against me at WP:RFAr by Snowspinner as the AMA advocate for jguk. &mdash; Instantnood 21:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * See my reply to you on your user page. Inter\Echo 21:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Inter. I will contact you when I need further help from you. &mdash; Instantnood 22:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:82.45.6.51
Hey. 82.45.6.51 is at it again. He's been at it at Ish ishwar's and Woohookitty's talk page. Peter Isotalo 22:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Inter\Echo 22:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Tack, konstapeln. :-D Peter Isotalo 22:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

User page vandalism
The same anon as earlier just vandalised your user page again. Just so you know :) Smoddy (tgeck) 13:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Swedish conflict
I think there's another disptue brewing. Tuomas is reverting changes that have to do with very simple phoneme excercise and is not respecting Cite your sources by asserting his own very non-standard interpretations of which IPA characters to use. Could you have a look at Talk:Swedish phonology? Peter Isotalo 11:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * If the current mediation at Swedish phonology fails, what would be the next step? Offical mediation? An RfC? I can't help feeling frustrated by this constant lack of progress and general unwillingness by anyone to admit even the slightest error. Considering how many guidelines that have already been violated and keep getting violated (Civility, Verifiability, Cite your sources, No original research etc.), I find it a bit absurd to constantly having to defend almost every single edit and having most of them simply reverted and/or scoffed at. Peter Isotalo 15:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Inter, I thank you for your effort.

I'll try to summarize my views:
 * I agree with Tuomas when he states that the turbulence around Peter is not about content, but about dominance and behavior. Peter shows in my opinion too many signs of wanting exclusive ownership of articles he contribute to and of wanting to set and change the rules.
 * The repeated snubs at me for being a non-academic without easy access to accademic sources do not make me happier. I have contributed to the best of my ability and with much more humility than the snubber in question. I think even a fast examination would reveal that Peter has produced more false statements in the course of a few months than I have in the years I've been an infrequent contributor to the article(s) on Swedish language.
 * Peter would have gained a lot if he had worked in attributions to authorities in the text more, and presented quotations to support his critcism of wordings and choises in the article that have "stood the test ot time". I feel, personally, that Peter's demanding attitude has been very counterproductive. Quotes ought not to be used as weapons but as means of persuasion &mdash; demands for quotes are even worse. There aren't that many contributors who care about these particular texts, that we can afford to let anyone get wounded on a battle field.


 * I am totally convinced, that working in attributions and quotes in the article incites others to do the same &mdash; but it might take some time (read: weeks and months and more) before that effect is obvious. It had been a constructive move if someone had added a clause with the approximate wording:
 * The Swedish Phonetician Olle Engstrand (2004, pp 141–144) accounts for only five variants of the Swedish "sje-sound" .
 * That had spurred to further additions of a similar kind, that maybe eventually would have been moved to footnotes.
 * It would be likely, that Tuomas who actually spend time at a University Library, then could fill up with references to the sje-sound dissertation.
 * ...and with quotes for the pronunciation guides i guess must exist as handbooks for teachers of Swedish as a second language, that he like me must have experienced the effects of as student of Swedish in Sweden.


 * That would be practicized Verifiability!


 * I also agree with Tuomas when he writes on the flock. It can't be neglected that we "know" eachother since a rather nasty edit strife over the Continuation War. I, as a rule, understand Johan's or Tuomas' questions and motives much, much better than I understand what Peter asks for (literally!) &mdash; and when I do not understand, then I have a confidence that's built up since the summer of 2003. I am however concerned over how this impair our ability to appreciate the more valuable of Peter's thoughts and contributions.


 * I have the distinct impression that both Peter and Tuomas crave for respectful recognition of entities they identify with: Peter for the most distinguished of Swedish varieties, and Tuomas for Finns and immigrants that have a history of experiencing unmotivated disrespect from the side of (many) Swedes. In my perception, both Peter and Tuomas strive to change a condition that they perceive as faulty. And I do not think Wikipedia is a suitable choice of tool to change the world.
 * I've now read Engstrand, that Peter, I believe, has been much impressed by. I realize that what particularly Tuomas seems to have found to be "Swedish arrogance" vis-à-vis Finns is a clear reflection from Engstrand, that as far as I can judge is even more strictly Stockholm-centered than the textbooks on Swedish that I've criticized before, as they weren't in all respects suited for learning Swedish in South Sweden. Engstrand writes for a readership that masters what in the article on Standard Swedish is called the Central Swedish Standard; and if readers East of Åland or South of Vättern get alienated doesn't seem to be much of a concern for the author. However, the work is not an introduction to Swedish phonology, but to General Phonetics, so I don't think the author deserves too much criticism. This might have an explanatory value for us here, though.


 * I've also noticed that Peter recently listed a whole series of reference works, including one on Swedish phonology, and this, I belive, is a very good sign, although his even more recent removal of a reference from Scanian language makes me deeply concerned.

Once again, thank you very much for your effort! --Ruhrjung 19:48, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The RfC is now up at Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas. I mentioned that you endorsed the move to RfC. I did not read this reply by Ruhrjung before filing the RfC, but I don't feel it really changes anything. Peter Isotalo 20:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Denier" stub
Whoops! I wasn't trying to advertise for anyone, I just wanted to include an illustrastion-- didn't work the way I wanted it to!

Britain - Clarification of terms
After I made the article with above title I got a message from you saying that that sort of article is not fit for article pages. I myself was in doubt about that, but I deemed it too big for a talk page. So I thought of this solution. As I state at the beginning of the article, I was thinking about maybe moving it later to an existing article. I wanted to start a discussion about that, beginning with an explanation of my intents (but couldn't because without the article, there isn't a talk-page). I did request at the beginning not to link to the article, so effectively it wouldn't have been part of the article-side of Wikipedia, sort of like the Internet without links (the bit we never get to see, which is said to be bigger thatn the www). I just wanted to link there from various relevant talk pages. Seems like a good method, right? Or not?

Anyway, you mention the alternative of putting it in a subpage of my User pages. Hadn't thought of that (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia). So here it is: User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms.

I'm still not sure about one thing though; when you say I "can't write those types of articles in the article space", do you refer to the article itself (ie, should this 'clarification of terms' not have a separate article? - which would answer one of my questions) or to the remark I made at the top that this is a proposal? I suppose it's the latter, but if it's the former, could you explain?

Oh, and about the fact that I wasn't logged in - I was, but I keep on losing my login regularly (and I don't always notice that). Is it standard to log someone out who hasn't used the login for a while or something? Another related issue (I'm not sure who to mention this to, so you'll have to do...): When I'm logged in in the english Wikipedia and want to switch to the dutch one, I have to log in again. Which seems a bit silly - it's all Wikipedia, right? I use the same name and password for both of course.

DirkvdM 06:41, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Merge Request
Thanks for your assistance on the account merge. Do you have any idea when this service will be up again, and is it possible to delete an account? Thanks. -- WóCoill 11:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello Inter, I am user 80.127.220.169. ericv911 from holland.. I haven't got an account yet, but will get one soon. I got a message from you about vandalising a page. Justed wanted to give my reaction:

Am i right to assume that ,if you can see that I change anything, you can also see what I actually changed (or deleted in this case)?

if you can't: I was reading an article, although I can't recall which article it was. (beer does that..:-)) Anyway, it consisted of 2 huge blocks of text which were exactly identical.. I erased one of them.. Which obviously did no harm at all, instead resulting in a clearer article.

regards

whoops...!
Sorry, I managed to recreate Nigger-rigging by adding a tag as you were deleting it. Didn't mean to, honest :)... anyway, just so you know. Cheers, Anilocra 18:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! While you're on, could you have a look at SquealingPig, who is spending their time vandalising user pages. Cheers, Anilocra 18:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)