User talk:Jonomacdrones/Archive 2

New Page Creation and deleting talk comments
Hello-- received this message from you after attempting to create my first wiki regarding the Edward E. Carlson Leadership and Public Service Center. "Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Carlson leadership and public service center. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Please explain.... I do not believe that I deleted any notice (at least not intentionally) and I do not understand why my page has been deleted. I received no feedback and submitted comments on the proposed deletion defending the submission. The page has since been deleted and I would like to know where I can find out what changes should be made to in order for the submission to be accepted and considered legitimate wiki material. Please email mattwojo@u.washington.edu or respond on my talk page. Thank-you for your time! Mattwojo 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Mattwojo

Un-titled comment
Consider leaving tips on writing a page rather than putting a "deletion imminent" warning on newbie's pages. Some of them have potential (some don't).VK35 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I got your comment. The page looked like it had potential but wasn't there yet.  If I knew something about the article, I would have added something but I didn't know enough to write.  The name of the article?  I forgot already.  I think it was the Carlton Center University of Washington or something like that.  The author of the article can decide what to do (improve it or see it die).VK35  01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No Need to Respond.VK35 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! Do what you need to do. I'm not the defender of others' article, especially if it's marginal!  Ok!  I was just welcoming a bunch of newcomers, that's all.VK35  02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

hey
I apologize for that. Someone told me that this wasnt a reliable site because pages can be altered. So I was trying to check and see if the website could be trusted since anyone can edit pages. I guess now I know that there is a unit to deter these types of acts. Thanks for what you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.133.9.2 (talk • contribs)

Knocking (card game) (change of CSD tag)
No I don't mind at all, especially since I intended that the context tag in the first place and therefore I must have typo'd when I put in the A7 tag. Nice to know a fellow patroller is on the ball. A1octopus 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Curtin University of Technology Sarawak Campus
To answer the question you left on my talk page, I have nothing against this page aside from the fact that the 1st version was a total copyright violation and the 2nd version was nothing but a sparse infobox. The author has expanded it, so I'm removing my db-empty tag. Thanks for bringing me back there so I could take care of that. Take care, Butseriouslyfolks 09:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting
Thanks for the help with formatting, was scratching my head for a bit there! --Speed Air Man 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Untitled Comment Two
yo. i dont really know where to ask you a question but i think i am on the right page, what i wrote wasnt vandilising anything, i live there and i wrote nothing which was rude or offensive, so what was the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.10.235 (talk • contribs)

That was maybe a bit too hard
User talk:71.254.197.182

Admittedly, it was outright vandalism, but it was also his only edit to date. I would have started with a 2, myself. Granted, it's not really my business anyway... HalfShadow 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I take that back. Splat 'im. HalfShadow 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I generally use the 'give 'em enough rope' tactic myself: show that you've given them all the chances you can and they're just being a jerk. But whatever works for you. It's only a random IP anyway. HalfShadow 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Integral humanism
Hi, you reverted removal of a section from Integral humanism. This was not vandalism. It's POV/propaganda and the reference cited is a Tripod page. 202.54.176.11 09:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi sorry for creating that page, i just wanted to see if it would work. I was just wondering whether it would be possible to add a page on a sport that is played in my school, but isnt that well known.

Thx, xXRichardsMumXx

Global Warming Skeptic category up for deletion
Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is up for deletion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here. Oren0 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Millennium Tower (301 Mission Street)
Its a future building, and so needs to be on there. This warns the user/viewer that information on there should not be taken as canonical. Please do not remove tags without properly explaining why. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  13:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With all respect, your statement that it needs to be there is your opinion. I provided a detailed explanation as to why, in my opinion, it did not need to be there, though I can certainly understand it if you missed it.  Please visit the link that I placed in the edit summary for my reasoning.


 * Anyway, I've now taken the time to edit the article in such a way that the tag is clearly superfluous. Go ahead and read the article, from beginning to end, and give me a reason now why that tag is needed.  Please don't just say that "it warns the user/viewer that information on there should not be taken as canonical", because the article already does that, in the first two lines.  No one with an IQ of 70 could read that and not realize that things "might change".  But by doing it this way, the article's aesthetics are improved; it looks more like an encyclopedia article.


 * I have no feelings about this particular article. I just agree with User:Shanes that tags are becoming a scourge on the project.  I encourage you to read his essay, and then ask you to consider the effectiveness of the version that I have edited.  I think that, if you have an open mind (which you must have, if at your young age you describe yourself as a anthropogenic warming skeptic), you will realize that the tag is simply unnecessary.  It adds nothing, except perhaps to make an editor feel proud of his highly visible contribution (as opposed to the less-visible everyday editing that is the real work of this project).  I don't think Shane mentions it, but I think that that's a major part of the reason for the proliferation of these tags.  I know that, before I came to see tags as I do now, that whenever I placed a tag, it "felt good"; I could see my contribution, and knew that so too could everyone else.  Especially with current events—be the first one to place a {current} tag on a previously obscure article that is now in the news!  Oooooh.  I probably only did that once or twice, but I'll bet many editors specialize in adding the CE tag (and its many offspring), such as the ones used on this article. (It just makes me laugh to think that people have taken the time to create not one, but at least two such tags for these similar situations (the {future building} and {building under construction} tags).


 * My only regret is that I sometimes am harsh in my choice of words in the brief allotment that we call the edit summary. I salute you for responding in such a civil manner.


 * Well, I'm not going to revert right now. I'd like to think that you'll be persuaded and that you'll remove the tag yourself.  But either way, Cheers to you as well. Unschool 14:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well of course it's just my opinion. But so too is your statement that the tag is "needed".  It is not policy that the tag is required, to the best of my knowledge.  But policies start out as opinions which turn into essays which then get the attention of many folks who recognize the wisdom thereof.  I have met many other Wikipedians over the past nine months who had the same reaction as mine, namely "man, how hideous a problem this has become".  The distracting nature of the tags, and the way they make Wikipedia appear to the casual visitor who is just looking for information, is central to the creation of the small icons that are now replacing the old protection tags.  You are not one who apparently has seen the value in that, and that's fine.  Just don't tell yourself that you are the one upholding policy, because we are both simply operating on opinions.


 * Now, as to your actual points. You speak of canon, and the need to warn readers that this article does not mean that standard.  If that is the heart of your argument, then you have a lot of work to do.  Nothing on Wikipedia is cannon.  The very nature of the project is such that everything is subject to change.  Be sure to put a current events tag on the following articles: George W. Bush, President of the United States, 21st century, and about 90% of the articles in here.  Everything is subject to change.  Some are more obvious than others.  I would argue that a current events tag is less needed on an article about a building that is under construction than it is under President of the United States.  I mean, this article we are discussing announces in its opening paragraph that it is under construction.  I don't personally know anyone so unintelligent that they would fail to recognize that that means that things are "changing"; no one would make the mistake of considering that "canon".  But the article on the US Presidency probably does come across as canon.  Yet it too is just as subject to change, both in the type of information included in the article, as well as the changes in the institution itself.  Right now, Congress and the President are playing what may only appear to be a game of political chicken over the funding for the Iraq War, but the ultimate result could possibly be a redefinition in the nature of war powers in our government.  This reminds me in some ways of the debate back during Vietnam that ultimately resulted in the War Powers Act of 1973; however, constitutional changes in our system do not necessarily require the passage of statutes or amendments.  If you are at all familiar with our history, I'm sure you realize that many changes in our governmental institutions are often accomplished informally.  If this ends up with the president's powers being curtailed by Congress's use of the power of the purse, then that will be massive change in the balance of power between the branches.  It doesn't matter if you think that's a terrible thing or a terrific thing:  Better put that current events tag on the President of the United States.


 * Now I do have to admit, you have an excellent point regarding the placement of the article within particular categories; I had actually never thought of that. Probably persons smarter than me did think of that when they created the protection icons to replace the gaudy tags.  My suggestion would be to move for the creation of similar icons for current events (A little tiny clock in the upper right corner would certainly be inoffensive, in comparision to the big gaudy tags.)  In the meantime, a compromise is possible, one which I have already utilized on those rare occasions when I find myself looking at a tag that does seem to have some justification:  Just place the tag at the bottom of the article.  It will continue to categorize the article, as you desire, and it will make the insult to the intelligence of persons less egregious, as I desire, and perhaps, just perhaps, it will catch the notice of someone who know enough about things that they can create a nice little icon to put in the corner. Unschool 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)