User talk:Metallurgist/Archive 2011

Atzma'ut
I saw today that you created this article yesterday. Unfortunately someone else also created Independence (Israeli political party) and linked other articles (notably Ehud Barak) to it, hence it was spotted by other editors and expanded much quicker, and is now linked to from all the relevant pages (280+ incoming links), whilst Atzma'ut has only two, neither of which are from the article space. Once I saw your article I checked the main English-language Israeli news sites (Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews and Israel National News) and three use Indepdendence and only one Atzma'ut, so I redirected your article to the other, and transferred some text. If you disagree with this, I suggest opening an RM on the Independence article rather than restoring the Atzma'ut one, as it's best to keep the discussion in one place and a single article in the meantime. If you're happy with the current situation, I can merge the histories of the two articles so your edits will be recorded in whichever ends up being the permanent title. Cheers, Number   5  7  10:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done the history merge. As far as the name goes, I believe that it is just "Independence", not "Independence Party" - certainly in Hebrew the word "Party" has not been added to its title. The best DAB title may therefore be Independence (political party), as there does not seem to be any other country with a party of that name. Number   5  7  09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Yes I am completely serious, and yes I do think I can do that. There is no problem with the formatting whatsoever (I never claimed there was), it is simply the inclusion of the infobox itself that is utterly ludicrous. They look so awful in the Israeli elections that I simply cannot comprehend how you can justify their inclusion.

If you look at the discussion you linked to, no-one actually answered my question over how an infobox that is meant to be a summary can actually be justified in cases where the election article is so small that the "summary" actually takes up more space than the full election results themselves. Perhaps you can explain why the infobox can be justified as a summary in this article - it includes only six parties, yet the full results of all 21 (!) parties takes up less space and finishes higher up the page - how can it be a summary when it takes longer to scroll down to the bottom than the full details??? I have no doubt that they can be justified in very long articles (like UK and US elections), but for short articles which are effectively already summaries, they are utterly, totally pointless.

As for the claim that the infoboxes are there in "every other election article" (no idea why you bolded that), it's simply not true - especially given the fact that I've created many hundreds of these articles and haven't used it once. Number  5  7  08:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You did claim there was actually. You insisted there was some mysterious white space. I dont see how they look awful. They actually look like election articles. When they lacked them, they looked awful. Because it is standard to put them there and gives a quick summary of the election without looking at the table. Further, it is expected that the articles will be more comprehensive one day and push the results down. (Someone really should dig thru the old Jerusalem Post for such things!) That must be a formatting difference because the page you linked, the infoxbox ends above the table for me. Well the reason they are not there is because they have not been put there yet and you have some irrational vendetta against them.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That (the white space) was not a formatting problem (there was nothing wrong with the template), but rather an editing problem. Many editors do not seem to understand that adding a return between the bottom of an infobox and a template or image beneath it will result in the article text starting level with the bottom of the template/image rather than at the top of the page. Number   5  7  15:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes because we all know every inner working of templates. If that was the problem, why didnt you fix it instead of whining about it and removing them templates?
 * As I recall, you blindly reverted to your flawed version even after being made aware of the problem, and making no effort to fix it. Number   5  7  15:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion.  Night w   08:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thane
I must say, I'm a little surprised a city of over 1 million doesn't rate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That being said, now that you've made the move and redirect, there are several links that now need fixing per WP:FIXDABLINKS. This list makes the job easier. Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I left a word out. There are several hundred links that need fixing. -- Ja Ga  talk 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox person listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infobox person. Since you had some involvement with the Infobox person redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Old City (Jerusalem)
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Old City (Jerusalem), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -asad (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

libyan "rebels"
i just wondered why you put the word rebels in the marks? they did rebel didn't they? in Benghazi it began when gaddafi's men fired on them, unamrmed as they were, and they rebelled - knocked down the barracks walls with a bulldozer. very brave. just seems a bit churlish, those " " marks. Do you agree with gaddafi that they are all Al qaeda, or summat. just wondering. no need to reply of course. just curious. You can't want 'stability' at any cost can you / praps you canSayerslle (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know what they are, but I dont trust them any more than him. They appear to be just as corrupt, but now more subservient to the West. Some of their leaders have announced plans to create an Islamist state. Theyre oppressing Africans, there are a lot of humanitarian questions, etc. Im highly skeptical.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. do you not stand against a stalin or a murdering/torturing dictator until you're 100% convinced the opponents of a stalin etc are 100% pure, and just exactly what you'd like to see? and 'they're oppressing Africans ' is kind of sweeping and totalitarian thinking to my mind,its blanket; -they rebelled - they're rebels - now they are the rulers -  they'll have to be very seriously corrupt  to rival gaddafi - i too dislike the sharia stuff in the constitution, and state religion- but I can't think of the rebels as  no better than Gaddafi - skepticism is o.k I guess, but at some point, unless one just says - to hell with the lot of them - one has to be for soemthing, to decide, 'they may turn out no better but the other side is right now undemocratic, torturing and murdering , so ..'  anyway, thanks for the reply. sorry if this reads a bit sanctimonious and preachy, I'm thinking  to myself as much as anything.Sayerslle (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont take a side with such ambiguity. What if the anti-Stalin is worse than Stalin? If the "rebels" fought on their own, they would have more legitimacy in my mind, but with the CIA, MI6, and NATO involvement, I dont trust anything. Plus they have been proven liars many times and they have that sketchy "Dont worry. You can trust us" look to them.
 * If the rebels fought on their own, without the U.N resolution, they would have won legitimacy in your eyes, but undfortunately for them, been wiped out, in benghazi, and right now if not dead, being tortured at the gaddfi-ite tendency's pleasure - the CIA and MI6, as  , todays news has further confirmed, were cosy with gaddafi  until the rebels  courage  brought  a new reality  to life - anyway, we don't agree - that they look 'sketchy' is not very precise - but  anyway  as 'life of brian' said ' don't follow anybody' uncritically -  Sayerslle (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Theres no way to know what would have happened, but just because they would have been killed doesnt mean anything. All that shows is that they didnt have enough popular support. Gadhafi was and still is popular among Libyans. There is some evidence that the conflict was a tribal one. Libya is not a country. Its 2 or 3. I think they couldve held Eastern Libya if that was their goal. By going for the whole country, they didnt have any time for consolidation and organization of their forces, so its no wonder they were demolished. If they cant win a war on their own, how can they expect to win the peace? This is pretty much just a CIA coup. Even the French waited until we won decisively to give a little aid. The CIA and NATO play whoever the winning side is, but Gadhafi was unpredictable, so they seized the opportunity to manipulate these "rebels". Its the oil again. Why is nothing being done in Syria? No oil, nothing of value to control...--Metallurgist (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So the CIA organised the benghazi upising in february?. Syria, as far as I am aware , and its murderous regime are supported by Iran, so thats a bit different to libya - anyway you seem to understand  the reason for evrything that happens in the world - I think if Gaddafi were as popular as he always claimed things would not be as they are now in tripoli, but anyway, we don't agree. you say  the CIA play whoever wins, but you simultaneously say they organised it,  - or whatever - seesm to me you believe whatever suits your conspiracy prejudices. thats what all the dictators and their supporters say isn't it - we are victims of "that well-known hand - the plot, the conspiracy, the 'foreign hand'  " - thats what Assad blames, what Gaddafi blamed, endlessly , - and Not just in Benghazi - look at ZAwiya, the west of Libya, Misrata,  - they lost because they were outgunned , not popularity contests. A Gaddafi party can stand in the elections and let us see how popular  it is. i got my answer - the word rebels is "rebels" because it is the CIA really. thanks.Sayerslle (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to save the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 (talk) 14 September 2011

Thank you for joining! Please indicate which tasks you would like to focus on first here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Capitalism#Turf

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong at List of country-name etymologies
Thanks for your detailed information on the background of the name "Hong Kong".

However, inasmuch as Hong Kong is not now and never has been a country (WP:RELEVANCE), that information doesn't go on that page but at list of etymologies of country subdivision names, under China or the UK or both. Ditto Macao (Portugal). — LlywelynII  21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there are other similar cases of non-countries being there, such as "Palestine" and "Kosovo" which have "not now and never been a country".--Metallurgist (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly see list of countries and remember et tu quoque and WP:assume bad faith are not legitimate arguments. =) — LlywelynII  21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)