User talk:Novalis

That was no vandalism at Italy. Please restore that. Gzornenplatz 06:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevermind; I saw other reverts of this and assumed it was policy to revert them. I'm not going to get into a useless war over some templates.  Put it back if you care. User:Novalis   06:44:37 Jan 10, 2005

There is a vote going on at Country_infobox_vote. I would appreciate your input. --Cantus

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

Thanks. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I noticed that you changed your vote on the country infoboxes question to E), and then struck out your previous vote, and also removed the vote for E). If this was your intent, fine. But it seems to me that you may have removed the E) vote inadvertently... so I'm dropping you this note. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia was acting up, I think. Novalis 17:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles
Hello, I finally changed the name of the License of GNU Ada article to GNAT Modified General Public License. I hope the new name is a good one. Also, I would like to make a suggestion: it seems you transferred the content of the article with cut&paste, but it's better to use the move option to preserve the page's history. That's all. And thanks for pointing us out the problem with the name of the license. --suruena 13:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Wine
I have moved your additions to the Wine talk page, for reasons explained there. You cant just say "Brochet 2001" is a reference, it is meaningless without a full citation. And you were being deliberately non-NPOV. Please continue any discussion on the Wine talk page. Justinc 12:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for your edit to Werner Erhard. Others were removing this notable and highly sourced information. Smee 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Looks like the info you added in your edit was removed by a supporter of the subject of the article. And it only took 8 minutes at that!  Later, Smee 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Working on trying to come to a concensus here. Novalis 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your compromise looks okay.  Smee 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

An Inconvenient Truth
Oops! You were totally right, and I was wrong. I shouldn't have believed his own claims. Very sorry! Novalis 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was a student at the University of Winnipeg and no department of climatology exists there. Therefore, it is impossible for Ball to have been a "professor of climatology".  Just giving you my explanation for the change I made.  Iceberg007 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Coach Terminal
Hi, You recently removed external links from the page that I created, Sydney Coach Terminal. Even though its no big deal, some of those external links are in other pages, take for example Murrays and possibly the Greyhound Australia article. If it is O.K for these links to be on other pages then why can't they be on the Sydney Coach article, they are all related. Thanks User:Mindys12345

It makes sense to have a link to X in an article about X. But in an article about Y, it looks like linkspam. Novalis 15:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Serbs from Mostar
The reason I put back "expelled" is not because I don't believe in the events themselves! It's the term itself "ethnic cleanse" which is harsh and unfair. The only people ever to have waged "ethnic war" is the rotten Americans and their puppet allies. War is war, in the Balkans it happened, and you and I can't go back and change it. But if there is one thing that every conflict had in common, it is that what looked like an ethnic war - did infact have a political theme at its base - and as such, Albanians from Kosovo and W.Macedonia did have a number of ethnic Serbs/Macedonians on their side; equally many Albanians who were (and still are) non-sympathisers of Greater Albanian enthusiasts found themselves victims of Albanian atrocity, seeking comfort through the security forces of FR Yugoslavia or Macedonia; at the same time, the armies of Yugoslavia and Macedonia did themselves recruit some of these Albanians to carry out duties in their war against the KLA (and that could have meant, part-taking in expelling Albanian families who funded or supported the KLA). And all of this applies to each war in the Balkans; Croat vs Serb, Bosniak vs Croat and so on and so forth. The idiots stupid enough to take up arms themselves to fight the battles for a cleric who never even knew their names, may well have been stupid enough to say "I fight for the Serb army, death to all Croats", but those further up the ladder, the generals and intellects knew that down there among this bunch of idiots fighting for them, were people of various ethnicities. Some even made it higher up the ranking, Bunaovic's mayor was Albanian before they murdered him, and such they did because he was in the SPS; and if one can make it into that league, and still call himself Albanian, then the grounds for the fighting could not have been ethnic! But when the US and their NATO buddies cried "genocide! ethnic cleansing!" even though it clearly wasn't, they got involved and went to war. To substantiate their claims, they had to be tight-lipped that Milosevic employed Albanians; Albanians employed Slavic peoples - and so their war against FR Yugoslavia was against an ethnic group. Any Serb/Slavic person killed by NATO was a victim of ethnic atrocity. The people of Mostar harmed in the article all had in common the fact that they were Serb, but the real reason they were expelled was because they chose not to alline themselves politicly to the perpetrators of their attacks! Just to clarify, I don't dispute anything and I know Serb civilians were victims in all conflicts. 212.24.91.2 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While your comments are interesting, I don't think they show that what happened to the Serbs in Mostar was part of a deliberate policy of removing Serbs from certain area, and that that policy was described by the media as ethnic cleansing. Maybe there was a non-ethnic component to it too, but that doesn't mean that the term is inaccurate.  I don't particularly want to get into an edit war.  Shall we take this to mediation?
 * Well if you must. I don't want an edit war either, especially when we are not against each other over the issue. I'm just saying that the citizens of Mostar, like everyone else, was harmed on political rather than ethnic grounds. The trouble is, people use ethnicit6y themselves to get into large groups, and that is the source of this international confusion. 212.24.91.2 10:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Cross
Novalis, you just sent me a message about my edit of Philippine National Red Cross. You said I was violating copyright by including a history of the PNRC that I obtained from their web site. I believe that my usage of the historic time line was Fair Use as stated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ Asking yourself these questions might help you determine if something is fair use:

1. Is it a for profit competitor or not? Is it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Is the use transformative (of a different nature to the original publication)? 2. Is it a highly original creative work with lots of novel ideas or a relatively unoriginal work or listing of facts? Is the work published (to a non-restricted audience)? If not, fair use is much less likely. 3. How much of the original work are you copying? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair. Are you reducing the quality or originality, perhaps by using a reduced size version? 4. Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it? Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a viewer is interested in doing so?

1. No, it is not for profit. 2. Is it highly original creative work? No, it is a listing of historical events. 3. I copied the minimum needed for my purpose. 4. This has no negative effect on the original author's ability to sell this. By clearly referencing my source, I made it easy for the viewer to find the original work.

Based on these facts, I respectfully request that you reconsider your objection.

Fanra 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Factor 1 depends on both the purpose and the character of the use. This use fails both prongs.  While WP is a non-profit, answers.com, which copies WP's content, sells ad space.  The GFDL allows this.  Thus we cannot claim to be non-profit.  As for the character of the use, it is totally non-transformative -- it's a direct copy.

I also disagree with your factor 3 analysis. You could have rewritten the text in your own words. That would have copied less (indeed, none) and still served the purpose of conveying the information.

For factor 4, a citation does not particularly help. If the Red Cross wanted to one day sell a book of their history, and include this text, they would have a harder time selling the book if people knew they could simply get the same thing online. Of course, this is hypothetical, as the Red Cross isn't selling a book. But the fourth factor is just funny like that.

Since the Red Cross isn't selling a book, perhaps they would be willing to donate the text to WP under the GFDL -- you could ask. Or you could use that source and write your own history.

Novalis 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What I copied was a time line of events. It's pretty much impossible to rewrite a time line of events unless you lie about what happened.  Let me see you rewrite this:

1899, February 17 Through the initiative of Apolinario Mabini, the Malolos Republic approved the Constitution of the National Association of the Red Cross. Mrs. Hilario del Rosario de Aguinaldo was appointed President of the Association.

Ok, sure, I can move a few words around, but let's be real, copyright isn't about events, it's about creative works. I did change the date format. I guess I can change it to:

17 February 1899 - With the leadership of Apolinario Mabini, the Malolos Republic approved the Constitution of the National Association of the Red Cross. Mrs. Hilario del Rosario de Aguinaldo was appointed President of the Association.

That is such a minor change that it is diminutive. It seems to me that you are nitpicking. It is a time line of historical events. You say "That would have copied less (indeed, none)" but it is impossible to copy none of it unless I lie about the events.

If I print a time line that says, "George Washington was elected first President of the United States in 1798." I do not and can not claim copyright over anyone who says the same thing or similar.


 * Sure, de minimis copying (the Washington example) is almost always fair use or non-infringing. But that's not composable.  Here's a rewrite:

Apolinario Mabini encouraged the Malolos Republic to form a local Red Cross organization. On 17 February 1899, the Malolos Republic approved the Constitution of the National Association. The Repulic appointed Mrs. Hilario del Rosario de Aguinaldo as President of the Association.

Alternately, change from a timeline-oriented view to a person-oriented view. What did Mabini do? What did del Rosario de Aguinaldo do? Novalis 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You also removed my copy of their logo. According to Wikipedia, it is permissible to copy logos.


 * Sorry. I noticed a giant block of pasted text, and reverted.  I have no objection to the logo. Novalis 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you continue to disagree, I'm going to request Requested copyright examinations

Fanra 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Please link me when you do so I can comment.Novalis 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, as an aside, your statement: "While WP is a non-profit, answers.com, which copies WP's content, sells ad space. The GFDL allows this.  Thus we cannot claim to be non-profit." is incorrect.


 * I recognize that I have a bit of a POV here, but let me explain. As I read the copyright policy page, the number one goal is to have a GFDL encyclopedia.  Sure, quotations and images will be used under fair use from time to time, but these cases should be minimized, and we should take into account downstream commercial users.  That's why fair use on WP is generally restricted to images. Novalis 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[I snipped general information on fair use and wp here, because it's undisputed yet irrelevant Novalis 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)]

Fanra 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I totally rewrote it. Go check it out and see if you approve. I would suggest that you fix any problems you find rather than removing the entire thing. Fanra 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better. I've made a few more changes, to eliminate similarities in wording (and to remove passive voice).  Thanks for your hard work on this!

Objections to evolution
With regard to "apologists", the everyday use of this term is derogatory, and in my view makes an article appear biased, even when in this context it may not be. (I have no vested interest in creationism vs evolution one way or the other). To improve the article, the term "apologist" in this context should be explained or else replaced with some other term to denote a vested interest. Ianhowlett 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the term referring to areas other than Christianity is generally derogatory. But when used to describe defenders of Christianity, it is still a neutral or positive term. Google searches appear to confirm this. So I think it's appropriate to use it in the article, at least to describe people who describe themselves that way. Further, there is no term that can easily replace it.Novalis 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism, but when adding tags, remember to subst: it, so like this:

Article Name ~

look up template substitution for more info

Note: subst: only certain templates, specifically user warning ones.

Thanks, Stwalkerster 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops. I must have put in a hundred of them wrong. I'll try to remember to subst in the future.  Novalis 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Operation Poomalai
The info box seems to be broken. When ever that infobox is added, "Dolan is cute" is added to the left side. Please confirm. Thanks Praveen 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem to be happening. Sorry. Novalis 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how to edit that template. Anyways what you did is good & I will reinsert the template in one more article that I edited. Thanks Praveen 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Offline tonight and for three days
Thank you for your help and patience with the Gwen Shamblin page. Due to a family issue, I will be offline as of some time later this evening, and might not be back until Tuesday afternoon. Thought I should give you a heads up in case there is a big lag time in my replies after today.Efkeathley 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Direct Instruction Edit
The article needed clean-up and movement toward NPOV. You work in this direction seemed quite constructive!!Richard Dates 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (I moved this comment from my user page to my talk page) Novalis 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin arbitration discussion suggestion
Thanks for your suggestion on non-controversial edits. Where edits relate to "accuracy" of references and wording, I will carefully edit them.

I wanted to run this by you before posting it on the Gwen Shamblin discussion page. I sincerly apologise for the length, please, just give me your time this once and I will never be so lengthy...


 * Given the Gwen_Shamblin article history, the history of why my original edits and subsequent edits landed me in arbitration, and having reviewed the prior and subsequent discussions on the Gwen Shamblin discussion page, I am sincerly concerned that there are edits needed in this article that should not be controversial, but (with all due respect) very well may be controversial in EFKeathley's view. They deal with referential trends that may be "adding" contentious, potentially inflamatory wording and framing to this biography that is well beyond some of the cited (and arguably even reliable) secondary sources. I think we can easily and reasonably end this arbitration by adherance to established policies some of which needs to be discussed now so Efkeathly and I can move on in "good faith" with a mutual respect for non-biased and accurate editing, careful review before undo. No more hasty undo's, "negative" assumptions, and warnings.


 * Can we agree on something very general here and then move on? (At the risk of being verbose, I want to be "completely" clear about an unresolved general wiki policy violation repeatedly in this biography) - Case in point - in the Gwen_Shamblin biographical wiki entry, some of the cited secondary_source articles used seem unnecessarily "versioned" by various "tertiary" information websites. On one hand, they seem to merely duplicate the same secondary source references, but more importantly, they are "adding" something "more contentious", intentionally or not. Since potentially contentious and/or controversial information is certainly present in this wiki a biography of a living person, I would like to know if we can agree to stick to "directly" citing only  reliable secondary sources (using the article origination point) instead of linking to "third-hand" references that are encapsulated in third-party or "tertiary" websites.


 * Reasoning - Wiki's policies on neutrality even talk about controversial material about living persons being referred to via websites that have a stated "mission" or unstated "agenda". In this case, it is evidenced by the tertiary site tendencies to distill only specific types of (typically controversial) articles on a given controversial subject. The neutrality of the article is being removed when it is characterized and/or placed within a biased commentary or framework page along with other controversial statements and materials. These sites introduce guilt by association and consistently employ  weasel phrases to pejoratively frame a reader's view of the referenced article or articles. Why introduce "more" contention than the secondary_source potentially does, when we can (and should), clearly and impartially cite the original (as any good historian surely would)? SqwikiKlean 13:05, 4 June 2007


 * I think it's definitely the right idea to stick to reliable sources. But I'm not sure your statement is really the best step in that direction.  What if you rewrite this to simply point to the tertiary sources that you believe are biased?  We all agree that we should follow WP's policy on reliable sources.  The only question is what sources qualify.  If you simply point to the sources and explain why they're inappropriate, then there can be a debate about that (or, hopefully, everyone will simply agree).  How does that sound? Novalis 19:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I asked here (first) that sounds fine, and I'll try to keep it paired down and specific. Thanks for your time and the input. SqwikiKlean 17:37, 4 June 2007


 * Also, I should note that this isn't officially arbitration. This is just a RfC.  If you want more formal arbitration after this, there's a long process called a Request for Arbitration which you can go through.  It apparently takes weeks.  But most things are resolved at the RfC stage. Novalis 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully nobody will have to resort to that. But I'm sure there are times when it's needed. SqwikiKlean 17:37, 4 June 2007

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)