User talk:Reinis/Archive Aug 2007

Colbie Caillat
Looks good. I can try to put the references in, but you can put them in if I don't get to it. I'll just take off the "db" tag. Regards, Ursasapien (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must really thank you for starting this article. It's about time we had it. TheKillerAngel 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, created it, I just wikified it and added the sources. :) Reinistalk 07:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My name
Good lord, his last name is "Lawliet"? I think I just went from loving the thriller element of that book to not caring about anything except how bad his name is. Anyway, no, L was more annoying than anything else. Raito wins, easily, if it weren't for super lame desu ex machina. Seriously, "OH HI, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET FOR MAKING ME A MINOR CHARACTER, YOU BASTARD *shoot*" is NOT a good ending -- L augh! 08:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

...desu
-- L augh! 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this has been fun, but we should probably make at least a little bit of an effort to be serious-desu. -- L augh! 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very seriose, desu. I'll steal your user infobox now. Reinistalk 09:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Horrid isn't it.
Just makes you feel kind of... dirty... doesn't it. :). ornis ( t ) 11:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Garda40
I'm puzzled why you told me not to remove content ,which you removed shortly before you visited my user page .Garda40 11:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare:
 * You blanked the page, I only removed the tag. Reinistalk
 * Which is what I was aiming for myself but went too far with the removal ( a mistake I didn't realised until after I posted to your page .Thanks  Garda40 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Reinistalk 11:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Imam Zakaria Badat
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Imam Zakaria Badat. I do not think that Imam Zakaria Badat fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because "unreferenced" and "fails Google test" are simply not valid speedy deletion reasons. A7 is, bu there are multiple claims of significance in this article. They may be inaccurate, but they are present, and not obviously false or impossible ("Joe is king of the world") so an A7 speedy is improper. i suggest you try PROD or in this case AfD if you think this should be deleted.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Imam Zakaria Badat for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making it clear, I'll do it with AfD. Reinistalk 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

speedy declined
Please check recent discussions at AfD-- All towns and even villages are notable. You may think this odd, but such is the consistent practice here. If the article is of poor quality edit it; if it contains unverified material, try to verify it. If it can not be verified and you think it wrong or unverifiable, remove it. But leave the basic information. DGG (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Reinistalk 18:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Latvia
Hey, be informed of existance of WikiProject Latvia for it wouldn't hurt if you'd notify people that you have tagged some articles recently /and, of course, if you carve to edit articles in scope of the project, consider joining/ In my humble oppinion it is not OK to simply remove references if links are broken or don't lead stright to fact (e.g. every link to Latvijas Banka's homepage redirects to its main page), you should find working link to the reference instead  Xil/talk 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

tagging
Please feel free to improve the article Latvia by introducing specific fact tags in the text or raise any questions on the discussion page. Tagging the whole article that is in a general good condition, that has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version,  is not acceptable. Therefor please remove the general tag ASAP and in the future please do not misuse the tags in WP. Thanks--Termer 23:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:University of Latvia emblem.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:University of Latvia emblem.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:University of Latvia logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:University of Latvia logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates
I make them consistent, so one article has the same date format. In the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, this is the euro format, the correct one. Before, different formats were used throughout the article. The MoS is clear, for European people etc euro format, for US people, US format (hence having the "df=yes"). You will also note I rarely make an edit where the date format is the only thing I do, as seen by the opening line correction in both articles. --UpDown 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will try in future to put a more detailed edit summary to avoid this happening again. --UpDown 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright
Thanks for the notice on the pictures I uploaded. I'm not really familiar with the info necessary to properly upload a picture. I tried to sort it out, but clearly didn't get it right. Can you help me by directing me to a good WP source? Thanks again. Caliwiki123 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Biting newbies
Hello! I'm surprised to hear that adding a level-one template could be read as biting someone, particularly when it was one that started with "Welcome! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic.", but maybe I'm just seeing them differently.

Isn't the point of these templates that they provide a brief but welcoming statement to someone who seems enthusiastic but is misunderstanding Wikipedia in a particular (and common) way? They're actually quite benign and friendly, and only "impersonal" if you know they're a template, which a new user won't. I'd agree they can be biting if applied overzealously, but this was just a level-one "talk pages are for improving the article, not discussing the topic" to someone who was asking what people thought about his personal reaction to a speech that wasn't part of the article. --McGeddon 20:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My removal of PROD tag

 * The following is the recommended boilerplate to accompany my action and reasoning; you yourself launched the AFD process and you did not retract at Articles for deletion/Molana Zakaria Badat. I suggest we just let the AFD activity play out to it's anticipated conclusion - a 'delete' judgement. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the prod tag from Molana Zakaria Badat, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Desgin
Intelligent Design article is not the place to show Intelligent Design proves itself wrong? Can you explain the reasoning behind that?

What gives you the right to delete peoples discussion topics?

Thanks--203.192.92.73 12:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page of the intelligent design article, is for discussing improvements to the intelligent design article, not debating the merits of the subject. ornis ( t ) 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

flagicon
I removed the flag icon you added from the infobox on Valdis Zatlers because it can be viewed as confusing to show the flag of independent Latvia for someone born there in 1955. Cf WP:FLAG and WP:FLAG. — Zalktis 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War
1) Please don't complain about multiple reverts to a page, and then immediately revert that same page. It immediately puts you in the position of taking sides in the dispute over which version is better. 2) An additional problem here is that the first revert was done by the other editor in this dispute; I can't have more reverts than "the other guy." I have merely been restoring the edit I made, that he keeps undoing with no or dishonest explanation. 3) Nonetheless, you have managed to put a warning template on my Talk page, but not on the Talk page of the other editor involved in the "war", 4) If you had read the discussion page you would know that further discussion with Gtadoc is impossible since he has stated a) he will not reply to me, and b) I made changes without discussion after I engaged in discussion for several days (this was the excuse for one his reverts, after I asked him stop reverting my edit). I don't know how to have a discussion with someone who, after three days of discussion, announces there was no discussion. In the future, if you want to mediate disputes, stay neutral in them.Bsharvy 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would ping in here; I don't think Bsharvy understands the 3RR rule. In any event, he made changes to the page about the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki w/o discussion, placing a rude comment on the talk page only after he made the changes.  He then proceeded to make numerous personal attacks (most of which I erased) against me and another editor (who seems to have left the discussion) in seemingly random places on the talk page, and then vandalized my own talk page.  I've also given him sources to read that are properly in the text for a reason yet he continually refuses to read them (or completely fails to understand them).  While frustrating, I've tried to remain civil with him, unfortunately I did not/do not receive the same in return. Gtadoc 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucine Amara
Please have another look. I carefully re-worded everything. Please let me know what you think when you have looked again. &larr;BenB4 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I know what happened now. I think the edit summary of the next revision was "oops wanted preview" &larr;BenB4 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Form Criticism
The definition that you have cited from Encyclopaedia Britannica is the most accurate. The original article did reflect this, I think. Why have you deleted my example? What was 'nonsensical' about it?

--Train guard 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am, of course, aware of the ruling about the use of 'original research'. But I would argue that this does not apply here. I am demonstrating an example of a technique, just as I might demonstrate the working of a quadratic equation. In any case, I do not offer any insights or answers, as you will notice that I only highlight the questions raised. If this were a piece of original research, that would not be the case. To go to the length of citing an actual example of academic form criticism would be too problematic.

As to the 'nonsensicality' of what I was doing, I would have thought that it was self - explanatory. The nature of form criticism is already explained in the text, and this example logically follows. I'm sorry, Reinis, but I don't really think that you understand what form criticism is. Otherwise, you would not have tagged the meaning of the prase as 'disputed'. The Britannica definition is quite clear, and the content of the article closely follows it.

I don't claim to be an 'expert' (whatever that might mean), but I have studied this subject at university.

How do we proceed from here? It would have been a courtesy if you had raised these points for discussion, before you deleted part of my contribution. Consequently, having made these points, I would like to put it back. But will you want to delete it again? Can we not come to some accomodation?

--Train guard 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Once again, unless its accuracy is verifiable by reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for your didactic material."

You could always read one of the sources in bibliography, I suppose. But why is it not the place for didactic material?

"This is not math, where the applied examples are usually generic enough that they can't be original thought."

Can you demonstrate instances of 'original thought' in the deleted passage?

"Also, just raising questions and not giving answers belongs in a textbook, not in an encyclopedia."

Why?

--Train guard 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem??
What you do is vandalism. Removing an image that helps the article by a lame argument. All the information you want is, this information you get from a simple act, pressing on the picture. If you are smart enough to delete an importent image from the article, you should be smart enough to check details about it first. See the black hole?? Its a place where the Pushkin statue stood and vandals burned it. M.V.E.i. 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rv
sorry, but that edit doesn't make sense and breaks the paragraph. Compare the original:
 * "Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[49] and that it is vulnerable to vandalism and similar problems. In one particularly well-publicized incident, false information was introduced into the biography of John Seigenthaler, Sr. and remained undetected for four months.[50] Some critics claim that Wikipedia's open structure makes it an easy target for internet trolls, advertisers, and those with an agenda to push.[51][52] The addition of political spin to articles by organizations including the U.S. House of Representatives and special interest groups[6] has been noted,[53] and organizations such as Microsoft have offered financial incentives to work on certain articles.[54] Some claim that Wikipedia's political articles have been taken over by left-wing partisans.[55] These issues have been parodied, notably by Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report.[56]"

To the new:
 * "Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[49] and that it is vulnerable to vandalism and similar problems. In one particularly well-publicized incident, false information was introduced into the biography of John Seigenthaler, Sr. and remained undetected for four months.[50] Some critics claim that Wikipedia's open structure makes it an easy target for internet trolls, advertisers, and those with an agenda to push.[51][52] An analysis of 5.3 million wikipedia edits showed that groups such as American political parties, special interest groups, major corporations, the Catholic Church and the CIA have made edits to wikipedia. [53][6][54] These issues have been parodied, notably by Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report.[55]"

For starters, care to show me where the colbert Report has parodied wikipedia edits by the CIA? Thanks/wangi 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I made the first change, I admit that the structure of the paragraph was broken up, but it would have been better to fix the new paragraph than simply revert. The changes I made had two advantages: firstly they used a recent scientific analysis of edit IP addresses rather than simply "claims of bias" (and includes important information that the Catholic Church and CIA have also made edits, secondly they better reflected the actual content of the EB vs wiki original paper (which showed roughly the same number of errors between the two, but far more serious errors in wikipedia - to only quote the first part is a serious bias problem). Sad mouse 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: cats
WP:CATS. Spellcast 08:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I wonder how long that will stay in place! Spellcast 08:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cute, but no. link for context. --Quiddity 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
The book covers at Intelligent Design help illustrate the subject, make the article more readable, and are about publications that are very important in relation to the ID movement. Please don't remove them without discussing it first. Reinistalk 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per item #8 of our policy on non-free content usage, we only use non-free material when the article's text would be dificult to understand without the material. We don't use non-free material to improve readability. I hope you understand. --Abu badali (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The pictures significantly add to the article, and I don't agree with your interpretation of the NFCC rule. Reinistalk 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a fair use review for those. You're invited to comment. --Abu badali (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Abu badali misrepresents NFCC #8 by stating it as "we only use non-free material when the article's text would be dificult to understand without the materia when the article's text would be dificult to understand without the material. Quite frankly, this tendency to lean on WP:NFCC #8, a very subjective NFC criterion, is bordering on WP:Troll and WP:Point. . ... Kenosis 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism
Hi, first of all i thank you for reverting my edit. It forces us now to elaborate and see if what i am editing is true. That is that the view that the world is created by some power isn't new and certainly not limited to creationists, most scientists believe in some form of Creator, but they limit their knowledge to the facts and do not mix their belief with their scientific work. All creationism does is too bring in science to that belief of a creation and mix the knowledge of the facts with the faith, and this isn't new at all, most philosophers and scientists in ancient times looked at nature with the prism of a creator. Am i wrong on this premise? If i am right on this then we must edit and fix the structure that begins the subject, because this is the first leading sentence as if they are unique in their belief of a creator and it sounds very restrictive in group that they are exclusively with this mind set, let me put their thought into something broader traditional and mostly religious.--יודל 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again. Please do not revert my edits, You have expressed your personal point that creationists and religious belief people are one in the same. I am not arguing with you, but please understand that not all religious people are creationts. That's exactly what i am trying to explain the creationist movement is largely in part based on religious view on life. Please don't revert edit by simply ignoring others, or before saying whats wrong with it in the edit summary box. Thanks so much for caring--יודל 17:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Third and last time: Please stop reverting my edits, when u state clearly that u r not knowledgeable on the subject matter at hand nor, do u understand what i did. I have clarified my edit on my talk page and on the subject's talk page. Please stop reverting in silence. I respect your wisdom but only after you explain yourself. Thanks so much--יודל 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I never said that, secondly, your clarifications are almost unintelligible, and thirdly, I think I already explained to you why creationists aren't an acceptable source about themselves, and what is the standard definition of creationism, and I even linked to the relevant policies. You keep lying about what I said, making disruptive edits and wasting my time, so I'll revert it as vandalism and suggest that you don't revert it again until we get input from other editors. Reinistalk 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is wasting who's time? think the answer should be clear all of your reverts were not explained only that it is bad. When i ask u why its bad? you answer me that you dont understand the subject, and i should leave it up to other users. When i ask you whats your objection? you aswer me that u don't understand a word i am saying. now who is the vandal here exactly? one more u call me a liar i will waste your time with links to proof who exactly is responsible for vandalism and time wasting. Please stop reverting my edits in silence. Thanks--יודל 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Patience is needed, and discussion on the article talk page can be taken into account by other editors in deciding whether to revise the article while moving towards a consensus. .. dave souza, talk 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interlinking generic dates is discouraged
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s --Svetovid 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I'd appreciate it if you were a bit more tactful in your edit summaries. They could be interpreted to be rude. Thank you. Samuel Grant 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not "butthurt", I would like to be treated with the same respect I'm giving to you if that's not too much to ask. Samuel Grant 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words
You asked on my talk page if I was aware of WP:WEASEL. Was this in relation to anything specific that I posted? I do try to avoid weasel words, but I can't guarantee that the odd one hasn't slipped through in my efforts to be fair to both sides. Rodparkes 08:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent report to AP:AIV
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Khu kri  10:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)