User talk:Savidan/Archive 2

Abortion:politicians::Userboxes:wikipedia administrators
That's a good analogy. I've been looking for a simple way to say that ever since "too many userboxes" started showing up as an RfA cliché. Opposing a request for adminship becuase an editor is too concerned with userbox policy is itself indicative of being too concerned with userbox policy. Why must userboxes be so cruel? -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Frog FAC: gallery?
Hi, what is it that you don't like about the gallery? Please reply at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Frog. Thanks! - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle-earth
Plase go to the Things to Do page&mdash;that is where are main tasks list/discussion is! Thank you. Oh and if you'd like, there's a userbox for our WikiProject to show your support for it :): &mdash;Mirlen 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what I meant was that placing the userbox on your user page will advertise our WikiProject. Who knows, maybe some random Tolkien fan comes across your user page and sees that a WikiProject Middle-earth exists, maybe he or she will join it :P.  &mdash;Mirlen 02:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't respond quickly. Ah, okay.  I see what you mean now.  Well, if you'd like to create a Middle-earth Wikipedians category, then by all means, go ahead :). &mdash;Mirlen 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Had a....
Had a keypad error. This should explain the "unsigned" matter. Martial Law 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)


 * I struckthrought that part of my comment, but I still don't think I can support your RfA at this time. Wait a month, use the edit summary box, and you've got my vote. Also, your answers to the questions are a little upsetting... savidan(talk) (e@) 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Flowerparty RfA
Hi,

Just to let you know, you appear to have voted twice at this RfA, so I have stricken your second vote for you. It's no problem; I usually forget and do it about once a month myself. :) Do be careful, though!  Best wishes, Xoloz 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Arwen
Saw your edits.

"In addition to making Arwen a strong character" is also POV because some readers, like me, don't see Film Arwen as a "strong character". I cjanged it to "a more visible character".

Also, " Arwen had a very small role in the books outside of the Appendix." is contradicted by "...she plays a role in the plot which is disproportionate to the number of scenes in which she appears." Well, nobody's arguing that Film Arwen was more visible... Also changed small to visible.

I also plunked in a chunk of text from Laws and Customs explaining gender relations among the Eldar.

So all the arguments on Legolas's age and hair color and whether Balrogs have wings should go too?

And Arwen having her fate bound to the Ring is a legitmate gripe because it wasn't in the book, and is Jackson cruft (or crap). "Cruft" is a curious word... If she died of "grief" in the appendix, it was in wholly different circumstances.

If the Arguments section should go, it would be a pity (I don't like Jackson's changes at all). But if Wikipedia doesn't work that way, fine.

203.215.121.60 06:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm fine with changing strong to visible but "strong" isn't POV because its a term of art. 2. There's no contradiction. The appendix is part of the "plot". I don't know about Legolas or the Balrog. They should stay if they can be sourced. In fact I'll go take a look at those articles now. Having her fate bound to the ring is a change in the film, choosing to stay in Middle earth isnt. I like your version, though. I'll leave your changes. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Why would I object? :) The articles are unsourced, POV and subjective. =Nichalp   «Talk»=

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
From my talk page...

I like the map you created for republications and protests. I was wondering if you could make available the methodology that you used to determine levels of republication and protests. Just by looking at Cartoon Body Count it seems to me that there is some controversy over what to define as an incident (i.e. whether the cartoons caused a given protest) as well as what constitutes a republication (1 or all 12 of the cartoons). Anything you could tell me would be appreciated. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it would be appropriate that I used a bit of my own opinion to determine what qualified as a "protest". I essentially used the major demonstrations mentioned throughout the timeline article as well as the newspaper reprints article. I also considered the boycotts against Danish products as a major protest as they were nationwide in some countries. As the timeline was my primary source of protest information, I didn't decide myself whether the sources of certain protests and demonstrations were the cartoons. In some countries, like Pakistan, where protests have been very common, the sources became irrelevant because they have already reached the highest degree of red. For the reprints, it didn't matter to me whether it was just one cartoon or twelve cartoons that were printing; I decided to ignore that aspect as it was literally impossible to include every detail one map. I would hope that the map would give a general overview of the situation and that the reader would look at the appropriate article to find out more information if he or she is looking for that. joturner 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical geography
Critical geography is a reaction to quantitative revolution. It is something totally different than Geopolitics and I don't have a knowledge about Critical geopolitics which redirects there. Don't merge it.

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde   Weys  04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chess score
I saw your comment about The Game of the Century. The score is quite readable on my screen. What kind of problem are you encountering? I viewed the article in Firefox (and Win XP) -- I wonder whether you have a browser or OS issue. JamesMLane t c 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! &mdash; Deckiller 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
Hi, I noticed your edit comment. The part you deleted was added during FAC discussion. Many readers skim long articles or jump directly to their subject of greatest interest. In theory I agree with your comment 100%, but in practice this was causing problems for a significant minority of readers. Durova 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Clone High
Hello. Thanks for your message. It seems that you have all this well planned out and some of the new pages are under construction, so I'll withdraw my suggestion and let you get on with it! Happy editing. --kingboyk 22:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my "vandalism"
Sorry, it was an accident which I have reverted, I intended only to make a small edit and accidently blanked the page before hitting enter carelessly. My bad, sorry.Angrynight 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, though the irony of it being the page on vandalism is not lost on me :-) Angrynight 03:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

stop reverting my edits
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.
 * User's first edit. I'm guessing you made an account because your IP got blocked for vandalism. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new and did not know about accounts, etc.


 * Congratuations on creating an account. Welcome. However, please read WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and you savidan may want to assume good faith and stop discriminating against anonymous users. Users don't join WP only the moment they create an account. PizzaMargherita 06:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

waldorf education
You do not own this entry, stop reverting without discussion. Many of the sentence in this article are unfounded. For example "no one is good at all the subjects offered in a Waldorf school" On what basis can you say this? I went to Waldorf school for 12 years and knew several students who excelled in all aspects of Waldorf education. Similarily: "nor is anyone poor at all of these", again some students are underachievers and do not do well in any subject. The picture painted by this sentence is that everyone is equally capable in a Waldorf school which is cannot be confirmed by any evidence.

Explanation
Hi, sorry I had to undo your revert at Anti-Semitism. I have no doubt you've made it with best intentions, but User:Kaelus explained his change very convincingly at Talk. Thanks for watching, though. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries, colleague. I've done (and would do) the same. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Vulgarities
Doesn't your use of vulgarites, [Talk:University_GIS_Programs], somehow conflict with the misison statement of Esperanza? --Ray 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pete Maravich
No, it looks fine. The cleanup tag was mostly a note-to-self, but thanks for getting it, it looks like you did a great job. --W.marsh 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India
I wanted to thank you for you very thorough closing of this AfD. It wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't think to check back until now. Although I voted delete on the grounds of original research, I was slightly uncomfortable with the prospect of this article being the deleted the way the AfD discussion had gone down. Many administrators would have closed the vote as a simple no consensus, but you took the time to go through and glean what had been accomplished and I wanted to let you know that your effort was appreciated. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that one of the problems with AfD is that the close or complex debates often don't reach a satisfactory conclusion, especially when the result is "no consensus" (in the sense of there not being a majority for any given option). Providing an explanation hopefully helps spur some action in the future. Unfortunately it seems that nothing much has happened with these articles. The problem with them is that they are indeed original research, since the facts are verifiable but editors are drawing their own conclusions from those facts. I think a good merge is in order for all of them, and I might go ahead and do that shortly. --bainer (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Menard
Why the link to Infinite monkey theorem from Pierre Menard (fictional character)? I could see the theorem being relevant to the The Library of Babel, but it seems to have little to do with "Pierre Menard". There is nothing random about Menard replicating Cervantes: his enterprise is to become so immersed in his understanding of the time and place as to be able to recreate exactly Cervantes text. It's like the difference between a single laser-guided missile and a barrage of shotgun blasts. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Library of Babel would be relevant to. The connection that jumped out to me what the similarity of monkey's trying to reproduce Shakespeare verbatim and Menard trying to reproduce Cervantes verbatim. The differences that you point out are correct, and I don't think a see also link implies that Menard was an exercise in randomness. To me at least, Borges's contention that Menard's Quixote is "infintely richer" than Cervantes's is analogous to the question of whether the works are Shakespeare would be as meaningful if they were typed at random by monkeys. Bascially, I think both Pierre Menard and the Infinite monkey theorum call into question whether the meaning of a text is tied to its author. This hermeneutical similarity was enough for me to add a see also, but you are free to remove it if you disagree. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like quite a stretch. I think both points (Menard and the Monkey) might be relevant to the article on Reader-response criticism or something else in the realm of critical theory, but the connection from the one to the other is too tenuous for a "see also".


 * Here's a suggestion: rather than the infinite monkey theorem, why don't we stick with a comparison to another work by Borges himself, and instead of a "see also", why don't we put in a sentence explicitly contrasting Menard's richer reproduced text with the less rich reproduced text of the "The Library of Babel"? And "The Library of Babel" should, indeed, link to the infinite monkeys, if it doesn't already. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. You are free to act on that suggestion, but I am hesitant to add literary analysis to wikipedia because of WP:NOR concerns. I'm going to look into a template of Borges's works as well. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Voter turnout
When I first saw it the image you added was a redlink, so I looked in the history, found that there was no image immediately before that, because of vandalism (but I knew I had seen an image earlier that day), then went back into the history and got the only one, as it's better than having nothing/a redlink. Sorry, I'll replace it. -- Rory 0 96 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really care, just wanted to have some image :) -- Rory 0 96 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Articles
I'm a noob. Can only certain users revert an article to a previous version or am I just missing it? thanks! - Victah 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Ironically, while attempting to revert vandalism, I found myself blocked. Talk about a negative externality. Is there any way to block the IP without blocking registered users from that IP? Failing that, could the IP just be unblocked. It seems ridiculous to block the entirity of Dartmouth College for 24 hours everytime a student here decides to commit simple vandalism. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Humanism template
A link to Humanism (lifestance) should be on the list of topics that appear in the box associated with the humanism template. I'm not sure how to make that change myself as I can't figure out where the template is defined. (Note that the page is currently Humanism (belief system) but this is scheduled to be renamed to Humanism (lifestance) and the latter currently redirects to the former.) -Rhwentworth 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)