User talk:Sijo Ripa/Archive2

Apology
Hi,

You're probably right that I took that a little too personally and snapped at you a bit, and I'm sorry. I see you're a fellow Wiki-gnome, so keep up the good work that most people will never notice -- I know how that feels. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE
Please vote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE if you have time. This lists massacres and terrorist attacks on Muslims and Sinhalese by the LTTE but LTTE sympathizers want to wipe teh record of these attacks off Ruchiraw 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

revert dispute International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Hi and welcome, There is an dispute in International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The dispute is over inclusion of the AIPAC reaction to a US House of Representatives Resolution expressing support for Israel. Various accusations are being thrown around by Comrade438 eg. im being accused of trying to paint a "zionist conspiracy".

Comrade438 has made few silly edits, and comments, along with what might be a threat. It degenerated to Comrade438 blocking the page without consulting WP:RPP, then reverting last changes. I am trying to alert other users who have edited the article to this dispute as I believe the detail should be included. Is it possible you can look and see if you agree that AIPAC's reaction should be included in the article? I dont believe its a content issue and is possible trolling. I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard 82.29.227.171 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus FAC
Hi. Thank you for your input on this article's FAC. I've reduced the number of fair use images significantly. Please let us know if these changes address your concerns. Ryu Kaze 00:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changes implemented. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:


 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:


 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.


 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)


 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:


 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:


 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Padmé Amidala FAC
Three fair use images have been removed from the article Padmé Amidala per your request at FAC. Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Dmoon1 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured topic: Solar System
Hey Sijo. Your change to the featured topics page has been reverted. The sun article clearly belongs in the topic, but it still has to go through the nomination procedure first. This process has already started and you can vote on its inclusion. --Arctic Gnome 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military
Thank you for your comments on the FAC for article Campaign history of the Roman military located at Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military. I believe that I have addressed the majority of your concerns.

The only concern of yours remaining is that you stated:


 * "It is at the hands of the Gallic Celts that Rome suffered a humiliating defeat that temporarily set back its advance and was to imprint itself upon the Roman consciousness. reads a bit narrative and unnecessary imo."

I made a respons a few days ago asking if you could suggest an alternative. I was wondering if you could take a few moments tor espond to this on the article's FAC page, and also indicate whether you would able to either support or oppose the article's candidacy now please.

Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Just wanted to say thanks for the barnstar - much appreciated! - PocklingtonDan 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UT

Yoshitsugu Tatekawa
In response to your question, the article contains more information about military actions he was involved in and not the person himself which is the core focus of the article. It would be best for this article to be stubbed to encourage those who may know more about the person and his life to contribute to it. Hope this helps. thewinchester 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC) C)