User talk:Violetriga/archive1

Archive 1 – Posts from August 2004 to end of November 2004

Is there anybody out there?
Yep, me. I'm aware of the eclampsia problem. Unfortunately, I know too little about it to properly write it up from scratch. Do you have any information I could fall back on? Nice review articles from good medical journals are always welcome. JFW | T@lk  16:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lists of fictional animals
Why delete links to Lists of fictional animals? There has to be a pretty good reason for removing links in Wikipedia, which is all about links. Ortolan88 21:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Because the only content of that article is a failed redirect to Category:Lists of fictional animals and all the relevant articles are in that category anyway. violet/riga 21:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Works for me. The words "superfluous and miscoded" in the comment would have warned me off my question.  Ortolan88 21:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right - I did mention it in an edit on the main article itself but should have done it on each altered article. violet/riga 22:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Book titles
Hi Violetriga--Easy to check book titles on Amazon.com. Cheers, Opus33 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Took me absolutely ages trying to figure what you were going on about! I presume you're talking about the Grinch books.  Well yes, I know it's called "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" but I've always known it as "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and am sure I've seen it that way.  Amazon doesn't prove that it doesn't exist as spelt that way. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Robbie Williams
Hello. I appreciate you not seeing The Sun as a reliable source. However, this report has quotes direct from the artist.

Even in tabloid land it is unusual for something of this sort to be fabricated. The way that tabloids usually get into trouble is by using unattributed quotes. ie "a close friend says they are having an affair and are deeply in love..." or "sources close to..." or "an ex-girlfriend..."

This story is all attributed to Robbie's own mouth. The consequences for a journalist (even on The Sun!) of making this up would not be worth the trouble. If it were a story about some scandal about Robbie then all sorts of people might stand to make money, ie "I slept with Robbie and he [include some eyebrow raising feature of his antics here]" might earn the story teller many thousands of pounds. To invent a story about a new character and falsely claim that Robbie said this would be an immediate sacking.

Now... this is not to say that Robbie isn't just having a joke at the expense of the journalist and just being mischievous - however, even this being the case I think it is worth including in the article cos it shows Robbie's playful side.

Also, I gave the source - so people can make their own mind's up. Furthermore, should it later prove to be untrue, then this could be stated.

I tell you all this is an avid follower of the press and a trained feature journalist.

So, I wonder if you would consider reinstating that paragraph. If you don't feel this should be done, perhaps you would paste it into the Talk page and give your reasons for not including it in the article. --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 10:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * PS: The story is here: The Sun - Robbie's Pure Madness --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 10:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I actually laughed at it saying that he would wear a "false nose and a wig" – The Sun is well known for taking things totally out of context and Robbie, as you say, is most likely having a joke. It is not encylopedia material because it's just not true – I've not seen any other reports of this anywhere – and it is speculative at best.  Should it prove to be true, or even reported by multiple sources, the information could be added but if we added everything The Sun said then this pedia would be very ropey.   violet/riga (t) 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Further: The google-cached RobbieWilliams-info has the story, but it was evidently removed. violet/riga (t) 09:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of twins
What is the problem with having the list of conjoined twins in two places? Fred Bauder 15:04, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The important ones are already listed in the article and if someone comes along and duplication can bring in inconcistency (as was shown by comparing the two lists). violet/riga (t) 15:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Baby transport
You're very welcome Violetriga, I would like to add more, would be nice to have some images of an old fashioned victorian pram maybe? Compared with a modern style one. AmyNelson. :)
 * I've had a little look at some online pictures but none of them are free from copyright - I'll try and email one of them soon and ask for permission to use one or two. violet/riga (t) 21:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Save
Hey, just wanted to let you know that when you move a page, you should check redirects and links (using "what links here"), changing save to a disambiguation page affected many pages, which you should probably modify to link to the proper page. I've changed some of the major redirects, but I don't have the time to update all the pages. &mdash; siro &chi;  o
 * Yeah I've been planning to but got distracted sorting another article. I'm gonna go through them now and sort them out, ta. violet/riga (t) 10:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Swanscombe
Thank you for your good idea, on the Swanscombe page but for the time being a few external links about modern events will have to do. History is my main interest, but I will look into it, cheers Faedra 13:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem - you've done a good job with that article so far. violet/riga (t) 13:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for TZ work!
Thanks for your work on the Twilight Zone eps. I was working on those, once upon a time, but never summoned up the will to actually finish them. So thank you for doing it first, doing a better job of it than be, and, of course, for actually getting around to it. grendel|khan 04:43, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
 * No problem - I'm going to do the same for season two as soon as I get the time. Nice to be appreciated, so thanks for the comment. violet/riga (t) 07:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney
Hi. I notice you were watching the United - Fenerbahce match...! :) One thing, I see you changed all the dates in Wayne Rooney to US format -- this is a no-no... see Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29, we had a big argument about this last year and the result was that users were given the ability to see all wikified dates in whichever format they prefer by making the appropriate setting in "Preferences". The compromise is that articles on US subjects are written with US format dates, articles with UK subjecs get UK format dates, other subjects we generally keep the format chosen by the original author and whatever we do, we don't mix formats in the same article! -- Arwel 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've always written dates the US way because that's what I thought I read the first time I looked at that MoS article. Having reread it it's still not 100% clear which to use, but it should be consistent within an article - it wasn't before I changed some of them.  I'll try to use the different UK/US formats where appropriate, but I'm (unfortunately!) kinda stuck in US mode at the moment! violet/riga (t) 21:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Breastfeeding
Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry I missed your request for comments on WP:PR - I've been trying to reduce my wikitime recently, so I'm not monitoring everything like I did a while ago. I'll certainly add to breastfeeding if I have the time. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About your Breastfeeding edit; As noted in the article, males can lactate to a lesser degree and breastfeed infants. So, I think the change from "human" to "woman" is less accurate, though far more common. I think "mammal" would actually be better, but that would require substantial revision to the article.&mdash;Daelin 00:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You have a point, though I think the incidence of males breastfeeding is so low as to relegate it to a minor detail as mentioned later in the article - it also has it's own article. Mammals breastfeed too, yes, but is that commonly known as breastfeeding?  I think of a pig feeding it's offspring as simply "feeding", though it may technically be more accurate to call it "breastfeeding".


 * Thanks for your edits on the article - I'm very proud of what it's become now and you've helped it further. violet/riga (t) 00:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official invitation
Hi!

This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 23:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

British toponymy
Hi, I noticed you've gone a bit quiet on Talk:British toponymy; I apologise if I've stepped on your toes with regard to my latest suggestion. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 13:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey. Not at all - I was just waiting to see if anyone else came along with some bright ideas.  I've nearly finished the Breastfeeding article I've spent most of my time on and will now turn my attention towards British toponymy.  violet/riga (t) 14:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

License plate
(br clear=all) instead of multiple (br)s -- Thanks for that, Violetriga. I thought there must be a tidier way! -- Picapica 11:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem - I'd never seen it until recently and it does work very well. violet/riga (t) 12:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alternative political spellings
Actually, user:Shorne, however unencyclopedic his tone and some of his content, was correct to leave "signed posts", commented out, where he was debating inclusion/exclusion of items in a list. But I agree with you that the uncited laundry list is useless. -- Jmabel 17:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ahh - I just editted it and then noticed the signature - forgot to look at whether it was commented out or not. Thanks for letting me know. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Beatles FAs
Thank you. That was EXACTLY what I meant. I was thinking that having them all on the front page was the goal, and that made me a bit uneasy. Apparently I was attacking the contributor in doing so...I'm a fairly direct person and I don't mince words. I guess people STILL don't know that after months of my being here. Mike H 06:29, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Download chart
You might be interesting in this page: List of Number 1 music downloads (UK) Dmn / [[User talk:Dmn|&#1332;&#1396;&#1398; ]] 17:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks for letting me know. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ashlee_Simpson
Please see Template_talk:In_the_news, I'm interested in your opinion. Regards, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:56, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

English
OK, this I do not understand. NPOV states that no POV is supposed to be advocated. Yet you specifically believe that omitting the words "murder is bad" (which is an opinion, widespread or not) is identical to saying "murder is good" according to how you've presented your argument. If that opinion were "fact", there should be some experiment or test to verify it, yet these is no factual data (it is a human value). Omitting words does not automatically imply the opposite of them, and NPOV is not about saying "X is good" and "Y is bad". It can say "people believe X" and maybe (or maybe not) there are people who do not believe X. Those are statements of fact, which can be verified by checking some data. But just asserting X as being true without qualfying who says so or how it can ever be known is pushing a person's POV. Is my understanding of NPOV accurate? DanP 18:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "People believe X" is a weaselly way of stating it, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Asserting X as being true without qualification is also wrong.  In relation to breastfeeding neither of these are true. violet/riga (t) 19:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, yes you're right technically on that one. By people I meant that as a placeholder for a particular set of people (those who present the research), I did not mean "people" (ie. humanity) literally.   In that context, it is not weaselly, it is NPOV.  However, the breastfeeding article does not do this.  It labels activities as "harmful" without qualifying who says so.  It goes further to label tobacco and alcohol (the substances themselves) as "harmful", even though harmful was previously stated in reference to effect on the infant.  So it is redundant and judgemental.  As to pandering, the very term itself seeks to dismiss some viewpoints over others.  NPOV can only be achieved without choosing a side as being "right", and many smoking mothers exist as I well know.  Wikipedia should neither pander, nor should it stigmatize. DanP 19:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a proven fact that alcohol and nicotine (along with other harmful substances) can pass into breast milk and be absorbed into the baby. I think the problem lies in the fact that you're asking for direct referencing in the middle of the text.  The references used, as listed in the relevant section, do support the statements. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Saying the substance is harmful, and saying effects are harmful in a given situation, are very different assertions. Nevertheless, one cannot say that a research study, which has its critics, can simply be extrapolated as being "right" simply because it exists.  If you were to pull that crap with any other article, there would be an inquiry of "who says so" and "who says otherwise".  That is the nature of disagreement.  It is not pandering to simply state who is making a claim, which the breastfeeding article does not do when it comes to its claim of harm caused by smoking mothers.  If you can find evidence that smoking mothers believe they are harming their babies, let's see it.  DanP 19:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that it harms the babies, as evidenced in the references. I don't need evidence of mothers believing that they harm their babies - their opinions do not count because they're clearly not in posession of all the facts.  We can't pander to the thoughts of every random individual. violet/riga (t) 19:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but these are not random individuals. They are smokers (aka human beings), whereas the fact that mothers harm their babies is not automatically true just by assertion. You and I may accept that as factual, and even accept all the effects that nicotine might cause. But saying those effects are there and saying they are harmful are quite different statements, since the latter makes a judgement. It is stigma, disapproval, and POV. Nobody has ever documented any measurable harm of nicotine in breastfeeding, that I am aware of. And again, the breastfeeding article does not stop there. It labels the substances themselves as "harmful" (as a broad adjective), even though harmful was previously mentioned as to effects on the infant. Do you not see that last particular inconsistency, or is anything I say going to be wrong to you, facts and all? DanP 20:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is harmful to the infant – that is a proven fact. The infant is caused harm by the nicotine/alcohol in the breast milk.  I can't really word it any other way to you. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Has that even been proven? Where is the evidence?  Any case studies, or comparisons made between babies with and without nicotine exposure specifically from breast milk?  I'm interested now that you're so sure it has been proven.  And again, you didn't explain the broad "harmful" claim as to substances.  Wording it right is less important than presenting credible research. DanP 20:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Royal College of Midwives (1991). Successful Breastfeeding: A Practical Guide for Midwives, Royal College of Midwives, London. 
 * 4woman.gov (specifically this page)
 * Amongst others these two references, both included in the relevant section, discuss the harmful effects. I've just expanded the alcohol section to clarify these harmful effects.  violet/riga (t) 20:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I read those pages before. No research is cited, and the conclusions are speculative (no matter whether they are true or not).  Good research allows the reader to evaluate methods, how measurements were made, who was tested, etc.  Those page do none of that, they just say "believe this".  Personally, I am on your side with leaving nicotine warnings in place, but I still believe you're lying about the existance of proof.  DanP 20:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I therefore take it you've read all the books (including the one mentioned above) and not just the web sites? OK, I'm just about to add another site to the references, hopefully that (or more specifically the links provided therein) will give you enough proof).  The link. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, that link is very good. I think it goes way beyond breastfeeding, but it does mention many essentials.  DanP 21:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The cheat from home star runner.
The cheat has a gold tooth. Could it get added? Clownfish 19:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't say I know much about that - add it in to the article. Anyone that thinks that it doesn't belong there will just fix it, so don't worry!. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Final Warning
Do NOT again delete my votes at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. You have no right, nor authority to do that. I will report you for vandalism and to the ArbCom. 216.153.214.94 06:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you are that interested in contributing your opinion to Wikipedia please register. As an anon you are not afforded the right to vote. violet/riga (t) 09:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please show me where on this Wiki (as part of an official rule) it says that. Until you can, my warning to you (above) stands. 216.153.214.94 21:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I read your comment
Please leave me alone. 216.153.214.94 23:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As if you have the right to ask for that after your aggressive attacks on others? You don't leave others alone, that's for sure.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Rex: I'm not the one going around after the other person maliciously changing edits. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sysop
Are you a sysop yet? If not, do you want to be one? Dmn / [[User talk:Dmn|&#1332;&#1396;&#1398; ]] 12:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk:Dmn. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've nominated you. If you accept, good luck Dmn[[United Kingdom| / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; ]] 20:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_adminship

Breastfeeding
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. To return the compliment, Breastfeeding and Blackadder are both excellent (if somewhat different!) pieces of work, so well done.

I was only trying to reach an acceptable solution for all concerned on Talk:Breastfeeding. I don't think DanP is entirely happy yet, but there we are. (As it happens, I would oppose the automatic knee-jerk circumcision that has happened in the US for many years, but I can see that parents may still choose to circumcise for cultural, religious or medical reasons. However, unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I just can't how circumcision is relevant to breastfeeding other than the limited effect that is already mentioned.)

PS - good luck on WP:RFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I decided a while ago to abstain from voting on WP:RFA because I don't want to get involved in the politics, so please don't take the absence of my vote as censure because I think you will be an excellent admin - but just to say that it is usual for a nominee to formally accept the nomination there :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat
That's why I was (attempting to) revert back. SethIlys said the information was on the wire, so I took that as evidence enough for the claims, which were made by reports on Israeli TV, citing French sources. I only noticed soon after the AP soon after rejected the claim. Sarge Baldy 17:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice one for being on the ball, or at least meaning to be (there are some reports of his death). I wasn't sure if you were going to revert it so I went to do it, but it seems that it didn't work when you did it - some sort of database error appeared instead.  violet/riga (t) 17:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I seem to have a problem with looking at the source of old news articles. When I tried to edit the latest previous version I got a database error, didn't notice, and proceeded to save. I was trying to think of how to go about fixing that when I noticed you reverted the news properly. So it's a good thing you were around just then :) Sarge Baldy 17:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting me
Please butt out at Dedham, Massachusetts. The edit you are deleting is 100% accurate and 100% truthful and it's not POV. I have researched the topic thoroughly and have documented answers to all concerns on the Dedham talk page. Your repeated reverts are vandalism. You are indeed a vandal and a trouble maker. 216.153.214.94 20:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Lots of people are reverting you. Stop putting it back until you've further discussed it. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding Dedham, Massachusetts; Violet, you really are an idiot - you know nothing of the subject matter, yet you stoke a revert war. You have no idea if the edit you kept reverting is true or not. And, don't you dare tell me to "futher discuss" it - you reverted me multiple times with no discussion at all. 216.153.214.94 00:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Violetriga, you might be interested to know that, in one of the arbitration proceedings against Rex, when his propensity to sling insults was raised as an issue, he responded to the Arbitration Committee as follows: "As my name shows, I have been here for lesss than a month and each week, my courtesy to others has grown. There is no rational basis to infer, suggest or anticipate that I will make rude comments about others."  So presumably he means "you really are an idiot" in a good way.  :)  JamesMLane 03:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please disregard JamesMLane's conjecture based assertion. His edits as of late indicate he's misunderstanding certain basic facts. Also, he continually refers to "Rex" for some weird reason. 216.153.214.94 05:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts
Your particpation in the un-justified deletion (via non-discussed reverts) of a factually accurate, non-POV, historical fact from that page has contributed to causing that page to be "protected". Therefore, I am asking you to particpate in the dialog at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts which the "protection" notice calls for. Either that, or please leave a message for Mirv and request that the page be unprotected. This message will be reposted here daily (approximately) until you acknowledge it on the Dedham, Massachusetts talk page. Thank you 216.153.214.94 03:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, unanimity being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cecropia... =) violet/riga (t) 23:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Congrats - deserved and all. And unanimous too! JFW | T@lk  23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ... and thanks JFW! =) violet/riga (t) 23:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The vote was not unanimous! 216.153.214.94 04:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

since when is 35-0 not unanimous? --kizzle 05:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

My vote was deleted. and since you all claim to "know" that I am "Rex", then you can;t very well delete my votes as being anonymous, can you? 216.153.214.94 05:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, basically, what you're saying is "You should believe that I am Rex when that's convenient for me, and believe that I am not Rex at all other times." This is Exhibit A on why we know you're Rex; who else is so blatant and shameless about demanding rights while shirking responsibilities? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, ignorant Feldspar misinterprets statements once again. The above statement merely points out that persons who accuse me of being "Rex" ought to consider all my edits as being from "Rex" - no picking and choosing. Of course, since Feldspar is so dumb(?) he incorrectly misinterprets that as an admission of me being "Rex". Feldspar, do you have "Rex-envy" or something? What is this weird "Rex" obsession that you have? 216.153.214.94 06:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Rex-envy"? What on God's green earth would ever induce me to envy such a pathetic control freak?  No thanks.  On the issue of consistency, there is no inconsistency between knowing that 216.153.214.94 is Rex and refusing to allow him Rex's privileges while he persists in the charade that he is not Rex.  Suppose we had a defendant in a courtroom and all the evidence and all the eyewitnesses were placing him at the scene of the crime, and he was insisting that he was in a bar across town at the time.  If he says "OK, I'm still saying I was across town in that bar when the robbery happened, but I want you to know that if I was in that convenience store holding it up, I saw the attorney for the prosecution there sniffing cocaine with his mistress!  Therefore, if you don't believe I was in the bar, you must arrest him on drug charges!" is anyone going to take his claims seriously?  Is anyone going to say "I don't believe his first story, therefore I must believe his second story, the one he himself claims isn't true because he's still insisting his first one is"?


 * In the same way, votes are supposed to go to those willing to vote responsibly. 216.153.214.94 is either an anon who doesn't get a vote, or he is Rex, unwilling to come forward and admit "Yeah, all this time that I was accusing everyone I didn't like of being sockpuppets, I was already operating one of my own, and every time I was calling people paranoid for believing the anon was secretly me, they were actually right and I was lying, but guess what?  I'd like my vote now."  Either way, there is no justification for treating the anon's vote as that of a responsible Wikipedian.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

35-0. Now that's a mandate. --kizzle 07:18, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Rex" is a bad loser. What part of 35-0 (or 34-1 if you get your way) don't you understand? JFW | T@lk  08:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, even if "silly 'anon' who can't remember from one post to the next whether he doesn't know who Rex is or knows Rex to be the shining champion of Wikipedia in exile" got his way, that'd make it 35-1, not 34-1. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 in music (UK)
Your suggestions for the 2004 in music page look great, I've added some comments on the talk page. I think that this can be a good project, it's probably easiest if we start with this year then work backwards. As I've said there, I think a month-by-month structure would be best, as we can include However, discussion of general issues throughout the year could probably use a different structure - we could create a section following the month-by-month review showing key issues and artists from the year that do not fit into the monthly structure? David 5000 14:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * details of single and album releases, and their success
 * awards
 * Controversial moments
 * etc.

PA 103 -- thanks for the input
Hello Violet/Riga,

Thank you for your message about the PA 103 page. I agree with you about the need for a major edit in terms of structure. At the moment, I'm afraid that any structural change I make would be interpreted as hostile action, so I'll wait until the facts are agreed before attempting any major copy-editing.

Thank you, too, for the tip about American v. British spelling. The punctuation is different too. The rule I've been following is to make the spellings consistent within the page, and to follow what most users have done with that page, whether it's American or British. I hope that's the right way to approach it. I am very new to this and it's a steep learning curve!

Thank you again, and I hope I'm posting this in the right place.

Slim

Christina Ricci & Natalie Portman
I just wanted to say that you keep on reverting my edits on Natalie Portman and I can't understand why. I understand you want to keep it unbiased but the article as you like it is biased. Because you quote someone else who said she has had critically acclaimed roles but my changes were also based on articles and not my own personal opinion. I just wanted to add it because it's true. I do not dislike the actress, but I do admit I'm not a huge fan, I am just neutral but I don't like articles that make certain people to be overhyped over others. She is bladal as an actress but you don't have to erase it because it's not necessarily a bad thing. I just personally wonder if she wasn't a looker would anyone really think her acting is beyond great. I only made a few minor changes and small ones at that. The only other change I made was the fact that she gained fame through Star Wars. But that is fact. I never heard of her, nor did anyone else, when I asked who is this actress that is going to be in Star Wars. She has only become famous because the Star Wars fan base was already established.

But if you seriously are bothered by my changes I will not make them anymore. I apologize if I annoyed anyone. Taxicab (formerly 209.226.40.154)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. What you have editted in the article could make sense and be good but are currently too POV, these include:
 * "Though very few viewers took notice of her..." - Léon was very popular
 * "Although many critics pass her as bladal and believe that viewers will soon outgrow wanting to see her in the movies, her role in Star Wars has kept her in the spotlight for who knows how much longer." - Certainly POV; everyone gets criticised at some point
 * "It has also been said that she was the one who rejected the role of Juliet in Baz Luhrman's "Romeo and Juliet" but it has been said that Leonardo Dicaprio chose Claire Danes as his leading actress because he preferred her." - if you can support that with an external link or reference then that information can be included.
 * Again thanks for commenting and thanks for working on the articles - I hope this doesn't put you off. violet/riga (t) 22:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright. The bladal thing was from New York Times, and for the Leon being popular, it was an interview I watched when Natalie herself said something along the lines of it not really being a huge success/hit in the States. It was famous only in France and only then did it become a cult film in the States but not widely known. For the Romeo and Juliet thing it was an interview with Leonardo Dicaprio with Jules Asner on E! television in the States and he said he is the one who wanted Claire Danes over any other actresses and that is why she was chosen. That is the closest reference I can get. And this did not put me off in my posting though I don't understand the Christina Ricci thing but it's alright. I appreciate you being mature about all this instead of getting in a virtual fist fight with me :)

Dedham dispute
While I feel that the editor formerly known as Rex is not exactly the model Wikipedian, there was an issue in the Dedham dispute that disturbed me. You said you reverted his edits because there was a "consensus", because several editors had reverted him. But did you actually read the article? Did you try to verify what was in it? Or did you simply pile on? Some of the names that I saw reverting his edits quite often turn up in these disputes. That's of course because they are high-contributing editors as much as anything else. I accept and understand that. But I also know that there is an element of factionalism here. I've seen people calling for support on talk pages many times, and I presume they do it by email too. I'm not at all suggesting that this is what happened here. But of course the same support happens in other ways. Editors who have an affinity will tend to back one another up. I don't think this is the same thing as "building a consensus". What's your view? By the way, please copy any reply to my talk page.Dr Zen 05:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I saw the page when checking his contributions. Having seen six different people revert him numerous times and after having read (at speed) that the talk page discussion was not getting anywhere I decided that, based on previous experience with this guy, I would revert it.  Every other contribution made by him has been POV or incorrect and I thought best to err on the side of caution while, admittedly, been rather biased against him.  While I recognised some usernames from the arbitration  process, thus also making them biased, I didn't know them all.  When it was clear that he was reverting me as well I went and requested page protection - something I felt needed to be done straight away but had not previously been requested.  While it wasn't a consensus there were enough people involved to indicate that the revert war would continue and I wanted to go through the process of being reverted three times myself before calling for protection.  violet/riga (t) 08:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So you did not read and revert the edits on their merits? You read the discussion on the talk page and joined the side you thought was right? To be honest, I don't think that's a good way to proceed. It seems to me he sourced his corrections at least, and he is not getting a hearing. A reading of the discussion *seems to me* to indicate that he had a disagreement with one other editor, and others, including you, have sided with his correspondent without regard to the merits of it. While it's true that he's gone about it the wrong way, and he certainly doesn't seem very willing to compromise, I'm not sure his opponents have exactly held out the olive branch either.Dr Zen 04:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If a vandal makes bad changes to numerous articles and then edits one that people are disputing and is in an edit war then I'm certainly going to go against him. He has not made a single positive edit and with that one being in dispute it's obvious that we cannot trust his "citation" (which he conveniently does not have to hand).  There was no reason to think that the Dedham edit was in any way different to his other changes.  Further, I'm not sure if you've seen the olive branches extended to him by all the other editors and totally ignored, but we have all tried to change the way he edits.  The content there is now being discussed and its merits taken into account - reverting an article 40 times to include that content is incorrect and he should have backed down before I (or most of the others) got involved. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't revert my VfD addition again please.
I am an admin. The vote was never closed properly with the vfd top and vfd bottom templates, so it never got closed. It must have been removed accidently from the VfD page, so I'm readding it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't talk down to me. I am an admin too - that makes no difference.  The article was deleted and a new article has been created about an entirely different subject.  It should be removed, archived and a new VFD created.  Please fix this before I have to do it again. violet/riga (t) 14:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I'm not talking down to you. I was letting you know I'm doing an admin task. If you felt I was doing this, sorry. I wasn't. I will double check what's going on and fix accordingly. You should have left a quick message on my page though. I would have sorted it out pretty quickly. Instead you've figured I'm doing things in bad faith. Unpleasant. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have just double-checked. There were two articles: one was called Band geeks. I deleted that article. The other article has no deletion history, was listed under VfD once and somehow was removed from VfD before the vfd top and vfd bottom tags were added. Those tags indicate that the vote has ended, no? It looks like the vote never ended. Hence the reason I relisted. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The article I submitted to VFD (Band geeks) was about SpongeBob SquarePants and that is the one that is discussed at Votes for deletion/Band geek after you moved this one there. You've caused confusion by moving an old VFD to a new name referencing an unrelated article.  And sorry but starting a message with "I am an admin" makes you appear like you are trying to say that you have greater authority - I never thought you were doing it in bad faith just that you'd done it incorrectly. violet/riga (t) 14:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Further: I was not given the chance to put a message on your talk page because you reverted it before I had a chance. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I apologise fully for making it seem that I have greater authority. That was never ever my intention! I was just giving you a heads up. You're right though, I did move the page. I confused myself. My bad :( I've attempted to fix the problem by moving the page and then relisting. I'll alter the test on the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. the vote never was finalised correctly. That's why I put it back on the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I took it the wrong way and thanks for sorting the problem out. :) violet/riga (t) 16:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it still needs clarification. Band geek was not up for VfD before - Band geeks was.  The articles are different.  Are you saying that you want to list the present Band geek article on VfD?  If so you'll need to present the reason why.  violet/riga (t) 20:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this! OK, I gotta get to work. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re U.K. Topics page
Thanks for your new editing of the U.K. Topics page. Jwrosenzweig is of course talking nonsense when he claims an essential explanatory note is "both POV and inappropriate for a list". The linked page "Subdivisions of the United Kingdom" has of course still got some mixed up errors.WikiUser 19:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Band geek
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 00:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edu sites
Can I use photos from .edu sites and use them as public domain photos? I just uploaded one. It's Straight Hall. What do you mean?

Darwinek, 19:05 UTC, 16 Oct 2004


 * I'm by no means an expert on copyright laws so there may be better people to ask about this. At the bottom of the Dillard University website there is "Copyright 2004 Dillard University" which shows that they hold (and probably enforce) copyright.  That to me says that the pictures are not released as public domain.  However, you could email them and ask if you could use it here. violet/riga (t) 19:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures), per request
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) per request Pedant 02:04, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to this. We should not be duplicating articles in such a manner. I've put this on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Can't say that I agree with it either. violet/riga (t) 11:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the News
Well, I'm happy for them to stay on, but I was trying to ensure notability based on precedent - I don't think Wikipedia should fall prey to double standards. Darksun 18:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree they're not exactly massive international stories but I think that there's enough of a reason to keep them. Clearly they'd be the ones to go if any new stories appeared.  I'm looking at sorting out a poll for a revision of the rules. violet/riga (t) 18:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You helped me before, so . . . . . . . ..
Hi Vi: There is a term or process or something on the wikipedia that sounds like discombobulation, but isn't.  It involves sepeating two pages or entries that have the same name. In my case it is "The Searchers." I was going to expand on the band and found it on the same page as the movie - which i am ALSO tempted to write about. Can these be made into two entries? Did I say "Please?" Carptrash 03:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Even though it is snowing here I feel as if the sun is shining.  Now I have a lot of Searchering to do. Carptrash 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guidelines
Hi! I just thought you might find a link to Deletion_policy useful, since you're supposed to be an administrator. It might help to avoid confusion in future about whether to remove a disputed template on the same day that it was voted for deletion, or after some sort of concensus has been reached - cheers! -- Simonides 00:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The article has not been deleted but merely it's inclusion in an article changed to a link.  It was causing a VFD flag to appear on the VP page and your second attempt was incorrect because you shouldn't copy and paste the details there when a simple link will do.  violet/riga (t) 00:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi again! It seems you need to do more thank read Wikipedia guidelines, because you're now imagining policies where none exist. But let me tell you about one that does exist, ie you cannot alter or delete another poster's comments where it is relevant to a discussion, and you are violating it now - please do look into it; toodles! -- Simonides 00:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * TBH you really are being stupid about this. violet/riga (t) 00:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

stop trying to shut up those who disagree with you
Please stop deleting NPOV marker from Islam until the dispute has been resolved as per Wikipedia charter. Wikipedia has certain rules that have to be followed. It's not your personal playground. Thanks user:68.107.102.129
 * Shutting people up is Violet's modus operandi. She has consumed the past couple of days in moving or editing posts of mine or breaking links to them in the hope that less people will pay attention to genuine criticism, as opposed to her frantic border patrols. That said, your own edits are ridiculous and are attempts, in their own way, at shutting people up because you refuse to think about objective information without letting your agenda get in the way. -- Simonides 21:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't be so silly - you've not suggested good enough reasons why the article is POV. It's now protected to prevent your pointless edit war. violet/riga (t) 15:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Violet, since you're strict about guidelines, it's suggested that you use Talk pages for constructive messages and article discussion rather than perseverant attempts at having the last word, which is not what they are meant for (see Talk page). This is your second warning. -- Simonides 21:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find I'll do whatever I want on my own talk page. On other talk pages I'd love to see where I've tried for the last word.  Now stop being so daft and go away. violet/riga (t) 21:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You'll soon be needing mnemonics to remember your daily activities. Specimen A: User talk:Simonides, where you've been living the last week or two :). -- Simonides 21:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please check the solar system article to clarify that the world does not, in fact, revolve around you. Neither do my edits. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

National Health Service
You voted for National Health Service, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 11:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dashes
Hi, violet/riga.

Why do you keep changing my hyphen in Tori Amos into an ndash? You prefer dashes. The majority of Wikipedians prefer hyphens. Can't we all just get along?

chocolateboy 15:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I did somewhat of a copyedit. As part of that process I fix the dashes where appropriate.  That means correcting instances of "-", which it is generally agreed is incorrect.  The argument lies in the acceptance and strict use of "--", "–", "&mdash;", and the variants associated.


 * Further, and for your information, I present an extract from Manual of Style (dashes)
 * A single spaced hyphen - actually, there's no real reason to flout the rules of good typesetting in this way. If you come across one of these, please feel free to convert it into your preferred dash style from the above list.
 * violet/riga (t) 16:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi.

There is no general agreement that the use of hyphens in wikitext is incorrect. Please take a look at the talk page of the Dash article. A number of editors advocate dashes because that's the convention in print; a similar number oppose them in wikitext because they make it harder to edit. The only consensus is that they should be entered as hyphens and automatically converted to &amp;ndash; and &amp;mdash; once the current overlap with the table syntax has been resolved.

I've removed this comment from User talk:Chocolateboy/Dashes:


 * But remember: common does not equal correct.

If you wish to debate the Wikipedia practice of accreting policy bottom-up (e.g. sentence case headings, which are deemed incorrect by style guides and common usage) rather than imposing it top-down (dashes), then that page, which is devoted to facts rather than politics, is not the place to do it. The topic is discussed in detail here and here if you wish to develop the theme further.

chocolateboy 17:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If they're just going to end up as &amp;ndash; or &amp;mdash; (as you said above) then there's no problem with any that are converted manually. Converting it to "-" is incorrect as stated clearly in the MoS and quoted above.  I'm more than aware of the policy and there really isn't a need to come along and link to the things you did, nor is there a need, in my mind, to remove legitimate comments of your talk pages – that's bad wikiquette. violet/riga (t) 17:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it was bad wikiquette on your part to add a comment to an isolated non-discussion page. This debate is full of airy opinions of the kind you proffered. As far as I can tell, that page contains the only actual proof that hyphens are the de facto Wikipedia standard. The implications of this can be and should be discussed elsewhere. But the raw figures are independent of that political debate. I rescued those stats after they were reformatted and disfigured here, and would think common sense or courtesy would persuade you to continue the discussion on this page ("I will usually reply here") or on my talk page rather than in a footnote. Would you scribble a reply on a userspace template (e.g. User:Diberri/Vandalism is futile) if one happened to be transcluded into your talk page?


 * There's no problem with any that are converted manually

The first problem is that they are disliked by editors who place a premium on the simplicity and editability of wikitext. The second is that they will all be autoconverted back to hyphens once MediaWiki has been updated, so their only long-term effect will be to annoy and discourage contributors like myself and many others (see User talk:Chocolateboy) who prefer their hyphens to be left alone in the same way that American and Commonwealth spellings (where appropriate) are not arbitrarily changed. The passage you quoted from the Dash page is only one side of a debate that is ongoing. Here (in case you haven't spotted it among the links I provided) is another:


 * Evolving language and the decreased reliance on print world conventions have led to the hyphen becoming an acceptable replacement for other dashes. Where hyphens have been used in place of other dashes, you are discouraged from changing these, in the same way that changing spelling forms is discouraged. (See #Usage and spelling).

chocolateboy 18:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not meaning any offence but you seem to have some confusion about articles (and userspaces) and talk pages. Having your Dashes page as an offshoot of your talk page (User talk:Chocolateboy) implies that it is open for comments.  If it was User:Chocolateboy/Dashes then that would be different.  Similar to your comments regarding the MoS – the main (non-talk) page is what we should concern ourselves with and the talk is merely discussion.
 * Next point: You claim that there is proof that dashes are the de facto standard. I disagree, it simply hints that there are too many people unaware of the preferred way of doing things or that just don't know how to do it – not all editors go through the MoS.
 * I also disagree that it discourages editors. It's not a difficult thing to learn to use and people quickly pick it up.
 * Finally, please note that the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes) page is not an ongoing discussion and hasn't been for a while. The main, non-talk page is the one to go by. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)




 * Having your Dashes page as an offshoot of your talk page (User talk:Chocolateboy) implies that it is open for comments. If it was User:Chocolateboy/Dashes then that would be different.

It's User talk:Chocolateboy/Dashes, but you're quite right. My mistake :-/ Thanks for pointing this out.


 * Similar to your comments regarding the MoS – the main (non-talk) page is what we should concern ourselves with and the talk is merely discussion.

You're mistaken on this point. The paragraph I cited also appears on the main (non-talk) page. I just prefer the talk page version. It's precisely because the article contradicts itself that I personally (and perhaps others) choose to live with it rather than lobbying for the deletion of its uncharacteristically inflammatory ("flout the rules of good typesetting"?) statement:


 * In the interests of Wikilove and pending the planned update of the Wikimedia software that will automatically convert strings of hyphens into the appropriate correct en- and em dashes, editors are encouraged to be accepting of others' dash preferences and not to modify a chosen style arbitrarily, in the same way as they would refrain from arbitrarily changing "artefact" to "artifact" (or vice-versa).




 * I also disagree that it discourages editors. It's not a difficult thing to learn to use and people quickly pick it up.

The same is true of HTML... Or XML for that matter. That's not the Wiki way.


 * I disagree, it simply hints that there are too many people unaware of the preferred way of doing things or that just don't know how to do it – not all editors go through the MoS.

It's not only the Wikipedia standard (your (familiar) explanation of why hyphens are the de facto standard on Wikipedia doesn't change the fact that they are); it's the Web standard: Wikipedia is not paper. Personally, I find the "most Wikipedians are clueless" line of argument unconvincing, but each to his or her own.


 * Finally, please note that the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes) page is not an ongoing discussion and hasn't been for a while. The main, non-talk page is the one to go by.

The Dash article is pretty clear on the principle of wikilove. Having an editorial decision that I've thought about and discussed to death revoked in an article I've spent a lot of time trying to improve doesn't seem (to me) entirely consistent with that principle.

chocolateboy 20:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I can't say that I'd looked at the history before editing the article.  My personal view, and the way I've interpreted the dashes MoS, is to replace "-" whenever coming across it.  I had no idea that you'd been worked so hard on the article (as is evident now I look at the history) and didn't mean to step on your toes.  No offence meant. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)