User talk:WilyD/Archives/2007/February

Racism by country
Hi WilyD, Have a look at my comments at the bottom of talk:Racism by country. Regards Abu ali 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Regarding the recent James E. Sabow AfD, though we were on the opposite sides of opinion, I was impressed with the way your framed your argument (even if I didn't necessarily agree with it). You've been around for a while and you seem to handle yourself well. Ever considered a run for adminship?--Isotope23 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand... the whole process can be rather brutal. Still, if you understand what possible hurdles you might encounter, then at least you have a leg up.  The experience thing is the biggest; that (and edits) seem to be the big things everyone looks for.  Per 1RR, I don't know much about that.  I personally don't follow it when reverting POV, BLP concerns, etc that are added to articles (though I guess I stand pretty close to it on pure content issues).  I've never seen anyone oppose on that.  Your last concern is harder to gauge.  If you've managed to collect a small number of active editors/admins who would probably just oppose you outright, it shouldn't be a big deal.  If you have a lot, or many controversial edits... then it can be more of a problem.  I don't want to name names, but if you spent some time going through past RfAs, you can see what I mean; there are candidates that have enough "auto-oppose" !votes that it hit a critical mass early on and basically torpedoed their chances.  I guess that would be a personal call on your part if you think there are that many people who would oppose outright.  Beyond that it does tend to cut into your article writing time, so if that is really your thing you might not even want to bother with adminship.  Regardless, if you think this is not the right time I completely understand, but if you change your mind in the future, feel free to hit my talkpage.--Isotope23 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Greetings, thanks for the note. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but relative to the count of edits on that article I am the number one contributor at this point. Cheers. 14:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: North America
Greetings, and thanks for your note. Sorry about that: all of my edits are marked 'minor' by default, and I am also still getting rather used to Wikipedia. So, out of habit, I apologize if I've stoked any flames regarding the content, headers, etc. in that article. I will be more observant in the future, and let me know if I can somehow be of service. Quizatz Haderach 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. While I do not disagree that there are other considerations of what the continents are or in how the term America(s) may be perceived by some, I do not believe this editor can and should be able to slap on those tags without discussing and getting agreement beforehand.  There are many English - and other sources - which back the current introductions (see here for North America and the same diff for South America), which seem to not figure into this editor's arguments (that is, pushing a point of view).  Perhaps a case should be made at continent first, where only one source (Olympic flag) has been provided to support the argument for a single-America continent model despite others.  Quizatz Haderach 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the note at the continent article does indicate that the five Olympic rings represent five continents (not one for one exactly, but they all contain universal flag colours for all countries): Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Of course, I don't expect this editor to argue that Eurasia is also a single continent, or Oceania is not usually considered one. :)
 * As well, look closely at Answers.com - it is not a strict mirror of Wikipedia, as it contains extracts and content from a number of reputable publications (e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia).
 * Regardless, part of my point is that there are a number of sources listed in the continent article that support the current content, without having turning things upside-down. Quizatz Haderach 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a translation issue exactly, but more one of ethnocultural perception (?) -- many in Latin America do perceive America as a continent with its constituents as subcontinents; elsewhere (e.g., the UN), America is composed of two continents. In addition, I don't think Answers.com is updated as often (at least its Wikipedia excerpts), but the content for the other volumes is still authoritative.
 * Would you also care to weigh in at South America? I've gotta go soon, but will return later.    Thanks.  Quizatz Haderach 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no real argument - I think that article can do a much better job of presenting information, hence its current tags. Anyhow, whether we're talking about North/South/Middle/Central/Anglo/Latin America etc., I think the issues and fixes (if at all) might be the same.  Anyhow, I'll comment and be back later.  Quizatz Haderach 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good quote
"we're disrupting pointmaking to build an encyclopaedia", I am going to put that in my list of quotes. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)