User talk:Meelar/archive 4

==Girls' Middle School== Girls' Middle School I think I fixed the problem of copyrights and NPOV on the original GMS page. Please see the talk/temp page for my edits. If you approve, I hope you will put in the new content. Sorry for the mistakes of a newbie...

---FrankH 04:47, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

I can live with that change.  :) RickK | Talk 05:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kate Elliott

OK, you're right, it's probably not NPOV why her 1st novels didn't sell. Publisher yanked the budget, basically, and dropped the books from their prime list before they ever went to the bookstores. But I guess I don't want to get into a whole article on what makes a bestseller... oddly enough, it's not always simply being a good book (and often *isn't* that). :-) .... Elf | Talk 06:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Social Democrat

Look, the Social Democrat article as it stood is riddled with errors, generalisations, bad sentence structure and irrelevencies. If you want to put things back in take it to talk but don't do a wholesale rv again please. Mycroft2004 23:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See your talk. Again, I apologize. Meelar 23:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ip_81.168.25.93

I apologise, I'm new to the Wikipedia... I have found that same article duplicated in various other places. My apologies, If you will allow I'll replace the article with one in my own words.

High speed trains

The reason for the decline of trains after WW2 might not have been declining demand, though that may have been true for a while, particularly as they would not have been needed for troop movement and military freight. It could have been due to a splitting of the market share with other modes of transport - such as cars and planes. I don't have figures, but it seems to me quite plausible that the total load on transport could have gone up, but relatively rail could have gone down. Also, countries may not have been prepared to fund a comprehensive rail system - as in Britain, which eventually axed a lot of track under Dr Beeching's management. You may be right, but I'm not absolutely convinced. The reasons could have differed also for different countries. In the US the rise in air travel probably diverted passengers, but this is less likely to have been a factor in Britain where distances are shorter, and it's only in the last few decades that large numbers of people elect to travel by plane for internal journeys. David Martland 20:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I think this needs some investigation - as I said, there may not have been a uniform explanation. I'm not an expert on this - but I may be able to dig up some figures with a bit of effort. If you have any info maybe you could edit the article. It may be a few days or even longer before I get round to dealing with this again. David Martland 16:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Swing states

I think we're still missing one. WV was on there twice. Great job tho! jengod 20:35, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Pip

Hello, Meelar,

I notice that you made the major additions to the article Pip. Now I know I am hopelessly out of touch with modern culure, which may have something to do with the fact that I live as a recluse in my ruined mansion with my daughters Estella and Biddy, my wife Miss Havisham, and my dogs Sarah Pocket and Mrs. Gargery. Never mind what I named the squirrels in my attic.

Be that as it may, I think the Pip article needs some disambiguation, especially since the South Park story is an obvious satire on Great Expectations. I think this needs to be noted, and the South Park episode perhaps broken out into a separate article. I'm not putting this on you, I'll do it if I can figure out a way. Any suggestions?

Best regards, Cecropia 06:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Doh!! You mention right near the beginning its connection to Great Expectations. That's what happens when I look at words but don't read them. Still, I'd like to figure out a way to separate the Pips. Cecropia 06:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess my mind is going, and before I even find out whether anyone ever pushes the button on my nomination (now a day past due) one way or the other. I see now that the Pip material was done by an anonymous user who specializes in South Park and similar shows. Cheers, Cecropia 22:56, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- Yes he was--Plato 03:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Carlo Alberto Biggini, was under mussolini

The Lonesome Crowded West

no prob. wiki needs you policing the streets. --blankfaze 03:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

User:TDC is also vandalizing Karl Marx. Would you want to take a look at that? 172 21:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation with troll Wik

Copying reply here:
I have zero interest in mediation with Wik: I consider him to be an extremely hostile troll, and he is impossible to reason with. I will however cooperate in any community action to block his damage to the Wikipedia. — Jor (Talk) 00:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mahmuei

Are you satisfied that Mahmuei was created by User:Hamirrow? It looks legitimate. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So I can remove the copyvio notice since the author grants us permission? - Tεxτurε 22:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You left the following comment on Wikipedia:Copyright problems:

• Mahmuei from [11]. Maximus Rex 22:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Creator claims he's the copyright holder. See User talk:Hamirrow. Meelar 17:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you satisfied that we have permission? - Tεxτurε 22:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you aren't satisfied then you can follow up by emailing the web site and see if you get the same response. The way it sounds from reading his response is that it is true but if you still have doubts I can leave it on copyright problems for a few days. - Tεxτurε 22:25, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please stop supporting User:Exploding Boy for adminship. He makes innapropriate articles like Finger fucking and Collar (BDSM). Radical WiKi 13:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I may have been wrong but you know how when you click on a link the color changes on that link, the color only changed on some of the DC united and not others, but i forgot that a redirect whould not turn color, so I was wrong thinking there were two mirror pages, but boy there are so many ways some can write D. C. United or DC unite etc that I figure someone had just cut and pasted .

Thanks for commenting on President's Daily Briefing

67.100.123.77 23:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC): Thanks for commenting on President's Daily Briefing. I've been contributing for about a year, to several hundred articles, but haven't bothered getting an account. Of course that means I cannot move articles, add images, or get cut some slack on talk pages, but the benefit to going without an account is that the articles I contribute to get increased scrutiny, almost always improving them.

"Right Angle Theorem"??

I was very surprised to see your assertion that the Pythagorean theorem is now more commonly known as the "right angle theorem". I've been teaching math for a long time and I've never heard it called that until I saw your editing of that page. Michael Hardy 01:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment on the Dr. Evil article. I made an account as you recommended.

arbitration

As you may already be aware, the arbitration committee has agreed to review your complaints against Wik. Please add any further statements you may wish to make to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2, and add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence.

Be aware that we will also investigate any counter-claims made by Wik against you. Any questions, just ask. Martin 17:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

Despite your request on my talk page, I won't be making any revisions as you requested, as anything I put there will probably be reverted. See discussion on my talk page for details. --ssd (talk) 04:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

platypus

Why on the platypus page does it mention that they look like beavers? I noticed on the beaver page it doesn't say they look like playtpusses. It seems a blantant North Hempisphere POV to me. Saying they look like beavers adds nothing to article, but I feel uncomfortable removing information from an article.

Thanks, Meelar

When you nominated me for admin, I didn't realize I would have to fasten my seat belt! :) But alls well that ends well, and Ed Poor told me you had interceded to try to shakes my nomination loose. Thanks for the compliment of proposing me, and for supporting me. Best, Cecropia 19:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

thanks

Meelar,

Thanks for your vote in re my admin nomination. I'm more than a little surprised that people outside the crypto corner (modulo the isolated edit of a cat article) have even noticed my activity.

But since you are outside that little corner, and an active WP editor, I have a proposal and an offer for you. There is need for a non crypto specialist eye to look over some of the general crypto articles (not the mathematical ones, or those dealing with the innards of algorithms or similarly technical ones -- they're easier) for obscurity that just can't be seen from too close. Comments about narrative arc (or lack), opacity, overuse of specialized terms, confusion, bumbled concepts, ... Typos are less important to the general reader and so aren't of as much interest in this context, though maddingly hard to find for someone familiar with the articles.

The offer, of course, is to return the favor for articles you think need an overview. Can I entice you?

Thanks again.

ww 19:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meelar,

I'm not so much concerned about my own work (though it surely could benefit) as with crypto generally. You could troll through my contributions list, but would mostly get an idea of how my mind wanders. And tis a sad thing to contemplate too.

There's a (more or less analytic) list of articles / topics at Topics in cryptography. If you see any math, or anything more than a simple diagram, in an article you probably should take a pass at that one. Possibilities include key, cypher (or cipher, your choice), secure channel, PGP, history of crypto, ... and wherever you itching left finger takes you. (Assuming dexter handedness of course). I may have said that it's a writing thing more a crypto/technical thing. Or maybe a guinea pig thing.

Anyway, thanks for being willing. I'll have at some of your suggestions shortly.

ww 21:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meelar,

Just noticed your edit at crypto system. It's about the worst choice I could have inflicted on you as the scaffolds are up all over it. I'm having trouble even getting to a first complete pass. It's a tough subject to cover in any reasonable way -- even with the plan I've adopted. And even though it has the virtue of only dealing with the subject by example. I'm a coward, I admit it!

I'm sorry about that. I managed to give you the wrong impression. I'm not asking for actual editing (unless you want to have at it). Since you're not a crypto type, I gather, that's asking too much. I am after comments from you on what makes sense, what's so confused you can't make any sense of it at all, what's confused but you're not sure you've gotten the drift.

Comments about the writing and clarity, in short. Does that help?

On the other hand, you want to improve the writing, which needs it in too many places, who am I to turn you down?

ww 23:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

M, This colon convention gets out of hand after maybe two.

I've just looked over the articles you suggested I might take an eye to. We will have something to discuss, I see. You don't take on small issues! Much more daring than I am.

I can have more to say later, of course, but first impression sis that there may very well be POV objections to most of these on grounds of opinion. Now that's inevitable in any sort of political or historical analysis and the best anyone can probably do is scratch a little rhetorical dirt over the most blatant. It's the basis for academic debate in these disciplines. Politics, though, is important, not just scholasticim redux and so it's worth doing. Enough blather.

I see a major problem in that your perspective is too temporally narrow, POV allegations aside. I trace the Big Break (realignment or whatever) in American politics to the Bull Moose. Until then, both the Republicans and Democrats were broad parties with support from all classes, regions, etc (well, the Solid South was an exception for the obvious racist reasons, but...). When Teddy took the Progressives out in 1912, he made Wilson's election nearly certain and more importantly in the longer run, many (most) of those folks never went back. Think of La Follette or George Norris or Hiram Johnson, progressives (small p) all, and all (I think) Republicans. They wouldn't have been important or comfortable in the GOP of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Taft (pere ou fils) and their intellectual descendents weren't. It was the Repuplicans who staged a generations long witch hunt for Commies and unAmericanism. Even thouhg it was an idiot Democrat who started HUAC (Martin Dies -- and he had a Soviet spy (!) as a fellow member -- Dickstein I think it was). but the GOP found the structure conveninet to use.

Think Nixon from his first election, or the GOP tolerance for McCarthy, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Bomber Bob Dornan from California, etc. The 'Rockefeller wing' (misnamed) of the GOP was the last remnant of the people Teddy had taken out. Goldwater just made the ideological contraction more evident/blatant/inescapable. he wasn't actually very much in tune with the modern conservatives now dominating the GOP. Too independent of a specific agenda.

This leaves the Dems as the only broadly based party, but remember that old saw about belonging to no organized party, I'm a Democrat. That's a distortion of the historic American pattern of two substandtial widely based parties, plus some minors. Maybe that pattern is changing, or not, but it's abberrant.

Enough. Have to go anyway. Tell me whether anything I've said is of any use. ww 23:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

Thanks, Meelar, for some guidance on the deletion of patent nonsense. I think wikipedia is important enough to prevent swamping by silly vandals.

PS Recently I've been shifting some work on the medical side of WikiPedia (see User:Jfdwolff/WikiDoc. Do you think it would help if one of the members of this effort (such as User:Alex.tan) was awarded adminship?

JFW | T@lk 22:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See talk

See talk:Kluver-Bucy syndrome for an answer! I'm guessing you'd opt for that change? - Nunh-huh 22:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. If I get ambitious I may revisit the page and talk about the syndrome in its original form (a surgical lesion caused in experimental monkeys in order to show what the temporal lobe actually did). I guess it might interest someone<G>. -_ Nunh-huh 22:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Google Bombs

You really think Googlebombing of Bush is an important link to have in the Bush article? What does this gain us? It's just a practical joke which has little bearing on anything. Well if you do think it is important, please don't forget to add Googlebombing of Kerry to Kerry's article. -- Mdchachi|Talk 03:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it's important, or at least as important as the other external links. It's an archetypal example of attacks against Bush. As far as the googlebombing of Kerry goes, the link you sent me just gets a bunch of news articles. Where's the bomb? I'd say include it in Kerry, if it's an actual, still-functioning Googlebomb. Meelar 03:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"It's an archetypal example of attacks against Bush" -- how do you figure? It's an archetypical example of a google bomb and has almost nothing to do with Bush. The only way I could see including this is to fit it into the article somehow. Like to say Bush was the target of the first recorded google bomb used for political purposes or something like that.

Hey, unrelated to this, what is the standard way to "talk" on user talk pages? Is it to reply back and forth on each other's talk pages? Or to keep the dialog on the first talk page where it started? I haven't talked on user talk pages much and haven't really learned what is "normal." Mdchachi|Talk 16:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Block of 152.163.253.6

152.163.253.6 appears to be the IP address of a legitimate user who shares that IP with someone who vandalised Dolly the sheep once. It also happens to be my IP address. Cheers, Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 04:08, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my nomination as an admin...

...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you read my submission to the Wikipedia:Policy thinktank on Revisionism before it was deleted? In there I discussed Philo's law--The law of strict continuity? It is central to Western culture and our knowledge. In the section on Politics, you revereted the edit I made on the definition of politics. Under the law of strict continuity, the Greek meaning should come first. It is a Greek word that ties to a Greek concept and mentality. It should have pride of place!WHEELER 15:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GOP contraction

Meelar,

I remember papers and the guilty realization that all that work that was going to get done well before it was due somehow didn't get done. Perhaps the panic hormones that result are good for you?

I agree that DDE was not a Taft Republican (or even a W F Buckley or Goldwater style one, much less a Reagan (final style) one -- if that means anything, or a social conservative type (Pat Robertson, maybe)), but then he wasn't much of a Republican either. There was real doubt whether he'd get involved as a Democrat or a Republican at the time, and those close to him weren't over sure either. I don't think he counts really in this question. And you're right that there were not so conservative Republicans into the 60's. Charles Piercy (sp?) in Illinois, Rockefeller, etc. BUT, the trend was to cut off (or not permit back in) the Progressive wing, the Teddy fellow travelers if you will. In short, Taft pere and associates was a better political infighter than TR, and won the contest.

Try doing a survey of the Progressives in both Dem and Rep party from 1885 say, to maybe 1925 (or later if you like). Just a list, really. I think you'll find that those whose view was pragmatic and 'forward looking' (I know, I can't quite define it either, but like Potter Stewart I'm sure I know it when I see it, and you may be able to as well) were less and less identfied as Republican and more and more as independent or unaffiliated. Where were all those Brains Trust folks and all that support by the voters, politically, before FDR got elected? There was a ferment in the country in which the GOP was not participating (mostly) from before WWI and continuing on.

I think the trend line is clear. Now TR was a bit of an outlier by anyone's lights, and he was accidental in some real sense. Hanna (McKinley's strategist, do I remember the name aright?) and his cronies weren't too happy to have this loose cannon as President and making policy. Perhaps this trend I see began earlier (recall the corrupt deal to win the Hayes-Tilden election. It betrayed the Lincolnian committment developed during the Civil War to avoid brutal retaliation in putting the country back together, and it certainly betrayed the 'Radical Republican' program in the interest of political expediency. Sound familiar, at least the expediency bit? It too involved the Supreme Court, and Florida, and sleazy dealing. Can you imagine any of the moral policy based Radicals of the Civil War period tolerating that? Well, after what happened in the Johnson impeachment, I may be imputing more high mindness and to little willingness to get down into the sleaze than they (or many of them) showed, but... Consider Tom Reed and his record of breaking up the straitjacket of House procedure, against many groups interests and yet he was at least initially supported by the Party, though the reluctant ones were hardly in agony when he fell.

If Reed (mostly) and TR had even an off base connection with the GOP as a whole, then it has moved away from them and their policies. Perhaps the movement began before 1912 (and a non-Carlylesque view of history would hold that all events/trends have roots extending over more than a single election or a single personality (or even two), so this is probably a more accurate view anyway), but I think such an analysis can be supported. I suspect there's a line of books/articles with a better (and more official) account than mine. I've not attempted to develop it much -- little time, and political matters aren't any longer a primary focus for me.

You might find Garry Wills' Conscience of a Conservative of interest. He traces some of the not so visibly prominent 'intellectual' background of modern conservatism -- the ideological (as opposed to instinctive) kind. And you might consider Victor Navsky's book on the blacklisting period; these are hardly bloodless controversies. Real people get squashed, and have economic and social limbs crushed, by ideological Juggernaut. And consider Big Trouble, the book on the Idaho bombing trial (involved interstate kidnapping officially sanctioned by the governors of both Colorado and Idaho and nothing was done about it by any authority! Clarence Darrow and timber/mining bribery of Senator Borah) by Lukas. It's so thoroughly researched (and well written) it's astonishing, but that's not the part I'm pointing you to. The undergrowth left out of our history accounts is thick. Not directly on point about GOP ideological contraction, but...

In light of PR public policy debates, consider also Thucydides, 3.82 (Chap 10 ... Corcyraean Revolution) in the Crawley translation, especially the paragraphs beginning with "So bloody was the march of the revolution, ..." and the passage "Words had to change...". I fear for our Republic in an age of willie Horton commercials and the like. You can find it online. The few thousand words on either side of this bit are well worth reading. In fact, all of Thucyides is. The Landmark edition is especially valuable for those of us who don't automatically know the players, the locations, and the local history.

I'm familiar with some of Kevin Phillips' work. I think he's a facile and sometimes interesting writer, but something bothers me about some of his work -- aside from disagreement about content. Too shallow maybe? Or maybe that's not quite it. But it's a consistent qualm in the stuff I've looked at. Anyway, hope this gives a thought or two.

Not sure it helps with articles here either, much less the ones you asked me to glance at....

163.151.0.253 14:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ww 15:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) got logged out (time out maybe)

---

Thanks for the nomination for adminship!

We'll see what happens. Brian Rock 05:24, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

That "User:WhisperToMe Talkpage"

I never respond on it. Only other people posted on it. You did do me a favor. :) WhisperToMe 01:39, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request Your Judgement

Hi ;-)

Wik's still reverting Papua (disambiguation) .. bless his little heart

Can you have a look at some more subjects being moved; I know nothing about them except that no discussion had taken place upon either; and the naming seems to remove them from recommened Wikipedia format to User:John_Kenney preference.

• 16:15, 30 Apr 2004 (hist) Henry, Prince of Prussia (moved to "Prince_Henry_of_Prussia") (New)
• 16:12, 30 Apr 2004 (hist) Talk:Friedrich II of Prussia (moved to "Talk:Frederick_II_of_Prussia") (top)
• 16:12, 30 Apr 2004 (hist) Friedrich II of Prussia (moved to "Frederick_II_of_Prussia") (top)

and these without discussion:

• 16:11, 27 Apr 2004 (hist) Heads of State in 1769 (moved to "List_of_state_leaders_in_1769") (New)

and ditto back to 1764. I darn't say anything, I'll be accussed of bias. I'm just hoping John will eventually accept sense on the West Papua Talk page and allow Tannin and I and others to edit the West Papua page again.Daeron 08:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stratus, Milano, and Doherty

The anon is adding copyrighted material to these articles. See Talk:Trish Stratus and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for the sources, but here's Milano's [1]. Gentgeen 00:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep an eye on the anon, too, and if he finds another starlet to add copyright text too, I'll do a temp ban (if I can figure out how to do that). He's been warned on his talk page. Gentgeen 00:50, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

On Ashy-headed laughingthrush, which I wanted to redirect to Ashy-headed Laughingthrush, there is a block on me in your name. Explain please jimfbleak 05:07, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Bless you, Meeler, for reverting the image at Niagara Falls. I'm getting tired of all the people running around here shrinking images. Pollinator 03:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Total bibliographic control

"total bibliographic control of all the books published in that country [or dealing with that country]". I realize now that I have to look up the official term used in IFLA meetings (and make an IFLA entry finally in Wikipedia) to be sure I used the right one. But regardless of the perfect term , the idea means one thing officially and another unofficially.

Officially it means that the people working in that national library are held accountable by law to at least know of the existence of these books (both the ones published in that country or those outside of it which talk about that country or are of some concern in any way) and to maintain a catalogue with proper bibliographical entries for all of these books and their various editions, even when they do not have a copy in hand. And it has to be total, and perfect because there is national prestige involved, once you get at the international level of showing off your "total control" by exchanging those descriptions.

Unofficially there are a lot of levels of librarian emotions involved. For example, many librarians have been conscious for several generations that quite a few classes of culturally important printed documents have been slipping past them because they are not included in legal deposit programs or equivalent programs (like the incentives the Library of Congress has at several levels) and they feel bad about this. As a result they vent potential anger in creative enrgy around having absolute, total, extreme bibliographic control of books and other documents for which they have a legal mandate, and the funding that goes with it. They may not have the means for acquiring and/or controling important ephemera or other non-book items but by gum they are going to get the best of the best ISBD descriptions on any and every book that falls within their mandate!

Other prominent national libraries: I just added the Quebec national library to the list of national libraries, but it is prominent only in Quebec so I will not give it as an example in the National Libraries article. It would also have caused a stir because while Quebec is a province within Canada it also has many of the trappings of a nation, like a National Library. The real trouble is that while other national libraries like that of Canada's or Australia's are "prominent" because, together with the national libraries of the UK and the USA they have created important cataloguing tools like AACR2 (which begat the ISBD) I do not have the impression that they are as "heroic" as the national libraries of Sweden and Denmark (which I have had the occasion to visit) or Finland and Iceland (which are next on my list) or a few other countries.

Thanks for nominating me, since I have the impression that it is something of an honor. I will read up more on the duties and tools involved to see if the position is also a blessing. AlainV 04:57, 2004 May 2 (UTC)

---

Hi Meelar, I have created the page about Naplex because the Naplex is a very important exam upon which the lives and future careers of thousands of young men and women depend. I have rewritten the Naplex page. Please put it back up at your convenience, if you think it's ok now. Many thx. Pale blue dot

---

It's amazing, I did almost the same exact edits to Sid McMath that you did, but you hit the "Save Page" button first. --"DICK" CHENEY 16:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Graph

I used gnuplot, a bunch of Unix utilities, perl, and some image editing tools. More exactly, I downloaded a dump of my contributions page and used perl (and awk and uniq and Unix sort) to transform it into a list of coordinates, used gnuplot to make a line graph, and used postscript and image tools to scale, crop, convert to png, and make transparent. Whether you could do this yourself depends on your computer background. I suppose I could make you one if you really want.... -- VV 02:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm seeing dollar signs. -- VV 04:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hi Meelar, thanks for requesting adminship for me. I'm honoured, especially given that fact that English is not even my first language (it's Dutch)!
JFW | T@lk 23:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

White Sox-Cubs rivalry

I put the words "it is said" into the paragraph you changed as part of my NPOVing effort. I didn't want to make it look like the author was claiming that White Sox fans (specifically, all White Sox fans) would revel in the Cubs' failures. If you can think of a better phrase to make that clear, I'd love it. Perhaps changing "will" to "often" will do it: "White Sox fans, who often delight in the Cubs' misfortune". How's that sound? CharlieZeb 03:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• Got your reply, changed "will" to "often". (I was thinking about those poor Cubs fans ...) CharlieZeb 03:43, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

New York

See Talk:New York, New York. There was a vote on whether or not to move the page to New York City. The vote was 17 in favor, 15 against, which is very strongly not a consensus. But Nohat has taken it upon himself to move it twice now in violation of consensus and naming conventions for US cities. RickK 01:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

MoveOn.org

Whoa. On MoveOn.org, I must have accidentally edited an old version of the page. I only intended to remove "In 1993, " and that's all. —Mulad 15:27, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

For the work at Phrenology, which desperately needed it. You did a very nice job of covering all your bases. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your message

I'm quite new to all this, and I appreciate you let me know the good way of doing things here. However, your editing was a bit too much of it on some points, just as I admit that my initial contribution had indeed a number of flaws in order to be accepted under the NPOV doctrine (which I have just read). I'll continue in this and other things to obtain the most comprehensive and objective views. User:LHOON

I couldn't find anything in the manual of style, but most articles have a statement framing which universe they refer to (eg Tolkein related articles). Controlling Us 21:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Warm Welcome

Many thanks for your rather warm welcome. I've been doing a research paper on El Cid and I used information from Wikipedia. I thought it only fair to add the information I had obtained from other sources, and contribute to thsi fine place. Again, thank you. --User:Neutrality

Messages from "Controlling Reality"

But which reality is 'real' is a matter of who you are and your point of view. To predjudice one person's reality against another is outrageous. Controlling Us 21:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

'Ridiculous reality thing'? Exactly - you can't be so arrogant as to believe that yours is the only perception of reality that matters can you? Is challenging that assumption so threatening to you that you immediately resort to technological violence? Controlling Us 21:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

LOL. Look what he did to User:JRR Trollkien. Isn't it funny how easilly the trolls find each other? Isomorphic 22:01, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, You queried the NPOV status of my article on Justin King. I believe what may have made you doubt this due to my reference "Justin Time." I work for Sainsbury's and at this time I assure you I do have a neutral opinion of the new CEO (too early to judge him.) However the inclusion of this may be seen as me heralding Sainsbury's saviour so I have removed it. Please contact me if you have any concerns - I do think the presence of the article is justified, given that he is CEO of a FTSE 100 company but I do not want to appear biased.

Mark 21:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Justin King

Meelar, Thanks for getting back to me. Following your suggestion to review it I thought the change above was necessary. Have you visited the page since? It has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that is is "opinionated." I have put my arguments against on the talk page and would appreciate your support. Many thanks, Mark

Hi. I removed the speedy delete tag. It is not a candidate regardless the POV problems. - Tεxτurε 20:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Meelar, Thanks for your help, if I can ever help you out let me know. Mark 21:07, 16 May 2004 (UTC)