Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 30 August 2006

Welcome

Hello, Pseudo-Richard, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==Please Use Edit Summaries==

When editing an article on Misplaced Pages there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Mexico

Richard, please see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game)."

• I'm moving the page back to Spanish conquest of Mexico, please leave it there.
• It appears (I'm not sure) that you moved the content; you should always use the "move" button at the top of the page to move or rename an article instead of moving the content. That way the page history stays in one place. When moving the page back I think I will kill some of the history now. But what needs to be done, needs to be done...
• When you revert a change by someone else (in this case the moving of the page to its correct name by myself), make sure that you're doing the right thing, to avoid useless edits by everyone.

Absolutely no offense intended, you've done great work the last few days! Piet 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming

Please use edit summaries. It is especially useful when ones edit is to a controversial topic. Many people will rush to revert edits on controversial topics from relatively new users and they are only more likely to do so if there is no edit summary. JoshuaZ 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to say the same, now I found it's already mentioned. Your last edits are numerous, but they make it difficult to follow an article's history. See also what the {{subst: preview }}-Button brings up:

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.

Cheers, Hardern 07:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer on my discussion page! I also sometimes do three or more changes in various chapters of an article. I just wanted to let you know about the preview function in case you didn't already notice it. And I didn't mention anything about edit summaries... Hardern 08:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Adaptation to Global Warming

I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page.

Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

The "how-to" criticism was off-the-mark because the article was never intended to be a "how-to". The skimpiness of the text and the section titles suggested that it was a "how-to" but it was never meant to be that.

The "unencyclopedic" charge was valid since the initial text extracted from the Mitigation of global warming article was very sketchy. I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources.

Would you take a look at current version of the Adaptation to global warming article and then consider voting to keep the article? Richard 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, my vote is a moot point since the nomination was withdrawn. Frankly I give you credit for making some immediate changes. My criticism of the article was multi-pronged ranging from Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball or soapbox to potential POV. Overall I used a general unencyclopedic to capture everything.

People tend to jump on stuff pretty quickly around here, as you have found out. Unfortunately a lot of unmitigated crap finds its way out here such that people want to get at it sooner rather than later. But you did a good job in addressing concerns without being the prick that so many out here become when their articles are under AfD.Montco 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Siege of Tenochtitlan

Absolutely no problem here with the changes you made to Aztec strength, but if I remember correctly, the Aztec army at the siege had been greatly augmented by levies from the outlying regions, so using the population of Tenochtitlan as an estimate might not be accurate. I imagine I got my numbers from Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture, and I believe Hanson essentially took his information on Spanish military operations directly from William H. Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico. I would generally trust Prescott, but, of course, the mistake could be entirely mine. Anyway, I'll take some opportunity to check the details. Cheers. Albrecht 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Carthage

I'm implying that the possibility of Hannibal=Marduk is definitely there, based on Hannibal's language, and if you WHOIS the Marduk related IPs, they are from all over the US, with some emphasis on AOL - so the different IP, though normally an indicator, in this case mean little. If that's how you read what I wrote, OK - or did my other entry totally confuse? This guy's weird, esp as he also appears to have a yahoo.fr email.Bridesmill 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I only wish he would have engaged - had a lot to offer potentially, but intransigence does/did not help. End of the day, the Carthage article is good candidate for taking to FA, which I never would have figured out if I hadn't been RfC'd here. Bridesmill 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Going to put this here, rather than the talk page.

I don't think the problem is the content at all. I really don't care whether the "child sacrifice" is included or not. Its a non-issue to me - it can be true, false, or contested, as long as there are references to back up whatever points are on the page, I don't care. The issue is that any version other than Marduk's is reverted. This means ripping out any content that he finds objectionable (any mention of Carthage being depicted in Greek and Roman literture, the mention of the Roman recolonization of the city site a century after the end of the third Punic War, the fact that child sacrifice is attributed to the Carthaginians by some Roman writers, and for reasons I can't fathom, the disambugation link to other uses of the term "Carthage"), and adding content that is unverified, or legendary being portrayed as fact. Heck - look at his own responses to the discussion about Dido being mytho-histrorical.

You are more than welcome to try and "convert" marduk. I just don't think it will happen. Read his own words. He has his Truth, and any who do not support Truth are Trolls and Vandals propagating Myth, and marduck removes such. I don't think he will accept any changes you make either. You can refernece them, source them, footnote them - but if they come from Greek or Roman sources, he won't accept such Spam (his term), he has said so repeatedly. If you add content that he finds objectionable, regardless of how it is sourced, I beleive he will remove it. Re-read the talk page, ignore what anyone else says, read marduk's intentions in marduk's own words. See what he will accept and what he will do with that which he doesn't accept. Heck - I already tried finding a compromise position with him, leaving his "new" sections in, and keeping the "old" sections he found objectionable, tagging questionable uncited claims in both old and new here. This was the response. (both are "comparisons" in the edit log, feel free to look at it edit by edit if you like).

You said: "Maintaining NPOV would dictate that we mention both POV and also mention which one seems to be the majority POV". I agree 210%. Write that section. Put it in. See if he will let it stand. Even post it as a proposal in the talk page, chock full of references and footnotes. If it stands, in the main article, untouched by marduk, I will be amazed, and forced to consider that I am being unfair towards marduk (which I admit is always a possibility).

I find it laudable that you made the effort to find sources for him, but unless they are sources that support his point, I believe he will reject them. I find it praiseworthy that you are willing to try and "convert" him. If you succeed, no one will be happier, or more impressed about that, than I. Also no one will be more surprised. - Vedexent 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, with you and marduck editing the talk page, a large chunk has gotten duplicated. Damned if I'm touching it though. You may want to take that out. - Vedexent 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

excellent point. Consider me shut up :) - Vedexent 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Mexico

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate your contributions to the Spanish conquest of Mexico article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Madman 04:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have reviewed your rewrite of the Spanish conquest of Mexico article and could no longer find the multiple copyright violations. I have inserted that updated file back in the main article, so we should be good. 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use Preview feature

Going forward, I wonder if you could reduce the number of Saves. I see that you made perhaps 30 different edits to the Spanish Conquest Temp article. Looking thru your User Contributions, I see that from 18:38 until 18:47 today UTC, you 12 edits to Mitigation of global warming.

The problem with that number of edits is that it's difficult to review earlier versions of an article if the editor has to review dozens of edits. It essentially swamps the system with minor changes. Please use the Show preview feature. Madman 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In Search of Lost Time mediation

Hello! Thanks so much for your offer to mediate the problem regarding the In Search of Lost Time article. It's been a while since the (unresolved) conflict, but I know at least myself and Mcalkins are still active and hoping for a resolution. The problem is that User:Mcalkins and User:Cubdriver can't agree on how to evalute the old (Scott Moncrieff) and new (Penguin) translations of the novel. Mcalkins is trying to reach a "balance" where there are both good and negative comments about both. Cubdriver seems to want to promote the new translation over the old ones. I've suggested removing all evaluations of the translations - just state the bare facts - and link to several reviews of them in external links. Mcalkins & another user seem receptive to this idea, but Cubdriver has not responded. Guermantes 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Has anything been resolved? I've been watching this page and the ISoLT page and nothing seems to be occuring... Guermantes 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've been working on some other subjects, I'm still following the Cortes / Tenochtitlan articles but a bit from a distance. A lot has happened there in the last month, which is very good. I still intend to work on them but other things keep getting in the way. A general remark is that at the moment enormous amounts of text are added, which has led to a few articles that are too large. And we should find some images to illustrate the articles. Usually contemporary paintings are very good for this, as there are no copyrights (you can scan them from a book and use them under the { {PD-art} } license - only goes for pictures of paintings, not pictures of statues etc). Anyway, we're very good on the quantity part but we need some more quality now. But we're moving on, which is great. Piet 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, Piet. We need to concentrate on bringing all the present pieces together in a coherent narrative. That would mean removing data/words that are duplicated within articles and, to a lesser extent, between articles. And we need images, too. Madman 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Me name

"Piet" is short for "Pieter" and "Pete" is short for "Peter". Actually, Pete exists only in English, not in Dutch. In Dutch, Piet is short for both Peter and Pieter. I was named after my grandfather, whose name was Peter but who everyone called Piet. I add Pete mostly so non-Dutch speakers know how to pronounce it (after all they all know Pete Sampras), they usually have no idea otherwise and pronounce it like Pyett, Pi-et or Peeyet or something (did you pee yet :-) )... Nice try, but no :-) Piet 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Pieter and Peter exist in Dutch. Piet is my real name (I just mention the – or a – long form for explanation), like some people in the US are called Dick instead of Richard. Ghent is in the northern part of Belgium, Flanders, where we speak Dutch. The southern part is called Wallonia and speaks French. There's a very small German speaking part and the capital Brussels is bilingual French/Dutch. Great fun! Apart from some professors, no one really knows how the country is organized, but it seems to work (a bit). The Dutch that we speak is often called Flemish, it is quite different from the Dutch of the Netherlands although officially it is the same language. We can watch Dutch tv without a problem, but in every day language we're sometimes perplexed because they use words that we've never even heard of (and vice versa of course). Like US/UK English but even worse. Also names are often different, some names are common in the Netherlands but not at all here. And the French names are something else again, (I would have been Pierre there). So yeah, language is definitely relevant. Belgium is a very special case of course language-wise. Most other European countries simply have one language. Piet 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

re. Mediation offer

Thanks for offering to mediate! Recently in the "discussion" page of the disputed article re. this matter a solution was suggested that we list the "facts" about the translations (the who, what, when) and then link offsite to reviews of the translations. This is the solution I endorse, rather than trying to include balanced citations from reviews in the article itself.--Mcalkins 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The solution was proposed and discussed on April 12 and 13, 2006. However, User:Cubdriver has not yet responded to the proposal.--Mcalkins 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Yeah, I hesitated before adding the Aztec template to Hernan Cortes, that's why I didn't put it on top of the page. The problem is that the Hernan Cortes article contains a lot of information that is relevant to the history of the Aztec world. Maybe we could (again) move part of the Hernan Cortes page to a different subpage. But first we should create a structure for the History of the Aztec empire, maybe Nanahuatzin could make an outline for this. I think we have a lot of information, it's mostly a matter of moving it to the right pages. Piet 07:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning templates in Hernán Cortés: the position is ok I think, we'll see if it bothers anyone else. I think templates usually receive short names though, maybe we'd better move it to something like "spainamerica" or "newspain" (hm the last one can be interpreted in two ways...).

Concerning moving information from the article: I was wrong, should have reread it first. What is left now deals mostly with Hernan Cortes personally. It is probably still not a bad idea to leave him in the Aztec template since he played such an important role. Piet 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning template name: it's not a rule, the naming rules are the same as for articles so no problem. It's just a bit easier to type a short name and since it's not something the visitor ever sees people tend to use shorter names. Don't bother changing it if you've already added it to different pages, I thought it was still only at the Hernan Cortes article. Piet 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

PreColombian civilizations

I think the information fits better at Pre-Columbian or List of pre-Columbian civilizations, so adding information there would be better. I've added the two civilizations to List of pre-Columbian civilizations that weren't already there and redirected PreColombian civilizations there. TimBentley (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian template

Moved this discussion to Template talk:Pre-Columbian

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Richardshusr! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

US article intro

Hi, there's a discussion page for the US article that talks about how the intro should look. Just want you to know as the addition might be reverted by someone later on. Thanks.--Ryz05 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for appearing a little overreacting when I reverted your edit, but I just thought it did not flow as well as the original version. There was a discussion about the intro, and I'm not exactly sure if the section on Introduction is specifically dedicated to it, so you are welcome to use that section for discussion.--Ryz05 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I prefer the intro be at three paragraphs- just a summarization of early history, and the part about it becoming a superpower after the World Wars and the Cold War. This will keep it to a minimum, without going into too much details and risk the chance of controversy. You are welcome to discuss. Thank you.--Ryz05 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the last sentence should be changed back to before, because saying that it exerts global dominance and saything it's a hyperpower are the saying, which is repetitive. Please discuss.--Ryz05 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the US article

what do you think/do about the 'expansion' tags that are now placed in nearly every section of the article? Thanks Hmains 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your suggestion

I have taken your suggestion into account. --Elkman - 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Aztec codices notes

Richard, I decided to remove the Aztec template from the Aztec codices article. The template has pushed the codex images off to the bottom and the side and the article looks jumbled now. When we get more verbiage added to the article, there will be room for the template, but until then I'd like to highlight the images from the codices themselves. Thanks, Madman 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD George Harbottle

Hi, this morning I noticed that you put an AfD tag on the article, but that it wasn't listed on the general AfD list , which meant the community wouldn't see and discuss it, and that the article wouldn't get deleted. I listed it, but also took the liberty of reformatting your text in a slightly more 'traditional' AfD format, since most voters will be seeing it on this page: . I hope you don't mind the way I changed the text, if you want to revert my actions the original text still exists at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Harbottle/temp. Kind regards, --JoanneB 05:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I know that feeling :) By the way, I have a tab in my monobook that sort of 'automates' the whole AfD process, grabbing the right templates and putting them in the right places. I don't know if you list stuff on AfD often, but if you do, a tab like that can certainly be worth a consideration. --JoanneB 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after WW II

Great, thx for your amendments, now the page apears to be much more systematic and objective. However I hope that it will stay like this at least for a little while. (213.70.74.164 10:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Hi, I'd just like to thank you for the work you're doing in the Expulsion article. Before your improvements, the article moved nowhere for months/years (despite hundreds of edits). Now, there is new hope. --Wikimol 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're both very welcome. Thank you for taking the time to express your appreciation. Curiously, I knew nothing about this topic until I came in via the RFC process. I've learned a lot since. --Richard 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I asked you to self revert. I take it you are saying no? Dominick 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am saying "No". You have only to look at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church, Talk:Roman Catholic Church and Talk:Anti-Catholicism to see that you are spawning a discussion across three Talk Pages which should be held on one page. The logical and standard WikiProject way to hold these kinds of discussion is on a subpage of the Project main page.

I didn't come up with this idea. It is in the standard template for WikiProjects Template:WikiProject.

Read my response on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism or on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy for a more detailed explanation.

--Richard 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like working with others eh? We didnt use it on Catholic 101 before. I think more than a few people will object if you read the archives. Dominick 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your text is unclear.

"didn't use it on Catholic 101 before" - didn't use what? presumably discussion forums

"I think more than a few people will object if you read the archives." - perhaps, but what archives? I didn't see any and I didn't see any old debate about discussion forums on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism.

Hey, why not give this a rest and see who else objects? I think it should be clear that I will go with the consensus. However, you do not constitute a consensus by yourself. If the consensus is to delete the Strategy subpage, I will have no choice in whether it gets deleted or not.

I was willing to wait for a consensus vote for the move from Anti-Catholicism to Criticism of the Catholic Church except that User:Vaquero pre-empted the vote by changing the intro paragraph of the Anti-Catholicism article. If I had my preference, I would have preferred that he voted his opinion and waited for the result of the vote before making his edit. But he didn't wait. He was "bold". So I moved the text to be consistent with his edit.

All this can be undone if you can muster votes to oppose the move. I haven't seen anybody else voting in your favor.

However, I do not consider a 3-1 vote to be a consensus. I am advertising this issue across all three articles to see what the consensus is across the editors of all three articles. By putting it on the Strategy subpage of the Catholicism 101 project, I am inviting anybody who is interested in the Catholicism 101 project to vote on this issue. This is just the opposite of a cabal. This is trying to be inclusionary and get everybody who has an opinion to state their opinion and influence the consensus.

We need to form a broad consensus in order to have a strategy that will hold and be defensible against newcomers who may have a different idea about how to do things. It's clear that the organization of Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism have changed over time. Let's hash this out and document the consensus so that we don't have to keep re-organizing the article every time somebody decides their approach is better.

--Richard 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

hoax

Good job uncovering that hoax. Cheers. --Fang Aili 14:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

seconded :) Kind regards, --JoanneB 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article about German population transfer

I agree that only citations with reliable sources should be used and only if they relate to the issues decision making and views involved with the process. --Molobo 10:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you are making about "only if...".

Are you saying that text not related to "decision making and views involved with the process of expulsion" shouldn't be included? I think I agree with that.

Or are you saying that text that is not related to decision making and views involved with the process of expulsion doesn't need to be cited? I don't think you're saying that and I wouldn't agree with it.

Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of "process"?

Sorry, I need you to be more clear.

--Richard 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Your comments are requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment/Elkman. Note that this RFC is explicitly for comments on my behavior, not yours, Nathan's, or anyone else's. I want your comments first before I get anyone else's. --Elkman - 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pre-marital vs extra-marital sex

It is under the heading Human Sexual behaviour ands reproductive matter. It is in the last lina of the first paragraph in that section.

A word of warning, the user who posted the original comment is an exponent of mildly anti-religous and homophobic material, I am mediating a case she is currently involved with and found that comment whilst investigating each users backgrounds and couldn't help but comment :D -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Police organization section in Crime in Mexico article

Hello, thanks for your comment on my Talk page. I absolutely think that the information belongs in the article, and I was also having trouble rewriting it. What I suggest is that we try to integrate it in the Corruption section, under the "In the police" heading. That way, we can relate the police organizational layers to corruption and its effect on crime. Does that makes sense? I will be looking for citations and data for that section. Thanks and hopefully with some work on our parts, we can turn this into a great, maybe even Featured Article! Aguerriero (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Global warming

Thanks for your extended reply in Talk:Global warming! If there was one thing I could change about the way folks are educated, I think it would be to get them to intuitively understand that, next to everything we call a "fact" (or a "theory", "hypothesis", etc.), there's a tiny little number that's labled "confidence factor".

So we would teach people that, for example, "2+2=4" and the little footnote would say "confidence factor=0.9999...". Or we would teach them that "the Earth formed 4 +/-n billion years" ago and the footnote would say "confidence factor=0.99" And this would also enable us to teach things like "subatomic particles are made from quantum strings, confidence factor=0.5".

Once people always associated a confidence factor with all stated "facts", we could then finally have a rational discussion about stuff like global warming and evolution-via-natural-selection. But right now, most people have no idea what the words "fact", "theory", or even "science" and the "scientific method" mean. And that blocks most attempts at rational discussions with non-science professionals.

So thanks again for your talk posting; well said!

Atlant 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Hola! (veo k podemos hablarnos en algunos idiomas mas...) The list of assassinated leaders is still in the decolonization article — maybe I should link to it better, I don't know. The "decolonization" article needs a lot of work since it is at the time being just a collection of charts & lists... Concerning Ngo Diem, well, I just forgot him & ain't an expert either on that matter. If you know something about it (else I suppose it quite easy finding info). Else, about the general tone of the article, I'm sure there will arise many contestations ! I'm sure we will have to change that, and find a more neutral way of putting things. But "NPOV" shouldn't be mistaken with a simple battle of opinions which may be better carried on in other places on the web... This is why I originally splitted the Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization, although it hasn't been used yet: I fear that it turns into such a "democratic conversation" ("colonialism was good, because it gave progress to the savage people"/ "colonialism was bad, because it exploited indigenous people" — I think it better to quote historical, litterary, etc. examples, first of all to demonstrate that this controversy has been going on since the beginning of colonization — contrary to the racist remarks which you may find all over the Talk:Human zoo page (which also needs serious copy-editing), the problem is not only that in the 21st century, we're finally "enlightened" and consider "barbaric" the very thought that Indians shouldn't have any souls, as if they were not humans; no, they're has always been anti-colonialist & pro-colonialist opinions, and we should describe this conflict, but not have broad and empties generalities such as the one proposed by Lightningetc.). I named Lightning, because he has a point concerning the "unequal trade" Marxist POV. But it would be as much POV not to state this popular conception, especially since it hasn't lost one bit of its relevancy (e.g. see Bolivian Gas War and Evo Morales' recent controversed nationalization — it may not be a good idea, I don't know, but if you don't consider the history of colonialism and the famous sentence that Bolivia is a "donkey on a goldmine", which has been always looted of its resources, than you surely agree on the importance of allusions to such "unequal trade" — the recent negotiations at the WTO concerning the Doha cycle on agriculture goes in the same problem: take out tarriff protection for agriculture, the US and the EU can sell services and thus buy more agricultural products, no problem...) In other words, I have no doubt on the controversy that will arise from this article, and I certainly admit that I've given a certain slant to it (everyone has his POV). This will be doubtlessly counter-balanced sooner or later! Lapaz 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say

That im quite taken by your neutral and objective view in regards to discussions. This rarely happens in historical debates on wiki. Take my best wishes for your work. --Molobo 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the Catholic Collaboration of the Week. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

macedonia

Instead of prodding Macedonia - The Constitution you should have changed it into an interwiki link. But at least could you give us the link to the article on Wikisource, please? -- RHaworth 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Move of archive page

Hey; I've moved Expulsion of Germans after World War II./Archive4 to Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive4; use this naming format when creating the fifth archive. Thanks for maintaining the page. ~ PseudoSudo 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha, see you've made already; think I've cleaned it all up, looks good. ~ PseudoSudo 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I appreciate your nice comments about being calm, cool, and collected, and hope I can pass those traits on to others! Thanks again.

-- Natalya 05:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What's going on in the US article

Was there a criticism to discuss current events? I think that's ridiculous. We talked about what happened a few years ago in the History section, we might as well talk about some of the important things that are going on today, since many readers would like to know what's going on currently.--Ryz05 _t 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I thought I read somewhere in Misplaced Pages space that discussion of current events don't belong in Misplaced Pages because there's too much room for controversy. (as if there wasn't plenty of controversy about historical events) If I run across it again, I'll provide a reference.

If the idea is to document what is on the minds of Americans in the middle of the decade, that's probably OK. If you are trying to document what's going on in 2006, that is probably a bad idea.

--Richard 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• thanks very much for the note. I'll take a look at the discussion and what happened.Bwithh 18:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Sorry, I had not noticed your comment amidst all of the others, my talk page is getting rather long. Anyway, Wikiprojects titles all start with "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Foo". For numerous examples, click on some of the links here. If you think that we should have an encyclopedia article about this dictionary (I'm not familiar with it), feel free to write one, but don't call it "WikiProject". — Jun. 5, '06 <freak|talk>

Thanks for your reply. I figured you had overlooked my question, hence the reminder.

I looked at a sampling of the Wikiprojects and they follow the standard template for Wikiprojects. The article that you moved from article mainspace to Misplaced Pages space does not.

That was my point. It doesn't look like a project so why did you move it into Misplaced Pages space and call it a Wikiproject? It's even in the "Articles to be merged" category. So, it's an article, not a project. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

This is the "project" in question: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dictionary of the Catholic Resistance

--Richard 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Misplaced Pages: space because it was in article space and the title started with "WikiProject" (see ). If this was intended to be an article, feel free to remove all references to "Misplaced Pages", "WikiProject", the shortcut box, etc. from the page, clean it up a bit, format it more like an article, and move it back to article space. — Jun. 5, '06 <freak|talk>

Table

Hi. I think we should objective resources, and avoid nationalistic organisations. I suggest we remove the table from the Center of BDV. The site is full of inaccurate data and nationalistic undertones, which speaks poorly about its credibility.--Molobo 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also you perhaps should know that the organisation of Steinbach was founded by a Nazi, Hans Krüger. We shouldn't promote Nazi-founded organisation as objective sources of info. --Molobo 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article nomination

Hi, I don't mind you changing your vote, but your explanation for objection is because of the accusation that I was being "inflexible," which is totally unfair. I strongly recommend you to change back your vote, especially when I explain to you why I reverted some of your edits. Thank you.--Ryz05 _t 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't think it is totally unfair. Perhaps a little unfair but maybe you need to see yourself as others see you.

You know that I've worked to improve this article in response to comments on the FAC page. I think I deserve more respect than to have my edits reverted with comments like "bad edits".

I thought about changing my vote back but I've decided to hold off until the various edits have been discussed. I would like to provide you a detailed explanation of the rationale behind each of my edits but I won't have time to do this until next week at the earliest. If you want to go first, be my guest.

In brief, my complaint is that other people in the FAC discussion have complained of "flabby prose". In general, each of my edits was aimed at tightening up that flabby prose. I can imagine that there might be discussion about whether the specific wording of my edits were the best. However, I was particularly incensed at what appeared to be a wholesale reversion of my edits.

In a few short strokes, you wiped out an hour or so of work.

After a second look, it became apparent that you left some of my edits in place. Nonetheless, I think you were way too "inflexible" in insisting on reverting to what I believe qualifies as "flabby prose". There are way too many sentences in the current version where more information is included than is absolutely necessary. If we can't reach rapprochement on this, then there's no point in my working on this article. And, it won't really matter what my vote is because the opposition to granting this article FA status is substantial even without my opposition.

Finally, it is easier to revert than to improve. If you had improved what I had written, I might have disagreed with your wording but I wouldn't have been so annoyed (a mild grumble and swallowed pride as opposed to intemperate blowup).

--Richard 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused any grievances, because I didn't know those were yours and I thought they were illogically made by someone anonymous. I provided an explanation of why I reverted them in the talk page of the U.S. article and hope you will understand. Finally, hope you will change back to support and not simply reject because of a single grievance. Thank you.--Ryz05 _t 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hatches of Carthage

Nah - don't worry about it. I understand the need to go through things by the numbers and procedure, even if it would save a whole lot of time and grief to do it pre-emptivly. You hold onto the slim chance it is all bluster - and if it is not, you have the fact that you played by the rules. I can hardly have made a lengthy post about knowing and playing by the rules, and then complain about that :D I think it 99% likely that we're in for another edit war, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, the way I read the tea leaves, if he was gonna do it, he'd a done it by now. That's what makes me think this is bluster. I think he's just a troll trying to annoy the hell out of us by making us think he's got this "rewrite" that he's gonna drop on us. Well, where is it?

The other thing is, why announce that you have 17 fellow students lined up to help you? If you're smart enough to organize a cabal, surely you're smart enough not to tell everybody that you've done so, right? I dunno. It all sounds nutso to me.

--Richard 14:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You could be right - we'll see soon. It makes a kind of twisted sense to a particular sad kind of person to announce "their great plan" before they do it so you know exactly how "diabolicallly clever" the grand scheme that they are carrying out is. They seem to be more prevelant on the net. It is all nutso - has been from day one. I'm not gonna worry about it, not debate 'em, play by the rules, and let the process and the admins toast 'em should they get outta line :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Please do not change {{Talk Archive}} to {{talkarchive}}

Hi, apologies if the change of template caused any problems. Feel free put {{Talk Archive}} back if you so wish; I am happy with {{chronological talk archive}} also.

I have been adding {{talkarchive}} to archives not only to inform users, but also becuase it categorizes the pages. Most go into Category:Talk archives, and there are separate categories for the other namespaces, e.g. Category:Misplaced Pages talk archives. By their nature, archive series build up over time and in some cases have become a bit disorganized, especially where there are many archives. The intention is to have all archive pages in a category, which should hopefully make them easier to find and manage in the future.

Originally I was planning on using {{talkarchive}} for every talk page archive, and {{archive}} for non-talk archives. However, I can see that the alternative wording in {{Talk Archive}} and the extra information in {{chronological talk archive}} will be useful on some pages. I will make a small modification to these two templates so that they also categorize their pages (I won't change the appearence). It will then be possible to use any of the three according to preference, but keep Category:Talk archives complete.

– Gurch 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I am currently using two talk archive templates {{chronological talk archive}} and {{topical talk archive}}.

I copied what you did on {{chronological talk archive}} to {{topical talk archive}}. Could you take a look at {{topical talk archive}} and see if I did it correctly?

Thanks.

--Richard 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that should work fine – Gurch 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote in progress to move Counter-Reformation to Catholic Reformation

This move makes sense because Counter-Reformation implies that that the movement was against reform. Rather as a reform movement within the Catholic Church, it is most precisely known as the Catholic Reformation. This is now the more favored term in academic theological circles.

Please stop by talk:Counter-Reformation for the vote. Thanks, --Vaquero100 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good advice

• chuckles* Yep. I gave that advice to someone else recently as well. "We teach best what we need to learn most" - Richard Bach ;) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Caught you with troll food! LOL - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 13:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza 3 months block thingy...

Just so you know Richard, when I wrote my reply about the 3 months blcok idea, I certainly wasn't getting at you or anyone else involved in that discussion. After re-reading it, I see that I might have come across as angry at someone, and that wasn't the case. I was just upset by Redvers outrage at the idea, and I wanted to make my position very clear. And, also, I want to say, and I will on the Esperanza talk page, that I agree with you about changing the wording on our charter to make sure nothing like that guy complaining about one of our members will happen again.

The Halo (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the Esperanza talk page

Thanks for your nice comment on the Esperanza talk page about calming down the situation from a while ago - that was very nice! :) -- Natalya 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some dude put your Criticism of Judaism article up for deletion. Save it now.

--Greasysteve13 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive standards

Hi Richardshusr. I noticed that you've been involved with the archive header templates (e.g. {{Archive}} or {{Talkarchive}}) in one way or another and I was wondering if you'd care to join the discussion over at Misplaced Pages talk:How to archive a talk page#Archive standards. I plan on writing a bot that will do some archival work, so establishing consensus on the use of our archive header templates is important to me. Thanks! ~MDD4696 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges

Before I do anything I will post it to the talk page for review. I see that you guys have done a lot of work on the Expulsion of the Germans article, I don't want to upset the applecart. Must get to work--Woogie10w 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Richard. I've been asked by Petros471 to take on a new trainee. I've checked a few requests at the Esperanza/Admin coaching project and found your profile interesting to me in order to coach you. Please check my reply to Petros. So please, if you are ready, just -- Szvest 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment ratings for WP:AZTEC-related articles

Gidday Richard. I was wondering if you've any comments or preferences re some options I've detailed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aztec, concerning how or whether to go about extending the article rating and assessment scheme to articles also of interest to WP:AZTEC. From a WP:MESO point of view I'd like to include these in the scheme, but perhaps other folk interested in Aztec-specific articles may prefer some other method, their own method, or not really mind either way. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Richard, I've now implemented that functionality separately in the WP:AZTEC project banner {{WP Aztec}} (note rename), and set up the categories needed for the auto-updates to work. Unfortunately this was not completed in time for today's (11 Jul) run of the bot, and so the auto-updated listing, log and stats are not yet created - but these should be created once the bot runs tomorrow (12 Jul, around 0300hrs UTC). If you're able to assess a few before then (see category:Unassessed Aztec articles for those tagged but not yet assessed), you should see these updated in the listing, stats and log. I'll start doing a few myself.

See also my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aztec, and the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aztec/Assessment subpage I've set up to show the stats, links, and instructional materials. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Esperanza#*ahem* ... er... Hi!

Hey Richard. I've replied (rather verbosely, I admit) to your comment in-page on the Esperanza talk. In short, it's just a pseudonym (described there), and I'm not actually Hispanic at all (although I have been the target of anti-Hispanic racist vandalism on several pages I've written / contributed to by people who don't know that). - Che Nuevara: 20:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nom for Spanish conquest of Mexico

Gidday Richard, not sure if you've seen but the GA nom for this article is on-hold, pending some updates/improvements. IMO there's a little more cleaning up to do, and it would be great if some of the main statements could be footnoted with the specific source(s) they came from, but not having written it I don't know which bit comes from where- perhaps you can help.

BTW, the bot has now run and the Aztec-specific rating lists are now generated, see Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aztec articles by quality. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Project Catholicism assessments

Sure Richard, would be happy to help implementing the rating assessment scheme for your Catholicism project. It would take only an hour or two to set up if there's consensus at that project to give it a try. How about I set it up, then your project members can take a look and try it out- if they think it will prove to be useful it can be retained, if not, then it can easily be decommissioned. Will try to do it before the bot runs today so there's something to look at.

As for some guidelines on how to go about setting it up for other projects, let me get back to you, I'll write something up- there are some general guidelines scattered about the place, I'll see if I can pull them together.

The Aztec assessments are coming along, and I think you'll find after today's run the number of articles has grown to around 60 or so.

BTW, if you come across an article already tagged with a WP:MESO assessment, but you think that it would be of particular interest to WP:AZTEC as well, you can simply replace {{WP Mesoamerica}} with {{WP Aztec}} (keeping the parameters, they are the same for both). This will not interrupt the article's appearance in the WP:MESO listings, but will also add it to the WP:AZTEC listings. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment

I know you already know about this, but I may as well give you the message too.

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mira 07:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Longer response

Hi, I felt that you deserved a longer response to your comments at the Catholicism WikiProject. I really will read through that page when I have the time, because you're right, I've walking into a minefield. (One thing I've been looking at are the subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic Church, and once I get them organized, I'm thinking of proposing renames of some of them from Catholic to Roman Catholic.) The thing is, I've tried to read it before, and to me, it's simply a matter of semantics and seems pointless, although I suppose that's why I should read it in the first place. Anyway, I'm rambling on here, so I'll just end with a thank you for your guidance and support. —Mira 05:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have now read through about half of Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. I stopped when I realized that it was just the same old arguments being brought up over and over and over. If you think I missed something important somewhere in the middle of the page (I read the bottom of it too) or something on a different page, please let me know. —Mira 08:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MiraLuka. Thanks for the messages. If you've read half of Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name, that's plenty. I do agree that the same arguments are raised over and over. Neither side really cares to compromise. I just wanted you to appreciate the strength of emotion and flat-out obstinacy that is involved here so that you don't unintentionally step on toes and then get surprised by the strength of the response.

I am really not very stirred up by this debate. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy with either "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" and I'd just like to move on and do other work. So, I try to step around those who are caught up in that debate and mostly just ignore them because I don't imagine that they will reach an agreement anytime soon. (We came very close to reaching one and then they blew it up so I'm not getting caught in that trap again.)

--Richard 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I really should try to follow your example, to be honest, although it seems the things I want to work on prevent that. I suppose I'll just have to try to stay away as best I can. I will say that I liked your compromise at the top of the page (at least, Fishhead64 said it was yours). Was that the one that got blown up? —Mira 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the original proposal was from User:Vaquero100 and it was to re-organize the Roman Catholic Church article into a bunch of subsidiary articles titled Catholic Church and x. The problem arose when User:Fishhead64 objected to the use of "Catholic Church" instead of "Roman Catholic Church". I proposed that we title the articles Roman Catholic Church and X whereupon the opposing side blew up the compromise.

I think the original proposal from User:Vaquero100 is being implemented but User:Fishhead64 is trying to move the CC and x articles to RCC and x.

I would suggest that you go ahead and work on the articles using titles of the form CC and X and then let the others fight the battle over whether it should be CC and X or RCC and X. Focus on content and let somebody else waste their keystrokes debating the form of the title.

--Richard 04:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, at this point, it's just the lack of consistency that annoys me. I almost wish there was a third option - it would make it easier to compromise. (Although now that I say that, that's probably not true...oh well.) —Mira 05:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Project Catholicism 101

Template:Project Catholicism 101 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I know that you have put a lot of work into this, but your personal rating system breaches NPOV and can be read as implying a Misplaced Pages rating of articles. As such it is unacceptable for use. The template has been proposed for deletion. FearÉIREANN\ 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to advise me of the TfD nomination. As you can tell from my response on the deletion talk page, I obviously disagree. However, I do appreciate your taking the time to make sure I was aware of the debate so that I could weigh in with my opinion.

--Richard 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A note on the "joke": the version I linked to contains a sentence which be interpreted to mean that an editor has to ask permission before editing the article. Not saying that it was meant that way, and the joke was more that if User:Peirigill thinks that the template as it stands claims ownership, then he'd really think the old version did. —Mira 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AZTEC makeover

Thanks Richard, I wasn't that sure whether the revised layout for WP:MESO made sense to anyone but me, so I'm glad to see you've been able to adapt it so readily for WP:AZTEC.

I'd be happy to help out refining the WP:AZTEC layout along those lines, particularly if there are bits whose function or meaning is unclear. It may be that some of the subpages/layout structure may prove to be overkill for WP:AZTEC -some bits I defined for WP:MESO are under-utilised there at the moment, and in all likelyhood may turn out to be not particularly useful. I tried not to over-engineer it but after using the layout for a little while now I'm starting to get a feel for which bits are handy, and which are not.

I'd thought of the Definitions mainpage as being mainly to introduce the project to prospective members and other interested parties, containing also some reference materials, and once set up it should remain reasonably stable. I think the way you've set it up for wp:aztec will do just fine.

For the Activities mainpage and subpages, I guess there are a couple of options for wp:aztec:

1. keep the more straightforward presentation as you've presently implemented it
2. use a similar layout to the WP:MESO/A equivalent, with each of the subpages being created separately and specifically for wp:aztec
3. use a similar layout to the WP:MESO/A equivalent, but some of the subpages can be 'shared' between wp:aztec and wp:meso; that is, display some of the currently-defined Activities subpages, such as the 'NewRequests' listing, at both Projects' mainpages.

Pros/Cons for these options would include:

• Option #1 would perhaps be simplest to maintain, and cover only Aztec-specific materials, but would not be visible or easily cross-referenced to wp:meso activities (which currently also include Aztec-related articles as well)
• Option #2 would require more work to create the new pages, set up the layout and maintain (but not insurmountable), cover only Aztec-specific materials, and again be independent of activities/developments at wp:meso
• Option #3 would be less work to set up and maintain than option #2 (wouldn't need to create a bunch of new pages), would encourage re-use, collaboration and visibility between those interested in one or the other (overlapping) areas, but Aztec-related materials are presently not highlighted specifically, and wp:aztec may prefer their own organisation of these pages.

A similar set of options might apply for the "Catalogue" mainpage, but there you may like to restrict the catalogue to those of Aztec-interest only.

To my mind at least, it may make sense to share several of these subpages between the two projects (ie something like option #3). For example, wp:aztec could also use the various article worklists implemented for wp:meso, listing there those Aztec-articles needing particular stages of work among the other Meso ones (with perhaps a little identifier or something next to them)- that way others can look to action these as well (and I've already added in the Top- and High-priority Aztec articles needing improvement).

Other subpages which could be shared (with some minor adjustments) between the two projects would be: The Tools/References page, the Monitoring page, the five article worklist pages WP:MESO/NEW, WP:MESO/EXP, WP:MESO/FIX, WP:MESO/IMP and WP:MESO/PREP, and the priority task page. Other possibilities would be the guidelines and notices.

However, you may think it better for wp:aztec to adopt its own approach for these. Let me know what you think. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Misplaced Pages. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Misplaced Pages (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Archiving talk page must have failed

Hi, I fixed the archiving you did for Hildanknight. It looks like the browser cut off the input mid sentence. You may want to double check large edits as there is a warning about Firefox and Google Toolbar which does this to people. Cheers, Ansell 09:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template stuff

Re: your comments about templates on Hildenknight's talk page. You are right that {{a template}} syntax does only display pages in the template: namespace. However other pages can be included in the same way too. You use the same syntax just add the relevant namespace to the front. Taking your example {{User:Hildanknight/Test template to do something wonderful}}. Note ther User: namespace tag tacked on to the start. --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a test - User:Richardshusr/Test template to do something wonderful

WP United States

Hi Richard. Apologies for the slight delay in getting back to you, I've been away these past few days.

Re the concept of re-using elements of the layout/structure of WP:MESO & WP:AZTEC for your proposed new WP:US project, that should be quite possible, although the scope and nature of WP:US might require some amendments to the structure. For WP:US it is quite likely that there will be scope for and interest in developing a sizeable number of sub-themes or 'task forces' in a variety of different areas, and indeed I think there are already a few WP's established which already cover a few of these (eg WP's for some U.S. states and cities). Given this, you might also like to consider a model offered by such as WP:MILHIST, which is organised into a number of different "task forces", each concentrating on some particular aspect.

However, there'd certainly be need for an overall coordinated approach, and some of the facilities offered by the MESO/AZTEC design could be useful for this. Perhaps the main benefit of this scheme is that it can present at a single view a summary of relevant information instead of having to flick between multiple subpages, and the summary does not need to be updated separately. Another benefit is that the code used to 'prettify' the presentation is safely tucked away where it does not crowd the editing window.

I think the default 'Definition' layout page for MESO/AZTEC could readily be adopted for WP:US, to give newcomers ready access to base information about the project, and that most if not all of that page's subpages would be relevant for an overall WP:US and any constituent 'task forces' which may be defined. It could serve more or less as the entry point to the project's activities, and should be reasonably easy to set up.

As for the 'Activity' and 'Catalogue' main page views, it would depend on how WP:US decides to function - whether as more-or-less discrete subprojects by topic connected by an overall US-level coordination and navigation, or whether starting out with the big-picture first and then refining into subproject areas ("bottom-up" vs "top-down"). If the former you might consider having Activity/Catalogue mainpages per subproject, which might be necessary anyway given there'd be literally at least tens of thousands of already existing US-related articles. If the latter, you might need to consider more closely just what sort of role the US-level WikiProject would play, given that there's a few active WikiProjects which (thematically at least) are wholly or mostly contained within WP:US overall scope.

Just a few discussion points for consideration. I'd be happy to help out on any design/structural points, where I can and time permitting. Regards,--cjllw | TALK 01:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Valley of Mexico map in Aztec article nominated for Featured Picture

Richard, I self-nominated the Valley of Mexico map in the Aztec article for Featured Picture. You may vote on it &/or offer your comments here. All for now, Madman 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Don't bite back"

Look, I'm close to tears as it is, so please try not to jump on me. I am not a troll. Never have been, never will be. Hildanknight was rude to me, and I was rude back. Your comment hurt me more than you can ever know. --172.191.63.212 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment hurt you. Referring to you as a troll may have been inappropriate although I was using "troll" in a more general way to characterize annoying editors. Perhaps you have a different definition that describes a person who is worse than just rude and uncivil. If so, I may have used the word "troll" inappropriately. I was just trying to express a concept which in Christian terms is called "turn the other cheek" or "it takes two to have a fight".

Moreover, the edit history on User talk:Hildanknight seems to point to incivility and harassment on your part. I haven't even been able to figure out what started it all.

The most recent comment on User talk:Hildanknight by User:Cowman109 seems to indicate that the two of you have talked and that hopefully this unpleasant incident can be closed. It is my earnest hope that this is the case.

--Richard 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for staying kind in your reply, but I'm afraid the tears have taken over. I lost to them. 69.145.123.171 Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:25 (UTC)

Oh, and the whole story is spelled out at the bottem of Cowman's page. 69.145.123.171 Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:26 (UTC)

OK, I've read the story that you left on Cowman109's page. It seems that you are both at fault. Hldanknight is wrong in his campaign against anon IP editors but you should realize that he has suffered from getting autoblocked as a result of vandals who share his IP. You both were unnecessarily rude to each other for reasons that still seem obscure to me.

My criticism of you was in response to his claim of having had his User Page vandalized. Those comments were made by me without knowing the whole history of the running dispute between the two of you. I repeat my apology for having suggested that you were a troll although my advice was not aimed at you specifically but misbehaving editors in general. I will say, in my defense, that I never called you a "moron".

I wish both of you good luck. Hildanknight is a good Wikipedian that sometimes gets too wrapped up in things that he cares about. I hope that both of you will figure a way to move past this mess and get on with productive editing.

--Richard 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I never vandalized his userpage, which is why it hurt so much to hear it said.--172.195.164.54 22:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict and stress

I hope your conflicts and disagreements abate themselves in the near future. For the time being, sit back with some nice Esperanza coffee and relax. :) -- Natalya 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

File a mediation case here and I will try to help you. WP:MEDCAB Æon 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter

First aid transwiki

Hi, I noticed that you transwikied the violating sections of the First aid article. Wilderness first aid also needs to be transwikied, I was wondering if you could assist me with it? I'm just not sure what to do... Thanks -- St.isaac 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Start by consulting this link. Follow the directions, making sure to make an entry on the Transwiki log over at http://www.wikibooks.com. You will want to create a username at WikiBooks in order to do stuff over there.

I didn't finish the Transwiki because I discovered that there already is a Wikibook entry for First aid and the structure of the existing WikiBook doesn't match the structure of the stuff that I pulled out of Misplaced Pages. It will take me a little bit of time and negotiation to fit the Misplaced Pages "how to" stuff into the Wikibook entry on First aid.

Fortunately for you, this problem does not exist wrt "Wilderness first aid". However, there are two things you will want to do. First, you will want to restructure the Wilderness first aid article in Misplaced Pages into a Chapter-oriented structure (see the WikiBooks entry on First aid for a model). Second, you will want to go into the WikiBooks entry on First aid and change the link to Misplaced Pages's entry on Wilderness first aid in Chapter 12, Section 3 to the WikiBooks entry on Wilderness first aid that you are going to create.

Good luck and keep me posted on your progress.

--Richard 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting things in perspective again. --JoanneB 18:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Hi... I see you contributed a few thoughts to the colonialism page. I heartily agreed with you that it was too long - it mushroomed from ], admittedly very short on information, into its current state today, when one (well-intentioned) user basically took it over and added tons of stuff to it, so much in fact that I felt a bit disheartened and stopped watching the page. When someone adds lots of superfluous stuff to an article, you get accused of vandalism if you then take a sledge hammer to it and try to make it more readable. (Many contributors think that a valid edit only involves a rewording, but if that was the case, then articles would grow in size indefinitely as each contributor added their favourite thought). Anyway, today I decided to take a sledgehammer to it (sure enough, I got accused of vandalism) but I hope it's starting to get to a more manageable size. I'd be interested to read your thoughts. Cheers. Gsd2000 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Westies (people)

This debate was moved from User_talk:JoanneB#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion.2FWesties_.28people.29

The resurrected text from Easties (people) is published here: User:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --WikiCats 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion on to User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --WikiCats 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Richard and your kind offer. --WikiCats 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Marvin Heemeyer

Please dont change the Marvin Heemeyer article without going to the talk. The article is fine the way it is, and your new edit doesn's flow well.

Templates and Masssiveego RFA requirements.

I'd have to say your pretty close to be a good admin. Keep it up! I suggest chatting around in IRC and getting to know people at the village pump, and little RC patrol would be nice.

There are two kinds of templates just the warning and the -n variation. The -n basically tells the user what are they getting the warning for. If I just see a warning template, with no infomation or attempts to help the other user figure what they did wrong. I consider bad form because it often leaves the other user confused and annoyed, often not knowning why they had the warning template in the first place. If they are not familiar with the user talk system, it only adds more irratation, as some people do find problems programming their VCRS, much less operating a computer. I see warnings are necessary in some cases, so a few moments to explain the warnings with at least the title of the article for which the warning was given would allow the other user to change their habits.

Tutoring. I find it even better if the warning was given with better instructions or links to what would better resolve their problem. Such as adding links for mediation, or edit coaching for some people.

--Masssiveego 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)