This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Argyriou (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 9 February 2007 (→Rudeness: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:39, 9 February 2007 by Argyriou (talk | contribs) (→Rudeness: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Leave a message |
| Comments left on this page will be replied to on this page, unless you specifically request otherwise. |
| If I've left a message on your talk page, I'll be watching it, so you can reply there if you'd like. |
welcome
|
(Hpetwe 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
EL DORADO
HEY THERE Argyriou; TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DONT REALLY KNOW THE ECONOMICS OF EL DORADO, BUT I'M UNDERSTOOD, THAT RENOVATION IS TAKING PLACE, WHICH FORCE AIRLINES TO PAY MORE TAXES. THE REASON IS, THAT EL DORADO INTERNATIONAL IS PLANNING TO HAVE A BEUTIFUL AIRPORT, THAT WILL SERVE PASSANGERS THAT VISIT COLOMBIA BETTER, WHICH HELPS WITH THE ECONOMICS OF COLOMBIA, AVIANCA IS ALSO PLANNING TO MOVE ITS HUB FROM "EL DORADO" TO A DIFFERENT AIRPORT IN COLOMBIA, DUE TO THE HIGH TAXES.
YOU COULD FIND MORE INFO ON WWW.AIRLINNERS.NET, JUST GO TO THE FORUM AND TYPE AVIANCA, EL DORADO, ETC, YOU COULD FIND MORE INFO THERE, THEY GIVE YOU LINKS TO COLOMBIAN ECONOMICS REGARDING AVIANCA, AND THE AIRPORT FACTS..
I hope this will help! ColBog
Re: Ron Dellums edit
Thanks. I think it must be in the height of the DoS attack by users of different source that I slipped my eye. If I am wrong just feel free to revert my reverts. --WinHunter 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Democratic Party (United States) edits
(copied from my talk page at User talk:Deville)
Why'd you revert "social democracy" to "social liberalism"? "Social liberalism" is generally a U.S.-centric term which means supporting the sorts of social positions the Democrats do, without reference to being economically liberal or conservative (or to being a foreign-policy liberal or conservative). In Europe, most of the parties whose platform is closest to the Democrats tend to call themselves "Social Democrats". The article social liberalism is rather confused, though the statement Social democrats believe in the moral right of the majority to regulate everyone and everything. Social liberals see democracy and parliamentarianism as mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote make it seem that the "social liberal" label should apply more to a tendency within the Republican Party rather than the Democratic Party, as that statement makes social liberalism sound much more capitalist than the Democrats.
- This is a good question. I could be convinced that social democracy is a more appropriate label for the Democrats than social liberalism (BTW, you're right, that article is a bit opaque). But if you check my edit summary you'll see that my main objection is that the change makes the sentence no longer make sense. As written, one point of that sentence is to contrast the two liberal philosophies mentioned with classical liberalism. In any case, I'm ok with you rewriting the sentence and putting a appropriate link to social democracy, but I definitely think that simply making the change social liberal --> social democracy makes the sentence weird. In short, I've no objection to a reference to social democracy given that it fits into the article. Sound good? --Deville (Talk) 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oakland, California
I reverted your edits. I had never heard of the nicknames either, but there was a long discussion on the talk page about nicknames a few months back. These are the one we settled on.
personally, i want "biggity biggity o" up there.
Sparsefarce 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Changes at Template:User cal
Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've also copied the template to my userboxen page per WP:GUS. I have not removed the original one. Argyriou 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Poll
Hi! Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: SilkTork 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Replied, a while ago.
Actually
The Anarcho-Capitalist page is already disputed, as you will see in the gray box in the anarchism article. Someone keeps removing the POV tag from the page when it is quite obvious from the talk page that it is a disputed article. that is another obvious indication that that article is NPOV. why don't you send a message to the person who keeps removing that appropriate tag. is that person you? thanks for your concern, Blockader 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that some anarchists don't believe that anarcho-capitalism is actually a species of anarchism is not proof that the anarcho-capitalism article is written from a non-neutral perspective. Go read WP:NPOV, and show me where the article is displaying a non-neutral POV. There's an old dispute on the talk page, after which the article was cleaned up significantly. There's an existing dispute on the talk page over whether AC is A, but that dispute is reported in the article. Argyriou 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
nice edit
of barrington intro. Cindery 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Irish and Scottish céilídh
It does get a bit confusing at times as Scottish Gaelic is decended from Old Irish Gaelic, usually called just Old Irish, having broken away about 1000 A.D. There are reformed spellings etc since the 1950's onwards, but I don't know how they apply in this instance. Here are the origns of the word, hope it helps clarify things.
From Irish. ceilidhe, from Old Irish ceile meaning "companion." Red blaze 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Removal of requests for flowcharts
I have added to the talk page this comment: "Nothing in my comments necessitates its being original research. The information could very well be already somewhere on the World Wide Web." Wavelength 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
More on Ron Dellums
Regarding your comment on my talk page: please re-read my edit summaries and the talk page (over the last few months) for the article. Also, I find it strange that you would use the term "vandalism" for my reverting to an older version to restore information that was part of the article being listed as a candidate for a good article, while not immediately restoring the dozens on in-line links. In any case it's been cleaned up now. And you might think twice before long-time editors of vandalism. Please see Misplaced Pages:Civility for more. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place for it
But I would like to confirm that I did in fact create that charter school image. It is probably most likely outdated by now.
Image:Charter schools.gif
-Allthewhile
Venchi
The article's considerably improved, in that it's no longer copyvio. It still needs its ardor damped, though; I trust you can handle that? DS 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Boston Tea Party
Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category . It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
True heirs? True hogwash!
You did well to spot and excise the 'True Heirs' nonsense on the House of Stuart page. It's more than silly, though: I believe this addition to be a malicious hoax. Regards, Rcpaterson 07:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
PS I've just reverted some infantile corruption to the Oliver Cromwell page by a new user with the the IP code 220 239 237 3. Do you know how to flag this up as a vandal? Rcpaterson 07:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thnaks for your advice; it's appreciated. For the example I had in mind graded warnings would simply not be appropriate. Have a look at the recent amendments to Cromwell and you will see what I mean. This is either a child, or a moron, or both. Rcpaterson 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Menier Chocolate
Have a little patience. As you can see at Menier family there is a lot of work to do to make it complete. - C. C. Perez 16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
human rights in cuba
Hmmm it seems like someone is yanking his chain:
Global Tick
Hi,
Could you explain where you discovered the term "Global Tick" in reference to astronomy and cosmology? Most of the ghits I seem to be finding are related to clock events in a computer, or else the insect in relation to global problems. It might help if I could refine the search parameters. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Someone else added "Global tick" to the geology section of the requested articles; I guessed that it might be astronomical, based purely on intuitive evidence. Maybe it really is a computer thing, instead. Or a spherical arthropod.
Okay thank you Argyriou. — RJH (talk)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Cite.php changes to Neoconservatism
Your changes to Neoconservatism are losing the links to the references. Please read up on how to do Cite.php references - the full details of each citation should be given between the ref tags the first time (and a name element used if the reference is used more than once), so that the references section automatically displays all the details without needing two sections to do it. Argyriou 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be glad to do it in a way that preserves links. Because this article already had a large reference section, I didn't want to adopt that style, but there are a few ways to split the difference, I'll adopt one of those. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Republican Party Page, Perot Edit
Okay, I guess there's a dispute here. I recently edited a section on the Republican Party page because it was stated that Perot drained Republican votes. This was a GOP talking point for eight years, and no one has presented any evidence that it's true. In fact, the Democrats claim that Perot drained votes from both sides; if anything, in '92, he seemed to take a larger share from Clinton (the "change" vote). You edited the page, supposedly "removing POV" to restore the orignal (biased) contention that Perot drained Republican votes. Neither of us, it should be noted, has cited any source. I'm editing the page again, to suggest that this is an ongoing debate (which, apparently, it is). Fair enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.133.128 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think your revised edit is much more fair than your earlier edits. I've seen estimates that, aside from voters who would have not voted (or voter for other third-party candidates), Bush 41 would have received from 50% to 80% of Perot's votes, had Perot not run, though neither the Ross Perot article nor a quick Google search turned up anything so definitive. If I run across reliable citations for any of those, I'll add them to both the Republican Party (United States) and Ross Perot articles. Argyriou 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Bot removing cats
yeah, it will catch brick at another time, or another bot will. These things work off of lists of categoryies. On adding {{tool-stub}}, it did not, all it did was move the stubs around. tool-stub was there before the bot got there. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 11:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Your Picture of the Pink Plastic Flamingos
Hello Argyriou,
If you read the: "Authenticity Authentic flamingos always have Don Featherstone’s signature under their tails. Each has a yellow beak with a black tip and they are only sold in pairs", The picture you have shown are cheap imitation’s that look more like snakes with tail feathers. I beg you to get a picture of a group of real Don Featherstone pink flamingos, as he is now 70 years old, and my dad. The original Pink Plastic Lawn Flamingo will turn 50 this coming year, and it would be a real tribute to my father to have a real picture of his art next to it’s description. If you would like help with this, I would be more than happy to do anything I can to help make this happen.
Thank you,
Harold Featherstone
Republican Part Page Recent Revert
Cross-posted to my (72.229.133.128) talk page, on which you recently wrote:
- Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Republican Party (United States). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Argyriou 21:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, this was my first full revert of the section, so I hardly think I'm in any danger of violating anybody's policy.
Moreover, I reverted only as a salve for the violence being done to political discourse and the English language. If you start ruining articles, you can fully expect your work to be reverted.
I did what I did because the article had been edited to boast such phenomenal writing as:
- "On social issues, Republicans believe there should be a "safety net" to assist the less fortunate which, compared to their opponents, favors a greater degree of private funding, less expense, and stricter requirements for eligibility."
I dare you to diagram this sentence. The antecedents are so hilariously out of place that the sentence ends up "compar(ing)" "the less fortunate" to Democrats ("their opponents"). Similarly, the sentence states that a "safety net" favors "less expense." A safety net, being an abstract concept, cannot favor anything. Republicans can favor things, certainly, and that's what the sentence is trying to say--but if you diagram the sentence, you'll notice that it involves the "safety net" ITSELF favoring all sorts of things!
As if that weren't enough, safety nets are NOT a "social issue." Restributing wealth (via social spending) is, by definition, an economic issue. "Social issues" are things like flag burning and abortion. This is just a childish and rudimentary misunderstanding of public policy.
To continue:
- "Since 2001, the party has demanded much stronger accountability in the public schools starting with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."
Can accountability be strong? I posit that it cannot. That's like saying that a certain form of energy has a "stronger renewability" than other forms--it's simply an abusrd thing to write. Clearly, one can propose a "stronger system of accountability" or one can make "a stronger push for accountability," but accountability itself cannot be "stronger."
Aside from those sections, the only major changes my revert involved were restoring the number of signatories to the Kyoto Protocol (Misplaced Pages policy suggests that factual, cited evidence should never be deleted) and deleting the unsourced claim that a majority of Democrats oppose the Protocol; it also involved reverting a POV edit which changed the word "aggressive" to "strong."
If you have another take--that is, if you think that important, well-written content was destroyed during the revert--I will be happy to listen to your side of the story. Alternatively, if you can explain why terrible writing, unsourced claims, and fact suppression is important to protect, I'll be happy to stop reverting. Let me know.
China and clues
Okay I'll grant that I may have made a careless edit, it's virtually a given in 540 edits or so, but I don't know the article you referenced on my talk, so that's not helpful. Also writing "...even if it were more correct to state People's Republic of China instead of China, your edits detracted from the quality of the articles" is so hopelessly vague and rude as to be unhelpful, too. How did the edits detract from the quality of the articles? Is it better to have them redirect to the article about ancient Chinese civilization when you are conceding that the reference in the article is to the modern Communist state? That's pointless complaining; do you have any constructive criticism? If not, why are you posting on my talk? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking for your reply
Hi! I removed your edit to Cooperative because it violates the principles in WP:NOT, particularly: Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought and Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. There is some useful information in what you posted, some of which wasn't really covered in the article, but it would be much better for you to look through the section you edited, and see where individual points you wrote about would best go. Please also remember Misplaced Pages strives for a neutral point of view; your beliefs about what a cooperative is or is not may not be shared by everyone who has experience with cooperatives. Your edits should not state an opinion not shared by all as a fact. Argyriou 05:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
To Argyriou, I have noticed your action regarding my contribution.
Let me add few comments: - English is not my primary language, so it is possible that a meaning very clear to me sounds or understood differently to an English speaking born.
- A page about cooperative should contain, IMHO, a complete information about cooperatives and cooperative movement worldwide. The page now is limited to the official ICA approach, which is not the only one. I may say that this approach prove to be a failure in many parts of the world.
- I have tried to present a another approach to cooperative, and an approach developed in Israel during tenth of years. I can't see a reason why this approach shouldn't be presented on the Misplaced Pages. More than this: there are cooperatives in the world who have followed in one way or another this approach. More information can be found: http://www.coopgalor.com/realization.html A very successful example in the U.S.A can be read here: http://www.coopgalor.com/realization/Oklahoma.html
- This approach is backed by papers published in different places, including ICA. These papers can be read at: http://www.coopgalor.com/i_publications.html#Whats_coop I hope a reconsideration of your decision would be possible and that my text would find its place on the Misplaced Pages.
Regards
Coopgalor 08:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
User:DannyBoi969
I've investigated your notice and would like to bring a couple of things to your attention. The following links contain graphic and possibly offensive descriptions: Boi, 69. My full reply is at WP:RFI. Durova 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
cross-posting
It really looks like you cross posted to WP:RFI in good faith, so please take this as a friendly tip rather than a warning: it's better to post a page diff from the edit history or introduce a quotation and use italics if you really feel the need to cut and paste. Emulating another editor's signature is bad form, and an administrator's signature is dangerous territory. Another user (who was in a very different position from your own) when from a one week block to a site ban for impersonating an administrator the other day. I don't think anyone will misinterpret the particular cross post you did, but don't make it a habit. Regards, Durova 04:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Active couple
Hello, I've replied over there. --Ezeu 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Former countries
I see that you have done a lot of work on listin extinct states, and so I would like to invite you to WikiProject Former countries - formerly known as WP Historical States. The objective of this project is to improve the content and accessibility of articles on former countries. A taskforce for the states of the Holy Roman Empire has also been started and the child project on Prussia has also been revived. - 52 Pickup 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Network Marketing link
Sorry about that Network Marketing link. I thought it might have a chance of being worthy of inclusion because I've got experience in the NM industry and wrote that post about how to know the difference between a legitimate company and a pyramid or other type of scam.
Thanks for the quick action. Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.51.19 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, see 71.36.51.19 (talk · contribs) --A. B. 23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Alameda Measure A.
|
GeoTech Page
Comment on Landfill being in the "see also" on the Geotechnical Engineering page. The reason I removed the link was that the landfill page talks about garbage dumps. If it also talked about raising/modifying site grade, I would have not removed it. Just wondering your thought process on keeping the landfill page in the links. I can also see a Geotechnical Engineering issues with capping/closing a landfill, and opening a landfill. Just curious? --Tom Bonnie 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Successful construction, operation, and closure of large garbage dumps is a pretty important problem in geotechnical engineering, even if small in terms of volume of work. And I suppose there should be an article about grading and fill - the Grade disambiguation page is awful. Argyriou (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Your POV edits to ACORN
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. In particular, do not remove references to material such as court documents which don't support your POV. Jerimee 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Hay4
Just to let you know User:Hay4 has been warned before about vandalism and insulting behaviour - see the earlier edits of her talk page which she has deleted. Rick James Style 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I put an npa2 warning on her page, which she promptly deleted. If she sticks to editing articles about unimportant Indian pseudo-intellectuals, I won't really care, but if she comes back to slander people on articles I watch, I'll try to get her blocked. Argyriou (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, no commentary or personal analysis to Neoconservatism
Howdy, Argyriou. I received a message from you "Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Neoconservatism." - I did not add any commentary to Neoconservatism, I just made the existing items Ira Chernus, war of all against all, and Peter Steinfels in the article Wikilinks. Not sure where the confusion originated. Have a good one. -- 201.51.228.217 201.51.228.217 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Koavf
Ah, after Dmcdevit blocked him, there was a big discussion about it at WP:AN/I. I forget all of what was said there, but no one unblocked. Some people suggested decreasing the block, but no one really objected, so it just seemed to me that he was banned. Also, {{indefblockeduser}} means that his userpage will eventually be deleted. That's why I made the change, but I guess he isn't on the list, so... Khoikhoi 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Greek ancestry I see
Your name is very familiar. Too familiar I would say. Check my nick in a Greek-English lexicon and you'll understand... :-) NikoSilver 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do understand. It is my real family name, though I found out about the meaning from an economics book, of all things. Argyriou (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! Economics! Makes the world go round, doesn't it. Yours is in genitive case, probably meaning "son of Argyris". "Árgyros" means silver, "Argýris" is a normal Orthodox name, just as Niko or John, meaning "silvery". So you're the son of the silvery guy! Interestingly, one of the first historic mentionings of the name, is that of Romanos III Argyros, first husband of Empress Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII (who forcefully divorced him from his first marriage and forced them to mary), who was the surviving brother of Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer of the Byzantine Empire in the 11th-12th century. The guy was poisoned by Zoe, who was in love with someone else. His family is said to have fled from Constantinople after the event, migrating to Chios, Santorini and Corfu. Any idea about a great-grandpa from there? My dad is from Paxi, a little island 10 miles south of Corfu. Hah! Last time I bleeded it was red, though. No blue traces at all... NikoSilver 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- My father is from Dhidhimotikhon, but the family moved there in the aftermath of World War 1 and the associated wars in the region - they lived in Constantinople for a while, but I don't know where they were from before that. Argyriou (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! Speaking about Dhidhymoteicho and about blue, check Dhidhymóteicho Blues (it was a Greek-pop hit about a drafted man's solitude there -now a classic)*. Do you wish the circumstances allowed your father to teach you Greek? Your mother is obviously non-Greek, right? Sorry for asking personal questions. BTW, I forgot to mention Lesbos for the Argyros/Argyris/Argyriou/D'Argenta(=now Dharzentas) family names...
- *The last verse is quite catchy: "tou paralógou i thiteía, anchoméni malakía", meaning "insanity's (military) service, masturbation under stress" :-) NikoSilver 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- My father is from Dhidhimotikhon, but the family moved there in the aftermath of World War 1 and the associated wars in the region - they lived in Constantinople for a while, but I don't know where they were from before that. Argyriou (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! Economics! Makes the world go round, doesn't it. Yours is in genitive case, probably meaning "son of Argyris". "Árgyros" means silver, "Argýris" is a normal Orthodox name, just as Niko or John, meaning "silvery". So you're the son of the silvery guy! Interestingly, one of the first historic mentionings of the name, is that of Romanos III Argyros, first husband of Empress Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII (who forcefully divorced him from his first marriage and forced them to mary), who was the surviving brother of Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer of the Byzantine Empire in the 11th-12th century. The guy was poisoned by Zoe, who was in love with someone else. His family is said to have fled from Constantinople after the event, migrating to Chios, Santorini and Corfu. Any idea about a great-grandpa from there? My dad is from Paxi, a little island 10 miles south of Corfu. Hah! Last time I bleeded it was red, though. No blue traces at all... NikoSilver 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
East Bay Express
FYI one "Chris Thompson" derided you (User:Argyriou) for your anonymity in the Water Cooler in the East Bay Express... what a douchebag! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.201.242.19 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Re:Nabih Youssef
Hi, Argyriou. Considering the message you left me here, I think that this article should be deleted. You are right that it is not notable. Thank you for your message.
--Meno25 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment
I just changed the Berkley City College page for the best. I work for the Berkeley City college promotional department. I Just edited the page so it would be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley City College (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Bearing capacity
That's funny because I've only used Terzaghi and Vesic, although I did use Hansen once for a retaining wall. I was thinking we could cover all the major methods and perhaps include the equations for one or two of the more simple and applicable ones (Vesic is a little complex). I don't have a book with Meyerhof or Hansen's equations, so you can change it to those if you want. I'm also just a student, so I'll leave it to you to handle the stuff that happens in practice :) Basar 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
....
Okay man. You win. I just work for the Berkeley City College advertising and promoting. I'm using this Username because I re present Berkeley City College.
And also, why do you keep meesing up what I make?
You messed up my uploaded pictures, userpage, article and now my username? Give it a rest please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley City College (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Berkeley City College
You're doing a good job, being polite and professional with this user. KP Botany 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay..
How am I supposed to act, KPBotany? I'm an intern. I work 2 hours a day and im 15. I don't have the patience as a 30-50 year old guy like you would have. And also Argyriou, I first made my user page from scratch and then checked up on it. I saw that the Berkley City College page was changed from what i had it. So i made it as i made it. I didnt know you had to make a different article. I'm barely just starting to understand alot of stuff about Wiki. So just give me some time to go over regulations and rules so you don't erase what ever I put up. Thx for you help and comments ( I'm not being sarcastic). —The preceding comment was added by Berkeley City College
Barrington Hall
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Barrington Hall. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See the discussion on the Talk:Barrington Hall page - you are incorrectly interpreting the policy. Argyriou (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kindly review the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and ]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Misplaced Pages. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the YouTube links are not reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was treated very rudely, then blocked, after adding YouTube links to the Graham Wiggins article. Wiggins is an American didgeridoo player and I emailed to ask him for some additional biographical information about his life, instruments, and work. He responded by posting some videos of his live performances on YouTube, which were clearly marked as having been uploaded by him (the performer himself). I linked to them so that our users could see excactly how he plays his didgeridoos, particularly the keyed didgeridoo he invented, and an editor removed them, insisting that we must not link to "copyright violation" YouTube links. From what I read here, perhaps I was right all along and the removing editor was the one being disruptive. Badagnani 10:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –
- Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
- Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Misplaced Pages. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.
- Kindly get yourself familiar with Misplaced Pages's guidelines of reliable sources and external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on Talk:Barrington Hall for deciding if we need to keep YouTube video links on this website. Speaking of WT:EL, the guideline clearly states –
RFCs
RFCs should be filed at WP:RFC, and the category you want is at the bottom, "Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and proposals". – SAJordan contribs 18:26, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).
- I've been mildly corrected here. – SAJordan contribs 18:45, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).
- This still needs to be filed at WP:RFC. ---J.S 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
RFC
Please file your request for comment at WP:RFC. The EL talk page is for discussing how to write the guideline, not for hashing out a dispute over links. (However, a notification of the RFC is certainly acceptable on the EL talk page).
Just as an FYI, this "project" was started by me after a number of conversations on IRC and two threads on WP:AN requesting input. This wasn't done willi-nilly as most people assume. It is my eventual intention to shift over to videos.google once the youtube trash is cleared up. ---J.S 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've filed it at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies (It's currently the one at the top), but the instructions aren't clear on where else or how else it needs to be filed. Feel free to let me know what else I need to do with this. Argyriou (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I meant in the manner described under Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct... I was not being... clear I guess. That's my mistake. :( I know this isn't a user conduct RFC, but it spans multiple policies and their really isn't a central place where this "project" is being organised. (Dmc and I both have our own sub-pages in our user-space). ---J.S 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Aside from a little unpleasantness which I'm not really bothered by, I don't see this as a user conduct issue. The YouTube deletionists are acting according to what they see as Misplaced Pages policy, and the others are complaining that they're misinterpreting Misplaced Pages policy. I believe that (almost) everyone involved in the deletions would be willing to adjust their behavior if the policy were more clearly stated. Argyriou (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting this is a User Conduct issue... I'm only suggesting that since this is not really centrally organised anywhere, a sub-page of WP:RFC would be the best place to have the RFC. ---J.S 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Moving it to a subpage of WP:RFC sounds fine to me; I'd suggest leaving behind a redirect under the section heading in WT:EL, and fixing the listing at WP:RFC/Policies. But I'm not going to do it myself, as I'm an interested party, and people may think I made the move for nefarious purposes. Argyriou (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually - I think the RFC is where it should be because its a policy RFC not a conduct one. Its just going to take a lot of space on an already busy page. Why not move it to a subpage of WP:EL?Spartaz 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Moving it to a subpage of WP:RFC sounds fine to me; I'd suggest leaving behind a redirect under the section heading in WT:EL, and fixing the listing at WP:RFC/Policies. But I'm not going to do it myself, as I'm an interested party, and people may think I made the move for nefarious purposes. Argyriou (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I left you a question in the RFC asking if you could document any deleted links that you disagreed with (then I went and made some comments anyway - apologies if they end up out of context from what you are talking about) Spartaz 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, this is definitely a user conduct issue. And Argyriou, have you seen the discussions at NOR, ANI, and EL dating from a month ago??? They are very clearly aware of all the issues tou are trying to "discuss" in good faith, and also very clear that they do NOT have consensus, that these issues have been debated extensively and consensus is against them. Cindery 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Arg, as you can see at EL, Barberio, a respected longtime EL page editor, agrees this is a user conduct RFC. Let's get it over with--they are wasting your time on purpose by trying to avoid a user conduct RFC (because that is what will work). YT has been debated extensively on policy pages and community consensus is already in favor of no ban/keeping some links--they are violating consensus (and multiple policies, not to mention causing legal jeopardy) via conduct. Continuing the bickerfest/pretending there is any legitimate issue to discuss at this point just drags it out further/allows them to engage in continued disruptive acting-out. Cindery 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Though I've been active here less than three months, I've noticed that the Misplaced Pages community tend to approve more of those who proceed conservatively, touching all the bases, seeking consensus and harmonious resolutions while assuming good faith — than of those who rush the process, skip steps, or seek to act punitively. Cindery, I appreciate that your experiences may well have worn your patience thin, and I can sympathize with that, but please bear with Argyriou's attempt to touch all the bases once more. If he succeeds at getting others to cooperate on reaching (and abiding by) consensus this time, that's a victory for everyone. And if not, then the track record will be that much clearer to later readers for whatever purpose. – SAJordan contribs 06:26, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Sorry, Jordan, but you just don't seem to realize how long this has been going on, how much discussion in good faith has already been engaged in, and how having to continue these circular arguments with people who are acting in bad faith is a huge disruption/waste of time. Policy, guideline, and consensus are already established against the YT project, and the behavior of the minority--their treatment of other editors--has been inexcusable. (Mismy should be desysopped.) Please see my talkpage, "Ongoing draft of RFC re Nick" (and "Nearly Headless Nick"). It's a user conduct issue. Cindery 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Interstate 580 (California)
Westbound 580 35th Avenue
According to CAL-NExUS 35th Avenue does not have an exit on westbound 580. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.71.17 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- You will notice that I wrote "Eastbound exit and westbound entrance". There is an entrance to 580WB from 35th Avenue, even though there is no exit from 580 WB to 35th Avenue. As there are irregular situations where sometimes an eastbound exit is not matched by a westbound entrance, it is worthwhile to note the presence or absence of entrances as well as exits, even though the list is called "Exit list". Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Exit list guide#Examples. Both entrances and exits are shown, especially in the case where the entrance and exit are to only one direction of the freeway. Argyriou (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
San Francisco as a control city on 580 west
If you drove on 580 east in Richmond,pass the Central Avenue exit,ahead you would see the Buchanan Street exit sign on the left,while the right sign says I-80 and I-580 Oakland/San Francisco.Also,at the MacArthur Maze on 580,if take westbound I-580 and east I-80,you would see the sign using Berkeley/Sacramento as control cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.71.17 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- San Francisco is a control city for I-80, Oakland for I-580. Argyriou (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Berkeley as control city for 580 west
If Sacramento is a control city for 80 east,therefore Berkeley will be a control city for 580 west at the MacArthur Maze. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.71.17 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
- I'm not going to argue the status of control cities, though I think that you're right that Berkeley is a control city for 580W. I suppose it depends on the exact definition of control cities. Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Placing of test2 and test3 templates on talk pages
Hi Argyriou. Edits like this are really not productive or fair. The user you gave this warning to was not carrying out vandalism, which is what that template is clearly intended for. If you are in dispute with the user over content, then continue to engage he him and other users in the discussions. Issuing vandalism warnings, particularly ones that threaten a block, is very counterproductive and disruptive. I appreciate you do not like the fact that the user removed an external link, but it wasn'yt vandalism, and was not deserving of that message.
Please, don't use such templates again unless warning people actively engaged in obvious vandalism. Removing a link is not vandalism - it is a content dispute, which can hopefully be resolved civilly and maturely without resorting to threats of blocking and suchlike. If you have any questions, let me know. All the best, Proto::► 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Removing a link which was previously removed, and was restored following discussion on the article's talk page, with no additional justification other than the same justification which was previously rejected, is vandalism. If Sir Nicholas had gone to the trouble of looking on the article's talk page, either before or after, and said anything to justify re-deleting the link, then it would have been a content dispute. As it is, Sir Nicholas is engaging in vandalism. Argyriou (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't be so quick to label content disputes as vandalism. Vandalism would have been replacing the link with U ALL SUCK LOL! or something similar. This is a dispute over content. As soon as you label someone a vandal, you immediately upset them if they believe they are acting in good faith (which is the case here), and you show yourself as being unprepared to listen to the other's point of view (also the case here). I very much appreciate you believe you are acting to restore legitimate content, but, please, consider continuing to participate in the discussions rather than labelling people as vandals when it is not clear vandalism; doing so is disruptive and incivil, and it's really not helping your case.
- Whilst discussions on the article's talk page are great, occasionally, all articles on Misplaced Pages have to meet Misplaced Pages policies, regardless of what the article talk page determines. Examples of this include WP:V, WP:NOT and suchlike. What we are trying to do at the moment is work on a policy to establish just what is and is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages with regards to YouTube links. You are already participating in the discussion - please continue to do so! That is the correct way to get a good result. Whilst filing an RFC is very much your perogative and your right (and why I have opposed its deletion on deletion review), people respond better to civil suggestions and reasoned discussion, rather than threats and being labelled vandals. Please, at least, think about it. Best, Proto::► 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Your draft RFC was deleted-and-protected.
Just a courtesy notification, since the deleting admin neglected to give you one (or any warning or request to change it): User:Argyriou/SirNicholas "has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation" by Pilotguy (talk • contribs), with the comment "nonsense deleted". I've brought this up at WP:ANI#Repeated_incivility_despite_warnings and posted a courtesy notification of that at Pilotguy's talk page. – SAJordan contribs 17:41, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Not Kuntan
This might be deleted soon. Daakshayani 10:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't particularly care. Dmcdevit has been quick to assume incivility, but nothing that I have experienced from him rises to the level of abuse of power sufficient to warrant an RfC. If things against Sir Nick go to ArbCom, I'll include Dmcdevit as an interested party, because I don't believe he could judge that case fairly, but otherwise, I have no reasons to take actions against Dmcdevit. Argyriou (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Message on diocese
Hi there,
Just some background; I have been fixing the diocese in Ireland because they're a bit of a mess. There are links back and forth between Anglican (Church of Ireland) and Catholic dioceses in various articles--it causes confusions. I am well on the way to sorting that out.
Now, with regard to adding a country tag to the name, I can see a reason why that would not be needed. In Catholicism at least, the Vatican won't erect a new diocese with an existing name. Where I have seen ambiguity is where the reformation resulted in co-territorial dioceses with identical names. I see the issue as falling along denominational and not geograhic lines. I have started to added the denomination to all clergy and related items--though I only started Wikipediaing three days ago, so I just figured out how to do it. I have to go back and redo some of the pages I wrote up recently.
Thanks for the feedback.
Socal90046 07:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You're right that in ordinariy usage, the country of the diocese need not be listed; however, it is a convenience to people who see a diocese name without knowing which country it is in (and the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking countries have this problem in a huge way), and it's also convenient if it's ever desired to re-organize the list on a per-country basis. I'm willing to do the grunt-work of finding the country for those where it's not listed, but it makes life easier if people adding new dioceses to the listings include the country. Somewhere down the road, that's going to cause a mess when the Northern Irish nationalists discover that the Church considers Belfast to be Ireland. Until then, I'd like to see countries listed. Argyriou (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
abuse of admin powers user conduct RFC filed
Courtesy notice: Cindery 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Rex Germanus vs. Matthead
You have made an entry on Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) talk page regarding his original report on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He has filed another report there since. Please check the case again, especially since it was me you called "being incivil", and update your comments. Thanks in advance. -- Matthead O 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- You were being incivil, as far as I remember when I looked into it. And some of Rex's edits were better than yours. But I don't really care. I don't edit those articles, and I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything to either of you two. I was just going through WP:AN/I on a slow day, and thought I'd point out to Rex that he wasn't completely in the right, either. So far as I can remember, you both have some valid points, you've both stretched them too far, and you're both being assholes to each other. And I don't care. It's not my problem, and I'm going to ignore it for now. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Kelly Ellard
Regarding the article, I guess, it could be merged with the Reena Virk article. I understand it didn't make much news in the United States, but it was big news in Canada. I live in Canada and the same province where this murder was high-profiled. I don't know what more can be added to the article, because a lot is not known about Kelly Ellard's personal life. The most we know about her is that she had a lot of behavior problems in school. She's got one older brother and her family stands by their belief she is innocent. Fighting for Justice 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the murder-of-the-week rates a Misplaced Pages article, even if it did make a big news splash. Terrance Kelly made a big splash in the Bay Area when he was killed recently, but ultimately, it's just another murder. Michael Dellums rates an article only because he's the son of a Congressman and because someone wanted to score political points in the article about his father. (If it gets prod'ed, I doubt anyone would care anymore.) If, on the other hand, the Government (provincial or national) passed some special law or spent lots of money as a result of the murder, then at the very least the case would deserve one article. Argyriou (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Couple of things
First, where's the RfC on Sir Nicholas? I didn't find it at WP:RFC. Second, I agree about Ellard. I would rename / refactor / redirect to an article on the case, which is much less problematic than an article on a living individual which focuses only on the conviction. We have an article on the Jamie Bulger case but not, as far as I can tell, on the two perpetrators, Thompson and Venables.
Happy New One, Guy (Help!) 10:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The RfC on Sir Nicholas is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. I haven't weighed in yet. Argyriou (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
discussion re RfC certification, second RfC, etc
courtesy notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Nick_RfC Cindery 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
See my message on the RfC
|See Kundan After Sundown 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I think your comment about the editor having smoked too much pot over winter break may be inappropriate. This kind of content requires hardcore mushrooms at a minimum, and possibly mass quantities of LSD. Fan-1967 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nah - some people are already close to the edge and only require a gentle push, especially if they start to study hardcore math and/or linguistics, or watch The Matrix one time too many. Argyriou (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could be. Or maybe he actually did discover the world-shattering truth behind the real meaning of 1/0 (it's not infinity, but I haven't managed to figure out what he thinks it actually is). Fan-1967 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Neoconservatism
MacDonald's position is his position (and that of many others, including mine). Whether you consider him a reliable source or not is irrelevant.
- Look through the history of the Neoconsrevatism article - there seems to be a consensus that MacDonald is not a reliable source for anything. Argyriou (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The "consensus" is little more than the usual bullying tactics that call to mind schoolyard namecalling. Where are the concrete charges? But to get back to the point of my edit: The position of MacDonald, AdBusters, and others is A POSITION that this section completely leaves out. Regard that David Duke's position -- I sincerely hope that you don't find him any more credible -- and those of others with transparent agendas (e.g., David Brooks) are left in.WashCali 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Would you be interested in a meetup in San Jose? I was thinking late summer of 2007. Let me know if you would be interested - I'm not trying to recruit you for the planning of it, just trying to take a temperature. I'm not interested in spamming talk pages, so I'm feeling out semi-local parties before I do anything. In case you don't see the connection right away - it was at that Afd. Cheers!Nina Odell 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Republican Party is far-right
By global standards, the Republican party is a very far-right party, and those are the standards that wikipedia is created under so that there is a sense of perspective throughout all of the political articles. I can see you donate to extreme right-wing organisations, so I hate to break to you the kind of people you're supporting. You've already been told about posting authoritarian POV rubbish in articles, and I will be informing an administrator of your continued arrogant vandalism. Accuriser198557 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe the Republican Party is of the same sort of ilk as the Aryan Nations, you need a severe perspective adjustment. Now go away. Argyriou (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- troll deleted
- My Grandfather was an African-American, and life-long Republican. There are plenty of black Republicans who will never stop being so because it was the party of Abraham Lincoln. Many Libertarians are Republicans too - not because they agree with everything the Party says, but because they agree with most of it. We live in an imperfect two-Party-heard-only system. Until that changes, compromises are all we've got. That said, please stop harassing this user on his talk page. Thank you in advance. NinaOdell | Talk 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- troll deleted
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
GRLWEAP
User:Argyriou/GRLWEAP. It was prodded, which is why I deleted it. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll check with Basar - there was talk of moving the content into an article about the class of program, instead of just the one program. Otherwise, I'll add some references to show notability. The program is, in the U.S., anyway, the program used for dynamic analysis of pile-driving. By the way, once it's ready, can I just move it back to article-space, or do I need an admin for that? Argyriou (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Geotech WikiProject
I started a WikiProject on geotech if you are interested. Basar 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am. What was the outcome of the discussion regarding GRLWEAP? (See discussion immed above, and my original request to Guy.) Argyriou (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't involved in that. An admin came by and deleted a bunch of his articles for copyright violations. You can see his talk page for which ones. You can recreate that article without an admin. Basar 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that. I thought you had said something about generalizing that article to be about more than just GRLWEAP - was such an article ever created? Argyriou (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sort of; I just told him how to move the article when he asked how. As far as I know, the new article was never made. Basar 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that. I thought you had said something about generalizing that article to be about more than just GRLWEAP - was such an article ever created? Argyriou (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't involved in that. An admin came by and deleted a bunch of his articles for copyright violations. You can see his talk page for which ones. You can recreate that article without an admin. Basar 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Lothlorien
It's the only co-op in the USCA with a redlink. I started a stub for it (albeit an extremely lame one, even for a stub) and it was speedied. I didn't notice there was a previous AfD (see below, last link). The arguments seemed to be that there was no info other than USCA for it--here are two more news refs. It's weird, because some other, newer, smaller, less noteworthy co-ops have articles which only cite the USCA. I don't get what the deal is with no Loth article. (Funnily enough, there is no love lost between me and Loth--I lived there for a semester to chill/escape from B-town, but since I was from B-town the elves thought I was danger incarnate or something. They wrote graffiti about me, the only Loth graffitit I ever saw: "sure, <blank> is exciting, but so is Beirut." I guess I moved in too soon after a bunch of Barringtonians put turkey carcasses in their outdoor hot tub...) Do you want to restart the Loth article? (I'm not sure of the process for justifying an article that has already been through AfD; I stay away from AfD completely)-Cindery 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-07-14/bottomfeeder.html http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=19542 http://www.usca.org/coops/lot.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lothlorien_Hall
- I'm not sure - I'm beginning to think that all the other co-ops articles, except Barrington's, should be merged into the USCA article. Barrington has a significantly notable history; the rest can be explained in one or two lines.
- The process that was applied to Loth could probably be applied to most of the other coops, but it hasn't - probably someone was looking for something about Middle Earth and found a co-op instead, and put it up for AfD because the article didn't assert notability. Argyriou (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would actually agree that most of the smaller ones could be merged into USCA--I don't think Barrington is the only exception, though--Cloyne has a long, notable history, a lot of refs, etc. Let me look over them again. I don't see the need for an article on "The Convent," though.-Cindery 20:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think, based on available refs, that in addition to Barrington, Cloyne, Casa Zimbabwe, and Le Chateau should have articles, and the rest could be merged with USCA. Or, they could all have their own articles (Wilde House is very new, but already the Bancroft is keeping records). But I don't think it makes sense that Loth is the only co-op without an article, since it's one of the oldest and largest. (And is is the only vegetarian student co-op in the country? certainly the oldest--1975. It might even qualify for the shortlist in a merge of smaller, newer houses into USCA...?)-Cindery 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also: Lothlorien was designed by architect Clinton Day, who designed other buildings on campus, and in SF. The best part is that the building was leased by some freaky cult called the One World Family--which believed that UFOS were going to bring "a better life on earth"--from 1968 until 1975, when the USCA bought the building(s). (!) The cult built Lothlorien's sauna, and then absconded to Hawaii, leaving, er, cult-stuff in the attic and closets. At least according to this: Maybe George-O has harder data/more info. (Or some leftover cult brochures :-)-Cindery 06:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Neo and Paleo Templates
It has been deleted. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Templates for deletion
I notice you want Template:911tm potentially to redirect to Template:911ct. I think, if you want to ensure that, you ought to consider statimg an opinion about 911ct, which may well be deleted in this process, too (just above in the tfd process). Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care if {{911ct}} gets deleted or not. It does have its use: it says "Warning - this page describes, and possibly promotes, intellectual nonsense of the highest order. Do not take anything on this page seriously.". Argyriou (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Parties labeled as extreme right .... =
Honestly I was expecting some editor might do this. I agree with the deletion but not with your reason, its just that such a list would be impossible to maintain in a non-pov/non-or way. - C mon 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned the POV issue in a post on the talk page, replying to the article's creator. I think there was some value in having the list within the Far right article, so long as people don't keep trying to add Republican Party (United States) to the list. I don't think there's any value in having it as a separate article, particularly with the modified title. And what's with the horrid “” quotation marks in the title? Argyriou (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Viadeo
Hi! I saw that you put a prod tag on the article Viadeo. I disagree somewhat with your reasons, though I'm not certain the article is really salvageable. If you strip off the first sentence, there is a claim that they have over 1 million members; this makes Viadeo notable, if it's true. If one searches for links to www.viadeo.com, there are a number of hits, though not much in the way of news articles. The primary problem with notability is that it looks like a primarily French site, and so any interesting or usable references will be in French. However, the article does read like a press release, and there are no reliable sources for their claim of 1 million members, so I'm not going to remove the prod tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- I note the article's subsequently been deleted by another user as a direct copyright violation. I would maintain that the article as it stood made no assertion of notability per our guidelines (see WP:WEB) and the "million members" was unsourced. Regards, └/talk 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the source of the press release, but I suspected it was copyvio anyway. If they really have a million members, at least one of them ought to be willing to write a referenced article about it... Argyriou (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio
I've done that one, but you can just blank the page and put a {{copyvio}} template on the page in the short term. Tyrenius 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Aryriou, I cannot believe that you said that I was baiting other editors - I have been subject to abuse from "new indentity" and his other alias for the past two days and have done nothing to him to warrant it except attempt to rationally discuss our differences - would like to draw your attention to this from yesterday and this from this.
Can you please show me ONE occasion where I have acted in this manner?--Vintagekits 02:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aryriou, I think you are being very harsh on me with respect to this issue. Especially as you seem to have brushed over the WP:NPA breahes against me. I agree I may have been border line WP:CIVIL but on if you wish to take my comments in the most negative fashion. However, I have been referred to as a Fenian which is an outragous personal attacks and akin to being called a nigger or a coon and people have been prosecuted under the Race Relations Act for referring to people as a Fenian, however, this does not seem to have been acted upon, surely that can not be right.--Vintagekits 11:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
irishdancewiki.com link
I have to take issue with your claim that the irishdance wiki has "has copied most of its information from this article." While the posting here may have been a bit premature since the wiki is still very young, it appears that you only looked at the first section which will attempt to answer "what is Irish Dance?" At present the best thing I could do was link to a more authoritative source on that one specific topic. The wiki also contains a large (and growing) reference of schools and other resources for dancers such as books, videos and music as well as a comprehensive list of online resources. Please take another look at http://irishdancewiki.com, I think if you do look around you'll find that it most certainly has not copied most of its information from your article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelH99 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
TfD nomination of Template:HistSource
Template:HistSource 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.. This is related to the recent Catholic-link TfD. --Stbalbach 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does this article have the same history of being spammed all over a bunch of talk pages that Catholic-link did? Argyriou (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- 20 or 30 at the moment. If you read his comments here ("Proposed Policy Redux"), it looks like he intends to implement either this template (or the newly created Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia) for all of the Catholic Encyclopedia on a generic basis based on some pre-determined rules. -- Stbalbach 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Noted
Clarifying was much appreciated, and I do understand that you are all just doing your job and that someone playing around on Misplaced Pages will not be ignored. I also do appreciate that the page was not immediately deleted as she did get a chance to see it (loved it and found it hilarious..she is currently an achitecture student and we do not yet have children, but everything else is true).
Also, the first link was just a link to the UofW's Bachelor of Arts diploma list way down at the bottom of a huge pdf file. Her name is actually there, just not super relevant.
Anyways, thanks again. Crash25 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Chander P. Grover
You didn't tell me there was a big debate on AN/I about this. You should have.
It's not an article I would propose for AfD. It's the sort of thing I think should be on wiki for people's information. However, it is not referenced as it should be and contains some suspect phrases also. I would have preferred the AfD to run its course, even if for no other reason than it is often a spur to improve an article and its sourcing. If you're unhappy about the AfD, you have recourse at WP:DRV, which assesses whether an AfD was procedurally correct.
Tyrenius 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Cindery
Since Sir Nick is now calling any further discussion feeding the trolls and publicly proving that this is all due to his RfC which he amusingly calls disruptive then I guess the issue is settled then. New rule: Don't mess with Sir Nick or he will ban you and call the discussion feeding the trolls. Apparently Misplaced Pages now works a state within the state where all basic civil rights such as being innoncent of a crime (death threats) until proven guilty means absolutely nothing. MartinDK 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ospina
Nadín Ospina
Hi there, fyi I've revamped this article as a stub. Please take a look at the revised article if you like Bwithh 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Viaduc, Viadeo
Hello
It appears that you have deleted two posts for the company Viadeo (previously Viaduc).
One on the grounds of a copyright violation - as you found another article that I also wrote on Viadeo for members of the same business premises rental group as us. There is no copyright violation as I am the author of both articles!
Also on the grounds that this is 'advertising'.
This is unacceptable - I have taken great care to add only factual information and avoid all advertising statements such as the 'best' 'the most effective' etc. Viadeo has over 1 million mmebers in Europe and now over 600k in China and is one of the largest online Web 2.0 networks. Misplaced Pages users have a right to be able to find factual information on Viadeo - as they do with Xing, Linked-in, My Space none of which have been deleted.
I request that you undelete these articles.
Peter Cunningham Viadeo UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Cunningham 2302 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
- Peter - take a look at the articles on smaller social networking sites such as Tribe.net, and the List of social networking sites. You will notice that there are references for their claims of their total membership, and that the articles have references to independent media coverage of the sites, to establish notability of the article subject.
- There's a guideline at WP:WEB which states specific criteria which a website must meet to have an article on Misplaced Pages. If Viadeo does indeed meet those guidelines, the article must demonstrate that by use of reliable sources. If you can re-create the article meeting those guidelines, then feel free to do so.
- The copyright issue is a little more complex. If you want to contribute material which you hold the copyright to (which has been previously published elsewhere), you need to follow the procedure set forth in Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission (except that you get to short-cut some of it, as you are the copyright holder).
- You may also create the article in your userspace while in the initial stages of editing until you are ready to release it, do this by going to User:Peter Cunningham 2302/Viadeo and editing there first; once the article is in shape, create the article at Viadeo. I would suggest creating Viaduc as a dedirect to Viadeo, once you have the Viadeo article up.
- Lastly, I am not a Misplaced Pages admin, and so I can't delete articles, only suggest that they be deleted. Someone has to agree with me for the article to be deleted. Argyriou (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- But you are heading that way... Tyrenius 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Martin McCaughey
Thanks! I think in this situation anyone doing their job properly gets it in the neck from all sides! Tyrenius 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your POV tag isn't accompanied by enough specificity to allow constructive discussion
You have tagged the homeowners association, POV. Since there has been no prior discussion of the bias you allege, you need to describe what you consider unacceptable about the article — and to address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that you allege to be problematic. — Rico 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the discussion in Talk:Homeowners association? My allegation is that the article places WP:Undue weight on criticisms of HOAs, without any counterbalancing points of view presented. Argyriou (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I read the discussion on the talk page in its entirety before commenting here.
However, when you tag something POV, and there has been no prior discussion of the bias you allege, you need to address the alleged problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that you allege to be problematic.
Please do that.
I eliminated the specific phrasing you declared to be "weasel words," and therefore, problematic. -- Rico 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)- I did. Aside from the weasel words issue, I noted that there is almost no information presented from sources other than those which see HOAs as a problem. The solution is to find sources which aren't derogatory. I'll work on that, but it may take some time. Argyriou (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You need to read about weasel words, because you are using the phrase incorrectly. What I will not allow you to do is make massive changes without discussion. They will be reverted back. Your separating racial discrimination from conlaw section doesn't make any sense. Also, the issue belongs wtih the introduction it has. Therefore I have deleted your destructive edits, and restored the original.Jance 14:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did. Aside from the weasel words issue, I noted that there is almost no information presented from sources other than those which see HOAs as a problem. The solution is to find sources which aren't derogatory. I'll work on that, but it may take some time. Argyriou (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I read the discussion on the talk page in its entirety before commenting here.
Rudeness
Your rudeness on the HOA article isn't going to get you very far. I restored the inappropriate changes you made to the Conlaw section. Also, the CAI is a lobbying group. You can call it a trade group, but it is a lobbying group. Jance 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you see as "rudeness". I'm also a little puzzled by your statements about what you've restored, as the only change I see after my last edit is to remove the "racial discrimination" heading and put that paragraph back in "Constitutional challenges". CAI is a lobbying group, but that's implied by calling it a trade association - all trade associations are lobbying groups. Mentioning that it's a trade association, and that it's a lobbying group, and putting a note regarding the reliability of the reference is unjustified piling-on. Statements by the AARP or the ACLU are just as questionable, as both of those groups are also lobbying groups, yet their reliability is not questioned. Argyriou (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)