User talk:arichnad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arichnad.

Archives

2006 2007

Contents 1 Template talk:Timeline of iMac models 2 Energy development 3 Environnement2100 4 Admin 5 Re: Scream School 6 Lonely Planet RFC 7 Live feeds as sources 8 arichnad's comments on Foreign Objects article 9 Respond to Arichnad 10 Admin coaching request 11 Admin coaching match 12 St. Thomas More Collegiate rapid corrections 13 Thanks for response on EAR 14 DC Meetup on May 17th 15 Deletion of article 16 Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4 17 Wikipedia meetup 18 Voltaire 19 Editing other comments

[edit] Template talk:Timeline of iMac models

Your assistance is still needed in creating consensus, as Kaomso is continuing to object (rather irrationally from my POV). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, your help is appreciated, but I think it's more helpful to find additional third opinions. Thanks, though Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess your assistance is still needed. Going to WikiProject:Macintosh isn't helping, and Wikipedia:Third Opinion shot me down twice. I haven't taken enough steps towards working to a consensus (something Kaomso isn't doing at all) IMO to justify going to mediation or arbitration quite yet (I've put in an RfC, though, we'll see how that goes). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy development

Thank you - Your assistance is appreciated Escientist (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environnement2100

Hi, please have a look at this edit, as I'm afraid it could lead to another "edit war". This editor inserted an WP:OR section with poor grammar, so I cleaned up the prose in one edit then tried to give context to the statement in the next edit. Both of these were reverted as "irrelevant". Environnement2100 has already stated that s/he thinks the theory is "improvable" so it seems like a POV or Point that s/he's trying to insert. Thanks for your help. NJGW (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"improvable"? Yes, the article can be improved upon. What's wrong with improving the article? Are you sure you aren't confusing that with "unprovable" (i.e. not provable)? FYI, I also replied here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, true. I think my brain chalked that up to a language barrier issue. Thanks for having a look at this. NJGW (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi : NJGW looking for rescue ? FYI both, I do not seem to have used the word "improvable", but it does describe the state of this entry, which I confirm provides the POV of his/their author, and is unable to provide any opposite POV. Hence my intervention. I confirm this is a WP:NPOV problem, which NJGW is turning into an edit war (quote :"I wanted to delete your section"), for a reason he/she might care to expose ; NJGW already proved he is favorable to edit wars instead of consensus. I added a short enough sentence providing the opposite POV, including the corresponding source ; it stands in a separate paragraph quite cleanly. What else do you want ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs)

I didn't say you used the word "improvable". You used the word "improve". I don't think anybody has proven anything. Also, I don't want anything except for a unbiased article and without all the needless reversions. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created another entry at editor assistance requests and would appreciate any comments you can add. NJGW (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I wouldn't mind being an admin. However, I don't think I'd pass the RFA. I don't have a lot of stuff that people normally look for in RFA candidates. Can I get back to you in like six months? I really appreciate you asking though: thank you.

On that subject, I've spent a little while looking at your edits and I was going to suggest nominating you, but it seems like you already have someone for that. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Scream School

There is no free equivalent of this information, so it cannot be replaced by anything else and is only a small portion of the commercial product. The use of the synopsis from the back of the book will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, it could not be used to make illegal copies of the book. The information supplied is on other websites BECAUSE its on the back of the book. and putting the information on wikipedia isn't violating copyright. The author is attributed in the side panel, along with all other information about the book. The information on the back of a book (synopsis) is there to inform someone as to what the book is about. On the Goosebumps: Series 2000 books, they quote a small paragrah from the book, which is licenced for that purpose. So anyone putting that information on a website is in no violation of copyright at all. Hence it being used on other websites. Alinblack (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lonely Planet RFC

Not overkill at all; a very good idea and one that I wish I had come up with myself. :) —Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Live feeds as sources

Did you see the followup at EAR? Apparently, we have similar experiences. What worries me most is the erroneous assumption of some groups I've come across that consensus between three or five editors can override our style guidelines and even core content policies. I'll take a more in-depth look and possibly post to the article talk regarding the issue. I have throroughly low expectations as to the immediate outcome, but I'm not willing to let something like this go without even trying. User:Dorftrottel 21:50, February 18, 2008

[edit] arichnad's comments on Foreign Objects article

Thanks Arichnad for your comments on the article about the Foreign Objects I'm trying to post. I'll be glad to include this in an article called Foreign Objects (Massachusetts band) per your suggestion. About your other comment. Would it be acceptable to quote these sources within the verbiage itself, instead of separating their quotes into a separate section? I'd be using the Wikipedia entry about the Dictators as a model. Or is it better not to quote them at all? It's not that their quotes are not independent. It's that most of them were made in print publications that are not available online. Thanks for your help, and I look forward to your feedback, John B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.brobst (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Respond to Arichnad

Hi, I felt that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mapco had reached a verdict, and since it had been listed for at least 5 days, then per WP:NAC I closed it to help clear some of the WP:AFD backlog. Gary King (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you think that it was a "Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period, absent any contentious debate among participants."? I'll remind you that all of the keep votes were Single purpose accounts and at least one of the !voters voted four times in a row. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reopened it. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching match

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:LaraLove as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to LaraLove and explain to her why you want to be an admin.

2. Once he has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for a highly qualified, coached, editor. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Thomas More Collegiate rapid corrections

Thanks for your eye on the St. Thomas More Collegiate article. I've been trying to address the same issue you corrected, where a single user continues to remove sections of referenced text with no explanation. As you might note, I've requested to discuss the issue on the "discussion" tab but with no success. I'll continue to keep an eye on this article and appreciate your work. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for response on EAR

Thanks Arichnad, I see that I could have been far more concise. I put the original issue up as an ANI and ended up having no faith in my understanding of policy. Am now back on my feet, able to see how to reframe "the discussion" into a search for concensus, and am thinking of Mediation Cabal. I wish I had known of BLPN - all this "learning" could have been avoided.

I especially appreciate you making explicit the amount of time and depth that you went to in your review. Knowing this lets me put your suggestions in context. In the last month, experienced admins seemed to find it difficult to say "Go somewhere else, I havent got time" and I get left hanging in the wind. I think that polite, respectful presentation of my views from that "hanging in the wind" circumstance is civil and helps to create a better environment in which to build WP. Do you think I managed a useful level of confrontation SmithBlue (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article

I apologize if I'm complaining about objection to the proposed deletion of my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J3HaaD

I have given the reasons for not doing so in its talk page: [[1]]

Furthermore, I was told so in the beginning that improving the article would make it good enough for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. So, I added a few links to the mentioned institutions in my article and few images to prove the existence of my claims.

Hence, now I seriously think that there should be no reason for the deletion of the article! Note: The name of the article has no relevance with the article matter, Counter-Strike clans have arbitrary clan names.

--Sainik1 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, I have to agree with you, however can the article be moved as a user-page of mine till the necessary reliable sources are uploaded?? Re-creating the whole article as such (which I have been doing since the last month) is little troublesome.

--Sainik1 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4

Please note that there is a DC Meetup planned for May 17th at 5:00 p.m., though a place has not yet been set. You're receiving this notice because you posted to the page for the prior meetup - Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 - but haven't indicated whether or not you're interested in attending this one. (Apologies if in fact you have.) BetacommandBot (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Virginia. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voltaire

I added his books, in which he voiced his opinions on Africans and Jews, as a reference.--Raphael1 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at them later today. Hopefully I'll be able to find those books at my local library. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing other comments

Fixing typos and spelling is not editing another's comments. I have never changed another editor's comments, that comment still reads exactly the same. You note makes it look like I edited the text of the comment, thus changing the meaning of the contributors statement- which I did not.

I would never think to diminish the comments of another user by editing a statement they made on a talk page, but I fully understand the reasoning behind your post. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting" Sorry if I incorrectly described the situation. I didn't say that you changed the meaning of the comments and I didn't mean it to sound that way. No biggie. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)