User talk:Marskell/Archive 2

Anti-Polonism

I don't think it is a good idea to move the portion of anti-Polonism talk page to the archive. Almost all of the issues have not been closed as yet. Maybe you can archive the Pawelka dispute, as this is summarized in another section, but the rest is still open. Alx-pl D 11:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at the article now. Alx-pl D 19:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to point you out the way Molobo "works" on the article and I agree that his edits make it only worse. Alx-pl D 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It does not seem to make sense to answer Molobo's claims in the article. Any idea how to proceed ? Groeck 18:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My revert on New Orleans

I reverted myself because I wanted to remain objective; I had just sent her a 3RR warning, and it would seem somewhat poor form to cause her to violate 3RR by submitting my own reverts to the mix. :) --Golbez 16:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The present dispute over the infobox is nothing to worry about. I do tire of explaining myself... Dystopos 03:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE + 1st section relates to my misunderstanding w/ you & Taxman.

Area set up for you to express your vote:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE

Please note that the first vote is related to a non-article matter, pertaining to removing a section of my complaints.

--GordonWattsDotCom 22:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion, but the admin locking the page (who is one of our mediators), is waiting on you to OK the removal of one large section on the talk page -he's agreed to not remove it until you and Taxman vote to approve --your special section is in the first of the four vote areas --opinion and feedback appreciated, but your action is needed in the voting booth: Your lack of action is holding the article hostage -not me -I've done my part and then some extra.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Nevermind; The admin gave me permission to remove that section, and the talk page is a lot smaller now; "We can't wait for you forever" -I voted for you by proxy as "YES, remove that large section," and took it from the talk page here and put it in the most recent archive here. OK, now the talk page is much smaller -I hope this is helpful. Now, it's less "tight quarters."--GordonWattsDotCom 03:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

four edits

I made one edit to change the paragraph in the article. Then I removed the NPOV flag and fixed two dangling references. I suppose I could have edited the entire article at once so that I could do it all in "one edit", but that makes it more likely to get edit conflicts. If you wish, I'll revert myself and undo the removal of the NPOV flag and the two dangling references. But I stand by my edit to the article. The motion doesn't say anything about the transfer being illegal, only a misuse of assets. FuelWagon 14:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I made one change to the article, one edit, and cleanup as a result. If this counts as more than one edit, I'll revert the whole thing and do it in a single edit by editing the entire page at once rather than editing individual sections. FuelWagon 14:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I will edit the article in whole from now on to prevent edit-countitus. FuelWagon 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo memorial sect.

Aloha. I reverted to correct the errors that you introduced into Terri Schiavo [1] (there is no such word as "momentos"). --Viriditas | Talk 12:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to apologize for reverting your edits. As I explained on Talk:Terri Schiavo I assumed they were vandalism and reverted accordingly, however in this case I was wrong. Thanks for keeping the lines of communication open and for your hard work on Terri Schiavo. --Viriditas | Talk 23:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Primates category rework

Come check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/category rework. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Citizen/Population defined

Perhaps we need a wiki page "citizen/population defined". You removed "property owners, eligible voters, school registrees etc." from my N.O. note which was good in terms of wordiness but does, sans definition, beg the question: what is a citizen and why do you assume it without explanation? Marskell 00:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed "citizen" to "resident" since "citizenship" is usually a status granted by nations/states, not cities. In the US, residency not a matter of formal registration as in Europe. The classes you described are useful in establishing residency, but I don't think that they make an exact science of it. The main thing is I don't see what we gain by enumerating them. If there is a place to detail the various ways of establishing residency, New Orleans, Louisiana certainly isn't it. (And of course, the whole issue is becoming moot as those who want to return are already beginning to return). Dystopos 00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

M-W, citizen: "1. an inhabitant of a city or town; especially one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman" [1] [2]. It does usually refer to states but it hasn't ceased to refer to cities—if you can vote in a place you're citizen. Of course, you're right N.O. isn't the place to go over these things which is why I suggested a wiki page. I can't even find "Using/Misusing statistics" which seems an obvious subject. Marskell 09:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Etymologically, citizen can ONLY refer to cities. I was referring to any kind of verifiable official status. For example, while I was at Tulane my library card, driver's license, auto license, zoo membership, bank account and IRS address were all "back home" while my lease, utility bills, student ID, and voter registration were in New Orleans. I don't know what I would need to have done if I was there for a census year. Dystopos 13:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans

No, it was not. Leave the infobox alone. The compromise was to add the note to the demographics, the way I see it. LEAVE THE INFOBOX ALONE! PERIOD! Dr. Cash 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As I thought was already clear by now, I think it detracts from the infobox. The infobox should be clear and concise, with no notations. The notation in the 'demographics' section is sufficient. Especially now that the evacuation order is beginning to be lifted and the city is re-opening. Dr. Cash 16:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments re: anti-Chinese sentiment on my talk page

I apologize; however the block remained in place much longer than it ostensibly should have. As for whether the article was translated, this was not actually a comment of mine but rather that of the anon in question, who spoke after I did and, if you are correct in regards to the construction of the articles vis-a-vis anti-Americanism, is again being deceptive. --TJive 15:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree but I don't believe that our understanding of Sinophobia coincides with the anon's intentions for the article. See Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment for an explanation of my meaning. --TJive 16:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Belarus FAC

Thank you for your support vote. I could see your vote fine, but to get it to see on the main FAC page, just refresh the cache (your preferences will tell you how to do it). Zach (Sound Off) 17:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mess'ge rec'd

I got your message on my talk page, here:

Plz plz don't mark your edits as minor. You just cut the article in half and marked it minor! Also, do bear in mind the agreement: 5 edits right? You've made 33. I was in the middle of making an edit myself but couldn't do it because of your editing. I will make a comment on the FA request. Plz you can answer on my talk page but keep it short. Marskell 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Short" version: I had competing themes: Limited numbers of edits (I had forgotten about that, since it seemed related to the edit war, which fizzled out), and the reduction to the article size.

I had decided to not edit, so the limitations on editing 4-5 times/ day were forgotten, but your buddies did not like Mark's analysis that the article length was OK -and voted me and him down by consensus.

So, I had to address it. I did not change anything substantively except some abbreviation of words to numbers, and some contractions. (EG, instead of "two years" it became "blah blah blah for 2 years" and instead of "said that Terri could not do this" is became "said that Terri couldn't do this")

OK, Taxman said that if it was constructive edits, we could exceed --and this was "constructive."

Let's meet on the Terri talk page --and-- the Featured Article nomination talk page, OK?--GordonWatts 18:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: The reduction in size was a "minor edit" because it did not change the substance of the article."--GordonWatts 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy

"I know BigD comes up with a lot of bull (hey sorry, I do mean it companionably)"

Why would you say such a thing? Seriously. Big Daddy 05:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Why would you say such a thing? Seriously." You have come up with a lot of bull! "My friend, it's clear you HAVE NO IDEA what it means to be a born again Christian. A liberal describing Christianity is like listening to a gay friend of mine describing woman's breasts. He'll tell you their number, color shape and size, but he...just...doesn't...get it! lol!" Is this bull? Sure it is. However, I meant it totally harmlessly; I have good friends who are good friends largely like because we like to talk bull.

All of this said, two wrongs do not make a right and in this sense I should not have posted the comment on a talk page; I can see it would be off-putting if you are now trying to avoid the inflammatory remarks of the past. I will retract and apologize there. Marskell 08:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. I thank you.Big Daddy

Schiavo

Look, Gordon's deletion of the legal history was a major change done without any consensus. The FA stuff is not consensus. Poeple complained about it being too long, that isn't the same as having a consensus saying "go delete the legal history". Taxman grossly underestimates how hard it will be to write a summary that will be balanced. The legal history that was there before getting deleted is essentially the NPOV result that all sides were happy with. Everyone has some point of view they want to add, and the end result is a big article. You can't convince someone to keep their poitn of view out, so the only response is to put all the other poitns of view in about the same topic as well. THere is no summary that will satisfy everyone because people will want their POV in the summary.

As for the intro, it doesn't give Terri's actual condition waight proportion to actual history. There were a whole bunch of motions filed, but there were only a few cases that actually went all the way through the court system and determined anything. One was the case that determined Terri had made statements that she would ahve wnated to withdraw life support, the otherwas the case that determined Terri was PVS. These are major points of contention in teh Terri Schiavo history. They should get specific mention in teh intro. Especially now that the legal history is completely gutted. There is nothing at all now.

I think this whole "featured article" thing has turned to madness. FA should be withdrawn and the article should be worked on with the goal of getting to FA status sometime down the line, but editing at the whim of every suggestion or complaint on the FA page is nonsense. These aren't people who are working on the article. They don't know the topic. And they clearly underestimate how easy their suggestiosn will be implemented. FuelWagon 19:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome package

I'm familiar with the welcome package, wise guy. I don't need your condesension. I've read all that stuff. If you don't think my proposed changes are reasonable, all you have to do is say why. I don't appreciate being talked down to. MrVoluntarist 19:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:SarahPhelpsjr sockpuppets

Hi, Marskell, I saw your message on SlimVirgin's talk page. The two sockpuppets had already been blocked. See block log for Richardharrison and also for GordonWatts. I found the Special:Log/block page by accident some time ago, and I always go there now to check if someone has already been blocked when I see a particularly nasty bit of vandalism. Thanks for taking the trouble to report this. (By the way, the stalking issue has also been reported on WP:ANI.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Gorden and Gordon

I blocked the account before I even started reverting the edits.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

consensus

4 people do not make a consensus. FuelWagon 18:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

3 is more than 1, but that isn't a consensus. I'd appreciate you not calling 3 to 1 a consensus, or suggesting that my edits are violating consensus, when no real consensus has been reached. Until a real consensus is reached, I expect to be able to edit the intro in an attempt to find a version that works for everyone involved. The last version, the number of paragraphs were the same, I just added a couple of sentences to give some specifics of teh two important court cases. Is "length" the end-all, be-all of how to write an intro? Is shorter alwasy better? FuelWagon 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? We may have our disagreements, but I think I can trust you to edit the intro; I thought I had done well, but I "can live with" your version, which is pretty close. (I did not look at the picky details; I'm human, lol.)--GordonWatts 03:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Is "length" the end-all, be-all of how to write an intro?" Neither the article nor the intro need be a "specific length," and I am sorry consensus went against your view, for I share it, but I can live with the sub-article division. i made it a clean break, with the logical separation at a legal section. "Is shorter alwasy better?" No, and this time, I think it's a little worse, but I hope upon my religious beliefs (whatever they may be) to carry me through this apparently inferior edit in the slashing of the length.--GordonWatts 03:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Working version of Kate's tool

This version still works. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Since you endorsed the original RfC [2], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[3] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. Mr. Tibbs 04:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Global city

Greetings from Hogtown! ('Scarborough', actually.) I hope you're well. Thanks for your advocacy and editions regarding the global city page and user discussions; I appreciate it ... not to mention another perspective! My personal opinion is that a certain user is a disgruntled ex-Soviet who laments the low placement of various 'Soviet' locales in the listing and general fall from grace, and is 'nixxing' (ha!) the article, but cannot cite 'world city' stature there to the contrary. While I don't dispute his assertions about the granduer of St. Petersburg, et al., and agree with using a table to summarise this and that, he has not met the burden of proof. Has he? Forgive me if I'm being argumentative, excessive, or dense ... but I don't think so! I've spent way too much time on this ... and for not what!? I hope it doesn't escalate.

By the way: care to vote on this issue? :) In any event, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 10:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for your reply. As I noted, I don't disagree with said user's contentions regarding global cities, but they need to be substantiated and corroborated; this has not been done. No sources have been cited, and the user's interpretations are insufficient. A table would be nice if there were corroborative information to put in it; another section would also be good, if relevant information were contained therein. Unfortunately, the global city article/POV tags are continually being added/reverted, despite certain users' inability or unwillingness to substantiate their claims; not only that, but this user is editing the Toronto article in response and out of spite, I believe (though not wholly inappropriately). I do not want to be correcting such faux pas ad infinitum.

Thus, I think there is no choice but to seek independant arbitration/mediation! If I request mediation or (more appropriately) arbitration, do you think there are sufficient grounds and would you support it?

I lament this prospect, but it's the only way to ensure these articles are not in a perpetual state of ... debate and pointless revision. Thoughts? Thanks!

Hello again! Out of utter frustration, I have requested mediation for the above noted issue. Keep your legs crossed! :) Thoughts? Thanks, and take care! E Pluribus Anthony 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, hi! First of all, thanks for your support through this issue. I appreciate it and hope it gets resolved soon.

As well, thanks for your note; understood! Coinciding with the request for mediation, I was somewhat oblivious to the 3RR rule (though knew of it) when editing the tags out in frustration until I actually found myself (and said user) blocked; a first for me. Once I brought this to the notice of the administrator (and the request for mediation) and with assurance of not doing the same thing again, he promptly removed my block (but not said user's).

Earlier today, a few disagreeable edits were made to the global city article, I edited these, and these were reverted by said user. To that end, I won't be making further edits presently; I have also cautioned and requested (of the mediator) that the article be blocked/prohibited from edits by anyone (myself included) until the mediation/arbitration settles. This will also ensure that 'sockpuppets' et al. not change the article inappropriately. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes: it is a valid criticism and I agree with it; citations would also prove helpful and a different section in the article may be warranted. As well, thanks for replacing the tag; it seems appropriate given current goings-on. You might want to replace the one on the Talk:Global city page, too.

I received a caution from the admin about making changes, so I need to proceed carefully and 'bite my tongue.' Let me know if you've any questions. Thank you for your counsel and diligence. E Pluribus Anthony 16:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope you're well. I noticed the recent exchange on the global city article and have implored other parties to refrain from making extraneous edits. N.’s continued edits contravene our agreement with the admin and risk mutual censure. So, I will not be editing; however . . .

I recommend the following wording for the relevant section in the world city article, so as to be succinct but ‘conciliatory’ (the first paragraph is fine as is, and I propose the following one or two):

Based on these criteria alone, the most influential cities in the world have been ranked into three classes: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. The cities are also divided into sub-rankings within their class, based on the points given to them in the GaWC study. Due to the criteria used, the GaWC roster may not include other cities of cultural, religious, or political significance in the world.

OR

The most influential cities in the world have been ranked into three classes: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. The cities are also divided into sub-rankings within their class, based on the points given to them in the GaWC study.

As stated, the GaWC roster is weighted toward the provision of “advanced producer services” by various multinational corporations; thus, it may not include other cities of cultural, religious, or political significance in the world.

OR variations thereof.

Why this? Well:

• (1) in the first option, it consolidates both notions succinctly: citing the criteria used in generating the GaWC list; there’s no need to say it again.
• (2) the list is largely, but not merely, based on the prevalence of financial criteria but on the provision of financial services, advertising, et al.
• (3) European cities are well represented, accounting for a third of the list. Note that two of the top four cities are in Europe.

What’s more, TO is out of whack again!

I hope you’ll incorporate these during your edits; however, I really want to prevent an edit war and to see this thing through. Whataythink? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 00:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And again: thank you for brokering a modus vivendi. E Pluribus Anthony 01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your kind comments concerning my RfA. Although I even disagree with you to a point. User pages may have a little bit of leeway, but personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. It does not exonerate me from what I did. Thank you for your time. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon 2 and do you not think...

Fist of all please do not leave blank headers on my talk page, it does nothing other than create a mess on the page, secondly please do not edit an AFD page after an admin has closed it, it is considered bad etiquette, if you have any comments regarding the AFD you are encourged to leave a note on it's talk page instead. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Because even though I may not agree with it I'm bound by the standards of rough consensus, 18 delete, 10 keep would equal 64% to delete, which is too close to be considered a consensus. Rough consensus is roughly 75-80% though it can vary and if I had deleted the article I would have been in the wrong not to mention the obvious fact that people would complain that I deleted against consensus. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition

The slight problem with consistent hostility is that if the United States is consistently wrong in its actions a consistent hostility would not necessarily indicate prejudice. However, the way it is phrased also seems to imply that it is always critical no matter what the circumstances. We could just give up trying to define it and say that it is a theoretically-suggested ideological current, mostly used as a pejorative. I'm still not sure what to do to tell the truth. Tfine80 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I will get on JSTOR or some other database and see if there have ever been any academic attempts to define it. Tfine80 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

PS -- look what happens if you enter "Definition of Anti-Americanism" into Google! Tfine80 00:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That was a very interesting article. The Hollander book does seem like a key source in the attempt to classify this. I actually think that the Wikipedia article was already pretty consistent with the literature but I think we should put this sentence indicating the dispute at the top. It will save us a lot of stress in the long run. Tfine80 00:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

See this article: [4]

I agree that it is the task of encyclopedias to define things, but this term is so debated that I feel we need some sort of disclaimer in the introduction. Is it our task to finally define the phenomenon or to define how the term is used in society and academia? This could also be seen as the task of the encyclopedia, especially an encyclopedia based in NPOV. The definition you created is even broader than the previous one, which as we both agree is dangerous (especially now that we know we are getting some stupid box at the top of Google with what we put here!). We need at least a definition that clearly indicates the insinuation of irrationality and prejudice the term usually carries. I also think that this point is critical: "It is debated whether the term represents a single ideological current or a collection of different stereotypes and prejudices that have been crudely grouped together into the concept of Anti-Americanism." What are your thoughts on this point? Tfine80 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

talk page

I answered you post when I agreed to leave one photo of the gravestone in the article, didn't I? Once I consider an issue is resolved, I tend to delete it from my talk page. I didn't know you wanted a direct answer. Your post seemed not to be asking for one or imply that one was needed. FuelWagon 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, look, if something is resolved, I move on. I delete it from my talk page. I'm not trying to hide anything by that, I just have no interest in keeping around bad blood when something gets resolved. Archiving is suggested but not mandatory. If someone posts something on my talk page because they're ticked off at me, and we go back and forth and eventually resolve our dispute, then I really don't see any benefit of keeping around the angry posts that went back and forth before we resolved it. If I think it's resolved, I wipe the slate clean. If someone wants to see posts, they can always go through the history of my talk page. The only thing that remains on my talk page are post from people I consider my friends and posts from people about unresolved issues. If something gets resolved, I don't carry it around anymore. That's just the way I am. FuelWagon 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"cherry-picking supporting comments and removing criticism." Dude. You don't get it. If criticism is responded to and resolved, I delete it. If criticism isn't responded to or isn't resolved, I keep it around. If you want to keep around criticism of something you've worked out with someone, fine. I see no point in it, since being resolved would seem to mean that the criticism is no longer applicable. I don't simply remove criticism. I removed criticisms that have been resolved. I'm not just cherry picking and deleting any criticism. It's more like its my "to do" list, and I delete whatever has been taken care of. I don't quite understand this reaction from you. No one has ever complained about my talk page. If you have soemthing unresolved with me, you'll need to be a little more clear because I'm too dense to see it. FuelWagon 00:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

Tim, thank you. I'm hoping it won't come to that, of course, and that he'll decide to stop, but I very much appreciate your offer of support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)