Jump to content

User talk:Ahoerstemeier/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Newspages

So you found the Thailand newspage! There have been a few new pages like this one. Mainly based on the fact that it scores good with the visitors. See: nl:Gebruiker:Waerth/Wikipedia_hitsparade for the number of hits per page on the Dutch wikipedia. Waerth 11:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sometimes look around the other languages to see what exists there about Thailand - that's how I also noticed that someone just started with translating the province articles to finnish. At least dutch has the advantage that I can grasp the contents roughly due to the similarities of Dutch with German. And if I come across some broken wikicode I can fix without speaking the language I am bold enough to just fix it. The idea of that news article is good, but it's also some work to keep it current - and that's even harder for someone who can only access the english Thai newspapers by web... andy 11:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks fore checking my edit on Oliwa. I had posted a message on the talk page suggesting someone check out the diff. I just didn't want the edits to sit around in case it was the same vandal being sneaky. —siroχo 21:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Arial Unicode MS

Actually the version of the font available at http://orwell.ru/test/download/ is free for use for anyone owning a copy of MS Office: just like the web fonts package can still be freely distributed even though MS has taken the links down. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 08:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PNG %28disambiguation%29

I wanted to create a disambiguation page for PNG, so navigated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG_(disambiguation), and received the "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this name" message. Instead of the "edit this page" link properly linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=PNG_%28disambiguation%29&action=edit, it linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=PNG_%2528disambiguation%2529&action=edit, which seems to be the source of the problem. Instead of "Editing PNG (disambiguation)" displaying as the title of the page while editing it, it read "Editing PNG %28disambiguation%29". It seems that perhaps the "article does not exist" page is improperly parsing the parentheses for the edit link. (This does not happen for the "create an article with this title" link on the search results page.) For whatever reason, I didn't realize the mistake until I had created the page. I hope this helps. - MattTM 08:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

That explains everything - and now I found that apparently a change in MediaWiki:Noarticletext is the reason for these pages to show up. andy 08:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George Woshingtin

Huh? What does "rv" mean? Why did you do this to my well-meaning contribution? Am I not supposed to edit here? Silver Proxy 12:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Meeting and history of Thailand

Hello Andy, it would be nice to meet you when I get to the Netherlands. On another note, Adam Carr has started deleting Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and history of Thailand articles in favour of his own. I totally object to this. His article is to small. Why can western countries have 100 history pages and does Thailand need to be handled in one page? Waerth 07:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can join the discussion at Talk:History of Thailand, both me and User:Markalexander100 also thought that we need both an overview article and detailled ones for the Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and Thonburi/Ratanakosin periods - actually you're about a month late to notice it :-). But Adam is also writing a lot new text, thus Mark and him agreed that Mark will later split and summerize the text to have both several detailled articles as well as an overview version. andy 10:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That is not what has happened look at the history of the articles and you will see he deleted the contents today! I reacted at his talk page! Waerth 11:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I now noticed he did the same he did one month ago, when both me and Mark told him the same already - and came to the agreement that Mark will later organize the new text, while leaving the separate articles alone for the moment. I left another note on Adams talk, explaining again why we need both the overview and several detailled articles. andy 11:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You can see his reactions to my arguments at my talk page. This might become a protracted discussion .... Waerth 11:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So we better put the discussion in one place instead of spreading it on now four user talk pages... Seems like something like Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board would be also useful for us Thai-enthusiasts to have a central point of discussing or organizing. Or even a Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand? andy 11:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another page to watch .... but it is a good idea, we could also get Ramendra, Bact, Phisite and others in on the discussion. Now that I have my own internetconnection I am more involved in discussions than in creating new articles. Waerth 11:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adam also created another page see: History_of_Thailand_(overview) Waerth 20:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The noticeboard is an interesting idea... For the moment, History of Thailand's talk page is probably the best place to sort it out (again!) if necessary, but if it looks like dying down there's no need to stir it up again. Markalexander100 02:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have now started Wikipedia:Thai wikipedians' notice board. andy 20:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Messier objects pictures

Oh man, oh man! Check out [1] when you have a chance. Awesome pics from the Nordic Optical Telescope. They are Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided. Put them on de:! —Joseph | Talk 04:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yepp, they look very good. But sadly the German wikipedians are paranoid about pictures which even have the slightest smell of being non-free, thus I guess that the requirement of giving the source would be too much for them already. But if you upload them here they may sooner or later find their way to de: anyway, I am already bored to have the recurring discussions on de: about images. At least I made sure that the articles on de: and en: are correctly linked with each other now. andy 07:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

symbols of Thai provinces

Hello again. I just want to know one thing about symbols in provinces of Thailand. Now in Ja: some of them are discussing templating of uploaded pictures and will neary agreed as every picture must have templates such as {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}. Well, what should be the status of the symbols, GFDL or PD? I hope it is not fair use because we are not allowed to upload fair-use pictures.... --Ramendra 15:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To be honest - I am not sure anymore. I believe that as public symbols they should be PD, same as the many flags here, but I got quite confused by a similar discussion on the status of German coat of arms on the German wikipedia. Yet I somehow doubt that there is any law in Thailand which gives them a copyright protection - but so far I hesitated to choose any of the license tags for them. Maybe we have to ask one of our Thai wikipedians if they can find anything on the status of those symbols. andy 19:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Argh I am not reading this am I ..... . I personally do not think coat of arms, flags etc are copyright. Most of them are older than 70 years anyway. Waerth 07:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, for the really old coat of arms or flags that's obviously true. The German discussion mixed the copyright (or to be more correct the German equivalent), and the Wappenrecht, which protects official symbols. Yet that one just protects the coat of arms for abuse, e.g. it's not allowed to use the coat of arms in your letterhead as it would look like it's an official letter from the "owner" of the coat of arms. But that one should be of no concern for a encyclopedia. Yet the main problem are those coat of arms created more recently, whether these have any copyright protection, or are free as they are public symbols. After more than a year of discussion in de: still no real result has shown up. And I doubt there is any real answer available for the Thai symbols, as Thailand is famous for not caring about copyright (at least until recently). andy 08:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, then I will just put {{PD}} to them. I can put them out if there are any problems. :-) --Ramendra 15:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marco Hietala

I saw that you deleted the information about Marco Hietala's second project, Tarot. Why? It is tru that he is the lead singer and bassist of that band. Please consult Tarot's homepage for more information.

Seems like that page got caught in a little vandalism war. A vandal choosed to revert all edit by User:Texture, and then he (and other) reverted back. The only question is why Texture deleted that fact at first - maybe it was by mistake when being under attack by that vandal. Maybe if you add it again now it may have a better chance to survive... andy 07:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lao font

I have another thing that I want to ask - happily not about copyright -. Because windows does not have Lao font and we are using Lao font in our articles. We maybe need guide to show how do we get font. So what font do you use when you write them? As for me I am using Saysetha Unicode. --Ramendra 15:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have Arial Unicode MS which contains Lao letters - however it has some display problems as some of the vocals aren't placed correctly on top of the consonant. I don't know if that it because of the font or somewhere deeper in Windows (I use 2000). However for most other languages that font seems to be perfect, only Khmer is missing. I haven't tried other fonts yet, as that one is the most complete, only sadly it is not a standard font in Windows, nor available for free. andy 15:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strangely, I do not have Arial Unicode MS. Thus I use This. This has no problem (about vocal), but this appears very rough especially in case letters are small. --Ramendra 19:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RE: What is the purposed...

http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=566 -- Yaohua2000 07:20, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Hallo Andi,
ich hab grad gesehen, dass Ihr in der en:WP shortcuts eingeführ habt. Sehr praktisch. Gibt es dafür einen eigenen Namensraum oder sind das quasi Artikel. Dann hör ich nämlich schon wieder die Puristen rufen. ;-) -- de:Benutzer:Triebtäter

Sind AFAIK einfache Artikel. Aber wie ich auf der technical-Mailingliste vor kurzem gelesen habe kann man wohl recht einfach weitere Namensräume hinzufügen, z.B. auch für die Portale auf de:. Ich habe mir aber Shortcuts im Browser selbst eingerichtet, da ist man noch flexibler, alles was sich bookmarken läßt kann zu einem Shortcut werden. andy 13:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maps

Ahoerstemeier - you've made an awful lot of maps. What's the copyright license on them? →Raul654 08:21, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Those of the German districts are based on templates which are GFDL - I am slowly working through them now and add the tags, see e.g. Image:Hesse hp.png. The maps I did more recently I tagged already, those I haven't are also GFDL, as I only uploaded maps I created myself. andy 13:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Romita

Hi, Andy, the Romita website is surely copyright, which makes a straight translation from it a copyvio. But I hate taking the big WP:CP stick (slap a template on! delete all the text!) straight to these cases, where it's quite likely that the copyright holder would give permission, if the article was brought to their attention. Have you considered e-mailing the webmaster or whoever? Yesterday I found the text of John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, that was listed on Cleanup on the 25, on some Rochester fan's personal website, and didn't much feel like doing the "right thing". So I e-mailed the fan instead, and he confirmed that he was the original author, was surprised but pleased to be on Wikipedia, and immediately started editing the article. :-) A really nice outcome, and all that remained to do was put in acknowledgements and a link to the original in the reference section. It's up to you, of course, and I realize a prompt and enthusiastic reply may be less likely from a town (?) bureaucracy than from a one-man website. But maybe it couldn't hurt to e-mail Romita and give them a few hours, before moving in on the article with the wrecking equipment? --Bishonen 11:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, there are sometime pearls which are too good to be simply deleted as copyvios. However in most cases what ends at wp:cp are texts copied-and-pasted from somewhere without investing the slightest work to make them fit into a encyclopedia. And Romita is somewhat similar, that one needs a lot of copyediting and formatting to become a good article. Basically what it need is a complete rewrite using the informations from that article. andy 21:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category "myrmocologists"

Why are you reverting my edits to an earlier version by... er... me? The category is mispelt and was created by mistake due to a typo when adding articles to Category:myrmecologists. It really needs ot be deleted. 213.122.193.196 23:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite simple - you blanked that category, the same way as vandals sometimes blank articles without reason. If you'd use the "edit summary" field to write "delete, mistyped category" or something similar this misunderstanding wouldn't happen. Also, we have a Wikipedia:categories for deletion, in which you can list wrong categories. Or you could have marked it by adding {{delete}}. andy 10:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Anthony is challenging your right to make speedy deletions. RickK 00:18, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • No I'm not. I'm only challenging a few speedy deletions which don't appear to fit the criteria for speedy deletions. anthony (see warning) 00:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They may be borderline to be candidates for the proposed "managed deletion" - but I see no point in keeping an article which merely repeats the the article title. If you feel bored you maybe better work through some of the 1000+ article on cleanup instead of argueing about keeping or deleting a presubstub - or write an improved version of that one (which should be possible spending maybe 10 minute with google), and we can undelete that presubstub as it's beginning. There are currently hunderts of speedy deletion candidates coming up every day... andy 07:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you reverting articles without having any knowledge on the issue e.g. how both groups are affiliated?

Because your edits seem to be done in bad faith. At least our NPOV policy is violated if you call something childish, as that is not neutral for sure. And creating a redirect Protestwarrior pointing to Stormfront instead to the correct article doesn't make your edits more believable. But for one thing you are right - I don't know anything about those two groups, thus I am merely guessing that you try to suggest that affiliation to discredit those Protest Warriors. andy 11:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
childish wasn't added by me, nonetheless I edited it as you were right about this point.
Stormfront and Protest Warrior are not only sharing the same values but also a great number of members, with the Protest Warriors leaning even more to rightwing extremism.
Apparently the Wikipedia editors are not careful enough when it comes to extremist wolves in sheep's clothing. But of course, the huge number of entries makes that almost impossible. 66.119.33.167 12:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Stormfront is a neo-Nazi organization, while Protest Warrior is a pro-freedom and pro-individualism organization; they are in complete opposition to each other. One of the slogans, found on PW bumper stickers, is "Protest Tyrants, Protest Lies, Protest Evil"; hardly a pro-Nazi slogan. If you think right-wing extremism ("economic-conservativism", "social-liberalism", libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism) is somehow related to Nazism then you apparently don't understand what right-wing means (pro-freedom, pro-individualism, at least here in the USA) and/or haven't bothered to read anything about Nazism. Nazism is anti-freedom (statist) and it is racialist/nationalist (racial/ethnic collectivism) and socialist (economic collectivism); it could also be argued that it's theocratic (religious collectivism, "positive christianity" and thulist occultism) as well. Similarly, Communists (the Soviet model), Communazis (the Asian model), and theocrats all practice all three types, with just the difference in prioritization being the distinguishing factor. Soviet-style Communists have economic collectivism as their primary, religious collectivism (enforced atheism) as their secondary, and racial/ethnic collectivism as their tertiary (sometimes, particularly during war-time, secondary and tertiary priorities get swapped). Asian model Communazis have economic collectivism as their primary, racial/ethnic collectivism as their secondary, and religious collectivism (Confucionism is especially useful for keeping a dictator in power) as their tertiary. Theocrats (modern-day Islamofascists, dark age Christofascists, etc.) have religious collectivism as their primary, racial/ethnic as their secondary, and economic collectivism as their tertiary (I dare you to find even one theocracy with a free market). Secondary and tertiary forms are generally used to reinforce the primary. Same pattern, different emphasis.
Collectivism and statism are, in the United States, the very definition of leftism. Keeping up the pretense of private property, and leaving some of the owners of businesses in charge of day-to-day operations while putting all the real power in the hands of the state, is still socialism; it's just not the brain-dead Bolshevik-style kill-all-the-people-who-actually-know-how-to-run-things socialism. Mussolini's Fascist economic system, from which the Nazi economic model was derived, was based on the ideas of Karl Marx, not those of Adam Smith. Even by the ridiculously broken European standard of the political spectrum (which somehow manages to have statist collectivism on both ends), National Socialism can be seen as leftist because it is a form of socialism. PW is as anti-Nazi as it is anti-Communist and anti-theocrat. It is the view of the Protest Warriors, as individualists, that whenever we are put into these artificial and/or nonsensical groupings of race/ethnicity, class, religion, etc., that we are being dehumanized in the process; that dehumanization has been used to commit all the great atrocities of modern times (and, it could be argued, throughout all of human history as well). It is the view of the Protest Warriors, as students of history, that statism and collectivism are inseparable in practice. It is the view of the Protest Warriors, as liberty-lovers, that the individual's rights must be valued and defended and that those who would take away those rights must be challenged. Protest Warriors believe that we're people, not drones born only to serve leftist elites, nor are we cogs built to slave in the collectivist machine of some totalitarian state. Somehow that puts Protest Warriors on the side of Nazis? PW has protested Nazis, you fool. If you have a paypal account, I'd be glad to donate a few cents towards your buying a clue. -- Rich : 24.29.127.196 05:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello??? I am not interested in political battles, so you better keep this discussion to Talk:Protest Warriors where it belongs. I hope you aim the "fool" and the "buy a clue" to the anonymous poster above, not me, as the only way I was involved in this was trying to clean up what looked like vandalism to me. andy 07:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, Andy. It was vandalism, so thank you for cleaning it up, and the "fool" and "buy a clue" were not directed at you. -- Rich : 24.29.127.196 01:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abusing Wikipedia for mere propaganda reasons while trying to hide the fact that Protest Warrior is a an extremist rightwing hate group, dedicated to the ideals of Nazism, Fascism and strongly affiliated with stormfront should get this person at 24.29.127.196 banned. 24.103.90.87 15:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

O Come All Ye Faithful

Andy, the main lyrics were written by JF Wade in 1751; there is no copyvio there. Possibly the additional lyrics, that I don't know. -- Bill 13:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the other song lyrics are a copyvio for sure. And anyway, song lyrics don't belong here normally (the national anthems are a noteable exception), if it's copyright free it maybe fit to Wikisource. andy 19:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request re: Haydes

Hi. Would you please block User:Haydes for some small amount of time? I think he is a young person who is easily agitated. I am trying to point out to him that he can use his user page for the articles about himself and his friends/relatives instead of adding Kelly's and Megan's in articles. Instead he has blanked everyone's comments on his talk page and redirected his user page to my user page. I don't think it is appropriate for me to block him after that last action so I request that you block him for some small amount of time to make things clearer to him. An hour? Let me know if you disagee. - Tεxτurε 21:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I already tried that one earlier already, and it did not help anything - he continued anonymously at first, and continues to create his nonsense and spam articles all evening now. And I deleted many his garbage article already several times, so I am not really neutral anymore. That guy seems to be absolutely determined to ignore any advice. andy 21:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In your eagerness to ban Haydes, you have caught me, and probally every other user whose ISP is AOL. Is the damage done by one vandal greater than than the loss of the large number of valid edits from hundreds of good users?Dsmdgold 01:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't blocked him! In fact I got fed up with him, and decided to clean up quietly after him next morning instead. The actual block was done by User:Raul654, after Haydes showed even more vandalism like edits than just his non-articles. andy 07:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Butterface

I see that you deleted this, yet it seems not to fit any of the speedy deletion categories - it's not nonsense or lacking substantial content. Please let me know why you think it qualified as a speedy delete rather than something which should have gone through VfD. Alternatively, perhaps you'd undelete it and list it on VfD, with your reasons? There I'd vote to delete it if it turns out not to be improved - but many dictionary definitions do get improved, which is why they aren't speedy deletion candidates. Someone has listed this on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion as well. Jamesday 05:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correction: that was a listing on votes for Undeletion, not deletion. Since I see you've been active since my question and haven't said why you thought it was nonsense and in discussions three people, including me, expressed the view that it did not meet any speedy deletion condition, equalling those who thought it did, I'm proceeding to undelete it and per undeletion policy will be listing it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Once that's done you may wish to say more about why you think it was nonsense rather than simply a short dictionary definition. Jamesday 12:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't remember for sure, but I guess I deleted it because I thought it to be a simple vandalism-like article like "Josh Gayboy" - someone wanting to insult someone who's nickname is butterface. But if it's an actual derogative term in English (as a non-native speaker I don't know them all) - well, undelete it and we have yet another not really encyclopedic article without any hope of improvement, like the thousands in Cleanup. Does every derogative term really valids an article - it just attracts the childish vandals listing the friends in them. It might fit in wiktionary, but I strongly doubt it's worth to include it here. I think that both VfD and Cleanup don't scale anymore with the success of WP, thus I think the speedy deletion rules are a bit too strict to cope with the influx of more-or-less garbage. andy 13:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GWB image

sorry, I had been clearing my cashe and rechecking the image, I guess the vandalized version was stuck in the cashe somewhere between here and florida. Gentgeen 16:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sorry about that, Sir I have just posted the releveant links. Thanks for reminding me. user: 67.106.157.231 You have reverted my edits. Please revert to the links.

That's not the view of the article. That's the link of the web site.

Unprotection

Andy, I'm unprotecting Michael Perry since it's been over a week. Cross your fingers.

please add why those site are friends and not Wikispam

Hi, I saw that you deleted twice the two links I placed in the Wikipedia,s friends. Is it not written "This page lists external sites that feature links to Wikipedia" ? So, take the time and have a look on the two mentioned sites and you will see three pages with a link to wikipedia. Don't check them with the google command because you will not find them, the reason, simple, the links have been added recently and they are not yet in the google index. So, you will find following two backlinks to wikipedia, it will save you time. I guess I have the right to link my two websites for my contribution to wikipedia no ?

http://www.gainsbourg.org/vrsn3/html/links/index.html

http://www.kookaburraprojekt.com/html/featured.html

So, the two links in question were : http://www.gainsbourg.org

http://www.kookaburraprojekt.com

Regards

David

Orthographically challenged

LOL! I'm glad you caught that. I didn't notice the missing "a" and thought someone had simply typed the page name to create an article. Now I see that someone probably followed a "Greter Manchester" red link from somewhere and was pointing out an orthographical (I love that word) error. Thank you for catching that. SWAdair | Talk 10:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually there was no such red link, I checked that directly - but I could find and fix one Greter anyway in List of towns in England. And I just love these "challenged" words since I once heard a traffic report in the US warning about a "mechanically challenged" truck on the highway... andy 11:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Policy...

Andy, I've seen Jamesday's message above, so maybe you're already aware of this, but just in case you're not: some people are lobbying on Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion to make the deletion policies more strict. Something like Vitascope should no longer be a speedy deletion candidate, in their opinion (if I understood them right)... maybe you'd like to make your voice heard over there? Lupo 11:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amphoe

I see you have continued with the amphoe a littlebit? Funny thing is since I have internet I have less time to write .... :( More busy with the policies on nl now. I should actually go back to writing. Waerth 01:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I did just one, i.e. Amphoe Si Ratcha - because I prefer to create articles where I don't need to add the {{stub}}, and I had something more than the tambon and the infobox for that one. The only other thing I did on the Amphoe were the categories, and also I prepared some more maps. And of course I continue to upload the best of my photo archive to commons... But what I spent most time recently was use templates for the german districts. andy 12:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:Mexico template.png

Image:Mexico template.png

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Mexico template.png. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 18:07, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Done - it's GFDL, I created it myself with PanMap. andy 18:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --David Iberri | Talk 19:03, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

User page protection

Hi Andy, would it be all right if we unprotect your user page, or if you do it yourself? I realize there was some vandalism, but presumably that problem has subsided now. There have been only very few cases in which people maintain long-term protection of user pages, and there are some concerns about making that a regular practice. --Michael Snow 21:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, really, it's still protected? I protected it quite some time ago when it became target from changing IPs after I protected another user page which was target before - and I thought it'll get unprotected after a week or so together with the other user page. I just didn't follow it anymore. So, go ahead and do it... andy 21:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fast deleter

You are a fast deleter! You deleted January 2005 while I was editing it to make it simply re-direct to 2005. 66.245.1.246 22:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's incredible how much garbage gets created in so short time, I guess I have deleted more than 100 articles tonight already. But now I'll have go to bed. andy 23:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User page revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. That anon's becoming quite a pest. --David Iberri | Talk 18:59, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Candidate for a new NPOV dispute image

I was wondering if you would approve of my changing the NPOV dispute icon to this:

I am no big fan of using icons for all the administrative templates, normally we should more try to avoid the need to use such templates at all - except that for NPOV disputes it'll need an ideal world to have no article use it. But maybe my dislike to icons is simply because I was a computer used in DOS days already, so I am used to spartan ungraphical user interfaces... andy 12:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Howdy and many thanks for your work on that list of mis-punctuated links. The list's pretty much completed now - I'll be generating a new version of it in due course, taking all the lessons learned from the last one into account. In the meantime, if you enjoyed working through the list (or at least found it a worthwhile distraction), you may want to have a look at the similar list of plural discrepancies which highlights red-links that might be red because they (or the article they are aiming for) are improperly pluralised. Again, thanks for your efforts - award yourself a wikimedal for janitorial services if you haven't already got one! - TB 11:28, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Thanks. I like to work through your lists when I don't have enough time or patience to write new contents on my own, and instead just to some simple tasks. So I will be proud to add that wikimedal to my userpage - seems that noone noticed my minor contributions before. BTW: You should also create an update of the interwiki link table - recently a robot added a lot of the missing ones between de: and en:, so that list should now be much shorter. andy 12:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moor Macaque

You may be right, but IUCN says otherwise. I'll keep digging to see what's what. - UtherSRG 17:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting conflicts when I search. I'll find (Schinz, 1825), but I'll also find (F. Schinz, 1825) and (F. Cuvier, 1823). Most common is the first. I think f. Schinz came from a mystype of Schinz & F. Cuvier somewhere down the line. I'll check my Groves when I get home very late tonight. - UtherSRG 17:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I searched a lot as well, and most online source simply use "Schinz 1825", and only four use "F. Schinz 1825". The one which finally convinced me that the F. should be wrong was [2] which list the actual citation as well, and "Das Thierreich" was co-edited by H.R. Schinz. Sadly I didn't find any biographical about him except his birth- and death year, not enough for a good stub imho. andy 19:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Groves says (F. Cuvier, 1823). - UtherSRG 07:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange, the year would make it volume III of "Das Thierreich", not volume IV, . Google only find exactly two hits which cite it from Cuvier 1823, while all others seem to agree on Schinz 1825. And according to [3] (google cached site, original site didn't answer) cite it as Schinz 1825, and say "Based on specimen depicted in Cuvier, 1823". So maybe that's the answer - Cuvier gave the depiction, but it was Schinz who made the description and naming two years later? andy 08:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe you've nailed it. Cuvier might have described it as a specimen of another species, but Schinz quickly (for the day) corrected him. And why "F. Cuvier" instead of "Cuvier"? Mysteries and mysteries. Anyway, I'm inclined to follow Groves, since his work is the most accessible to both the public and the scientist. - UtherSRG 13:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then we should at least move this discussion to the article talk to make it accessible for others who might stumble across it - or maybe also add our interpretation into the text. Even though I am not that happy with it as it's just (educated) speculation. You don't have the "Das Thierreich" at your hand? :-) andy

Copied the above to Talk:Moor Macaque, if anything new comes up we should discuss it there.

Muhammad

Why protect the article because of an anonymous anti-Islamic vandal? He has done this several times to Islamic articles in the past, including my user page. This guy won't discuss this in discussion. So what's the point? Please unprotect the article and ban his IP for a view days if you have to. 09:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history for that page, you will see that I am not alone in deciding that the statement that was removed, and OneGuy reverts back, is speculation that doesn't belong in a encyclopedia.
Please use the talk page to clean up that argument, I don't take any point in the discussion. I just see an edit war (which is bad), and it seems to me not like a normal repeated vandalism which would result in blocking of the vandal, but an dispute about contents. If you think I protected wrongly, you can ask for unprotection at Wikipedia:Protected page. andy 09:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
However, you should notice that this guy has a history of inserting negative spin to Islamic articles. As you can see, he even did it to my user page. The statement he removed was discussed in Talk:Jesus. It's just a fact that people think Muhammad, Ghengiz Khan, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler, etc had historical influence. There is nothing POV about that statement. And of course, in my first revert, I told this vandal to come to talk Jesus and discuss it. He never did and just reverted it back without giving reason or discussing it OneGuy 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And as you can see he went to Jihad page and started this all over again and ignored the discussion by User:Mirv completely. What's the point of discussion then? So please unprotect the page on Muhammad OneGuy 13:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Test Boilerplate

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

What is this "test" you speak of? I do not believe I have made any bad edits lately. Maybe it was someone else on the same IP?
204.60.171.230 19:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite likely, especially if you are using AOL you don't have a fixed IP address. And I cannot see any test template added by myself on User talk:204.60.171.230, which was the IP you had while you wrote the above note. andy 19:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We got mentioned on the New York Times!

Hello. I'm not sure if you're aware of this yet, but we both got mentioned on the New York Times[4]! I don't think they put in your user name though :(, they referred to you as "a German computer programmer". Oh well...that doesn't prevent you from having serious bragging rights :). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it in the mailing list as well. And the funny thing is - that Weasel speak wasn't intended :-) When I wrote that statement I just was annoyed that some of the Kerry supporters thought they can fight for more votes by vandalizing the GWB article, especially by sneaking in voting recommendations. But as I am no fan of GWB the second meaning noted by the NYT isn't alien to me :-) I guess that one deserves to get listed on my user page... andy 08:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AngryApe

About vfd'ed AngryApe, is it still time to reveret the entry on vfd page in order to avoid vote ? Aside : ": This page is 39 kilobytes long." Time to kill most of it ? :-) Regards. --Gtabary 11:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hum... Looks I got a bit of mess on the vfd page. Which explain why I understood you suggested to CSD AngryApe as opposed to vfd it. Sorry for noise. --Gtabary 11:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
AngryApe isn't a speedy deletion candidate, that was an article named Uncle Fucka (or similar). I usually don't check VfD anymore, it's a pain to edit anything there due to the size of that page. Oh yes, and I guess I have to archive my talk again, just two months and already 30k again... andy 11:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible

Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 19:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hamburg U- & S-Bahn

Thanks for the tip ...I´ll do it that way in future..Gruß aus Berlin IsarSteve 12:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something Awful Forums

Ey there, the vandalising on Something Awful Forums is getting insane the last couple hours, maybe it should be protected for a bit, almost seems as if they announced a massive WP vandalising action on one of their leet forums. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yepp. But better the vandals all go to one rather unimportant article than vandalize articles by random - those are much more likely to slip through... andy 15:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mangez des pommes!

While I agree that the link about eating apples was to be removed from Jacques Chirac, it was not as irrelevant as you thought. There was a joke about Chirac and slogans of "Eat apples!" around the 1995 election, arising from sketches in les Guignols de l'Info. That's probably somewhat difficult to explain to the non-French public. David.Monniaux 17:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Categories DO work in redirect pages

Categories work in redirect pages when you put them before redirect command. I don't see anything wrong with using them there. --Pouya 12:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quality management

Your speedy deletion notice on Quality management gave me quite a smile. Thanks for brightening my morning :-) andy 08:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, but you're missing all the good ones if you get up this early. It's usually around 3AM that my sense of whimsey takes over and I start abusing deletebecause with haiku's, non-scanning limericks and puns. --fvw* 08:47, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

TIS-620

Yes, I also noticed the existence of ISO 8859-11 a moment too late... but the two are in fact ever so slightly different, so I've linked the two together and noted the sole difference. (Which is largely academic, but hey, if something defines being anal it's documenting charsets.) Jpatokal 12:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough — but I think the redirect should be done the other way around. I've opened discussion on Talk:TIS-620. Jpatokal 12:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 20 most. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 14:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


Thai notice board

Certainly put it on the Thailand talk page. I only found the list of Wikipedians by country a few minutes ago (again by accident, randomly following links). I think this is a general issue with the Wikipedia - there's no overview of things so lots of information just gets lost.

Can we not make some template to put on the talk pages of Thai articles? It would advertise the noticeboard and a few things we're working on? --KayEss 02:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

Sometimes you revert a layer of vandalism only to find a whole new layer of vandalism underneath :-) --fvw*† 12:51, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Yes, that's the drawback of the "Rollback" function I have as an admin, then I don't need check the history to find the last good version, normally it's just the one recent edit which needs to be undone. But well, on a talk page the vandalism isn't really serious... andy 12:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahoerstemeier/Archive_7&oldid=1139095256"