|
User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2006
Invitation to join Wikipedia Wine ProjectWhile we share a disagreement over photos :), I nonetheless value your wine knowledge and contribution to the Zinfandel page. I would love if you consider joining the Wikipedia Wine Project to help expand Wikipedia's quality of wine articles. In particular are several discussions on the talk page (one of which you inspire :p) that you may find interesting and want to contribute to. As you can probably tell there is a lot of groundwork that needs to be laid. I hope you join! Agne 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
MBA RankingsHi, I dont agree with your reasons for deleting this article. While much of the text comes from the MBA article, I feel that this is reasonable, as it gives the pros and cons of ranking programs. I feel that this is relevant information that people who go to the MBA article would want to read. I chose the FT rankings for two reasons, 1. It is one of the two most respected rankings of Business Schools, but it includes global schools unlike the other big list Business Week, which only ranks American schools. 2. The rankings are published online, unlike the business week rankings which they charge for. I did not think it was right to publish the BW rankings on wpedia, as the list is their IP, and they do not wish to give it out for free online. I will remove the tag you added for these reasons, and I feel that this article if left online should be useful, and edited by many other users. Thus if you question the NPOV of my piece, that should change. I must also add that as a graduate (PhD) from a business school, my Alma Mater is not included in those rankings, so I have no vested interest in publishing it. Please feel free to nominate it for deletion, I hope other users will find it useful and vote to keep it. Daviegold 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Amatulic, Rather than getting into a revert war on the MBA rankings article, may I suggest that you nominate it for deletion again, and this time allow the nomination to run to completion. The prior run was too fast to give me a chance to respond, and did not wait until a moderator could decide on the outcome. I do not wish to appear argumentative, but I feel that this piece is a sidebar to the central MBA page, and thus should be a separate article. I also feel that over time it allows a history of rankings to be preserved, which the sites linked to do not store. I wrote a full piece on why I feel the article should be kept on its archived articles for deletion page, which I hope you will read and consider. Best wishes, Daviegold 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
use of "vanity"Just a friendly note regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_Spiteri. WP:COI says: "Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory." "Conflict of Interest" is now preferred. Other possible reasons for deletion of articles include lack of an assertion of Notability. Or else there is the policy trifecta of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:NOT which can always be relied upon. Cheers, Jpe|ob 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Feel free to alert other users to this policy shift as well if you wish. Good to see you taking part in AFDs! Happy editing! Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Thank youThanks for your 'third opinion' contribution re: Augustus John edits. It was much appreciated. JNW 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
help regarding Matt Tilley articleThe article is out of control. I don't believe that it is of any encyclopedic value at all. They are filling it with irrelevent material. He is a D-grade disc-jockey and yet they have padded out his article with information right down to children's names, his tertiary history, and the changing names of his radio show. I doubt his qualification for an article here, and I fear that it has degenerated into a fan-page. I do not know the processes for deletion and what not. I was wondering if I could have your help. Mike --202.164.195.56 07:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Third opinion: Wikipedia:Notability (web)The most recent revision is at [1]. This is the one I advocate for; however, another person disagreed with my revision. He supported the old version with what I believe to be very weak support. Such statements as "we don't usually separate introduction" and "WP:WOTTA," which mind you, I fixed. [2] Do you believe the current version is accectable? I will reply here. Thank you. FactsOnly 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Need Help PleaseI thought there would be no more problems. Could you please read this revision I made [3], which includes those on the list [4], as well as edits for conciseness and clarity, and honestly tell me if it is so "inferior" to the previous. It is very slight improvement with differences that does not merit conflict [5] and reverting the entire article [6]. One could change the differences they have issues with, but reverting the entire article is nonsensical. This message has gone to the two admins who took part in solving the conflicts. To gain multiple views from neutral third parties, I request that you leave this note in the "Third opinion" page, wherever that is. I also wish to know where is the "dispute resolution" page. It looks like I'm going to be using it often. Any places to prevent people -- who appear to be WikiStalker, who come out of nowhere and start attacking for the edits I make -- from reverting everything I do whould be nice as well. I would appreciate the assistance (it would take a bit of time), though you could always disregard it. —SolelyFacts 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Isis peer reviewI changed the lead of the article per your advice - see here. I just want to make sure it adheres to NPOV and that I got the right end of the stick. Seegoon 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Tadeusz KantorHi. I appreciate your third opinion contribution but, as I expected, it is being completely ignored. Here is an example of a revert in which no explanation was given for the return of "born in a Polish-Jewish family" and the removal of Kantor's otherwise relationship with Jewish theatre: [7]. I've requested a page lock, which might hopefully stir more discussion and explanation for why the website's information is being completely ignored. 141.211.216.33 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Muhammad al-DurrahHi, I noticed you often provide third opinions. There is an ongoing dispute on Muhammad al-Durrah regarding the pov of two different version of the page. I would really appreciate another opinion on this. Thanks, KazakhPol 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Georg CantorHello Mr. Matulich. I'm wondering if you can clarify your third opinion(?) on the Georg Cantor discussion page with us. Your sentence of "keep the relevant assertions in place" was interpreted by some people to mean "leave the Jewish categories despite the sources that say he was not Jewish." I interpreted it to mean "leave, in the text, both POVS that say he was Jewish and not Jewish 'but' displease both POVs by not asserting one over another." In my opinion, adding Jewish categories asserts that there's more validity in the POV of the biographers that say he was Jewish as opposed to those biographers that say he wasn't. We can't have Cantor in both a Jewish category and NOT in a Jewish category in the way we can have a person who's French or German heritage is in conflict be both in a German category and French category. However, not being in a Jewish category doesn't automatically mean the person isn't Jewish, just like Georg Cantor isn't in a Danish category, that doesn't mean he's not Danish. Putting him in a Jewish category, in my opinion, is implementing a POV over another. Can you clear up the confusion? ----Tellerman The Wedge (TV show)Thanks for your contributions on the Reaction and Criticism. It sounds much better now and not as bias.Shaggy9872004 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Help request: Linking to images on other wiki projectsI have some questions on linking to images without using external links:
Template:Did you knowYou're absolutely right. Sorry about that. The fine print was lost in me. People have been known to abuse DYK to promote their articles, and that's what I was looking out for. Apologies. I'll restore GDLT now. jengod 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for creating this article Amatulic - we needed some organic chemistry coverage there. Keep up the good work, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
RfC? (re Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong)Do you think this should go to RfC? I am not sure what to do next. --RelHistBuff 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I have left another offer. --RelHistBuff 11:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Invite to WikiProject SpamHey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
IIPM articleHi Amatulic, I have great friends in Croatia (I'm referring to your personal page) :) And they've promised to take me yachting in the beautiful (I'm told) islands off the southern coast. I cant wait! Thanks for your third opinion on the IIPM article. Honestly, you're right that both sides could do a better job of witing NPOV statements. However, I'm open to re-writing, whereas all MakrandJoshi does is revert. I'd appreciate it greatly if you could spend some time (a few days, perhaps), on the IIPM article talk page, to keep both sides honest, so to speak. Hope to see you there. Iipmstudent9 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) PS - So blogs are not citeable sources, nyet? And if a magazie is published and edited by the same person, it becomes self-published and also not citeable? That was my understanding from Wikipedia:Verifiability.
|
