|
User talk:Dev920/Archive2
FAC: Jake G.Thanks for letting me know about the fac, Im semi-active and sometimes I forget where and for what i commented. I have changed my decision to support but left a message also. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. - Tutmosis 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your feeback on the the Stormfront article. The suggested expansion in particular is a really good suggestion that I don't think would have occured to me. Although, I should point out that you mispelled the word "favor" as "favour". I swear-- you British types seem to have the worst typing skills when it comes to the English language. <giant grin> It gives me the urge to take your tea and dump it in a harbor. lol, no no. I'm not really that much of an American yokel. But let me tell you, you haven't lived until you've heard a rural American high school English teacher lecture a foreign exchange student from the UK about her lack of mastery of the English language. The class had to write a paper entitled "Why _____ is my favorite color". The teacher sat right there, in front of the whole class, and lectured the poor UK student for mispelling "favorite" and "color" throughout her entire paper, and then suggested the student be screened for dyslexia. Which, let me tell you, is so ironically sad, I don't even know where to start. Ahh, the American educational system. Anyway, in your feedback you mentioned the current article suffers from a lack of citations. Part of that problem stems from an on-going edit war we're having, that you might want to comment. We have an editor who's deleting all the citations that link to the hate site itself. The concern is that linking to Stormfront will just inflate its Google pagerank, thereby causing Wikipedia to inadvertantly promote Stormfront-- which is something no one wants (except, I suppose, for the neo-nazis). Instead, the citations are being placed in hidden commments inside the wikicode for the page. I and several others have objected to this deletion of citations, on the ground that it just makes the references impossible for the average reader to find, and that if we don't hide citations for any other sources, we shouldn't hide stormfront's citations either. Do you have an opinion on this edit war? Is the article better with the citations left hidden, or should we just go ahead and add them to the article like we do for every other article on Wikipedia? --Alecmconroy 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Noisy article recordingHi, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Is the file you uploaded the original recording? If so, it had a ton of noise, and it can't really be removed. When you try to filter noise like that, it does sound much clearer, but it leaves these eerie electronic sounding noise artifacts. So here's some tips if you haven't already tried them:
Usually it's not the microphone that's the problem... what kind of microphone do you have? Try some other ones to see if they have the same noise problem. I'm not an audio engineer, so these are just tricks I've picked up along the way. Hopefully they'll help. Good luck! ~MDD4696 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Jake GyllenhaalI'd like to support, but the writing is still choppy and vague in some areas. Never Mystic (tc) 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of WP:IAR before, but since Jimbo Wales cites it as policy, I'll overlook the writing and perhaps comment out (<!-- -->) parts that require improvement. I'm working on an actor's article too! Never Mystic (tc) 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that Gyllenhaal's article has reached FA status, what are your next projects (if you don't mind me asking)? Never Mystic (tc) 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
mediation requestI saw you're listed in the mediation cabal page, and now I'm requesting your help with a WP:EL disagreement over an actress. I think I'm dealing with a user (User:Ayashe and her sockpuppet (User:Poifect) in a revision war over Natalia Tena. The repeated adding of a 2nd fansite stopped for a while, and I thought the problem had gone away, but its back and I'm getting really sick of it. What could you suggest? Desertsky85451 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC) WikiProject South ParkI have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:
I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison Boxing stubsHI yes sorry I thought I tred using the sports bio template first but it didn't work. Nice stubs though. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Yes they will be researched later --Francesco Franco 12:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)I was amazed some of them didn't exist yet. I would like them to be like Harry Mallin or really like Leon Moreaux as a sports bio that I have done. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I think this Raul fellow needs some medical attention--Francesco Franco 12:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Your CSSHave you cleared your cache? Mozilla/Safari: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5. —Mets501 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ThanksThank you for all wonderful edits on Islam page . --- ابراهيم 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Userproject:ConservativesI saw your page User:Dev920/Userproject:Conservatives. You may well find some problems with this project as it is proposed. Wikipedians have tended to look with extreme disfavour on any attempt at "organised POV pushing". Now I know you don't want to do this, but a project which seeks to find only those users who have a particular point of view (ie supporters of the Conservative Party) is inevitably going to come under suspicion. If, however, you were to make a minor amendment and seek to find all Wikipedians who are interested in improving articles about the Conservative Party regardless of their own POV, then no-one could have any objection. For instance I am not a Conservative, and yet I contributed heavily to Margaret Thatcher and wrote almost all of Reginald Maudling, which are featured articles. Fys. Ta fys aym. 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What's this bronze star stuff?HA!! So the article made it through after all the nonsense, eh? Congratulations, kid!! It is NOT an easy process, I can tell you. Keep up the good work.--Francesco Franco 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Gay Marrages (and no questions asked...)U asked why i oppose Gay marrages, i oppose them for the following reasons:
You have significantly improved the article. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 17:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Critical reviewsWere there any critical reviews you found essential to bringing Gyllenhaal's article to FA status (ones that described his acting-style, etc.)? If so, please list one or two on my talk page. Thanks! Never Mystic (tc) 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
ErnhamHi. I read that you believed I had violated the 3RR. If that is so I'm happy to receive a punishment. However I would like to explain.
If you disagree that the first does not qualify as a revert, then yes that means four reverts and a violation. However as can be plainly seen from these diffs Ernham reverted four times. At the third revert I warned him, he went ahead and reverted. I did not follow. This shows I was aware of the 3RR and did not intend to break it. Ernham's excuse is that he was reverting a vandal - that is wholly unacceptable, I am happy to be told I am wrong but I have built quite a good reputation on Wikipedia and will not accept being called a vandal when there is no cause to. Thank you for your time. Mark83 18:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Your first 2 reverts were vandalism. Your first edit is a revert. The adminstrator in the page you opened to try and slander me went as far as to explain this explicitly, so I'm puzzled(well, sans the hyperbolic sarcasm, I'm not really puzzled; I know exactly why you do it, my little innocent "good" wikipedian, as do you.) why you continue to feign ignorance of such a things, something you have a bit of habbit of doing. "Secondly, all editors need to remember, reverts are reverts, even when they contain other edits." -- from admin Rich on the page you created, a day before you were prostrating your "it's just a regular edit" nonsense for someone you have appeared to pull the wool over their eyes. These are the facts, whether you accept them is your own issue. I tire of your games and constant attempts to smear me.Ernham 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for your efforts on behalf of my page Bereishit (parsha). I appreciate all the work that you put into the enterprise. --Dauster 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC) SupportMy guess that the only thing you cannot do is to become a Trustee of the Charity (Wikimedia Educational Resources)!!! Gordo 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:AustinNichols.JPG)Thanks for uploading Image:AustinNichols.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Just to remind you that you need at least one other person to back up an RFC before it can be "official", so to speak. – Chacor 11:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Advertising proposals in your signatureHi there. I've just realised something about the way you are advertising the "small talk page templates" proposal in your signature, and that is the way you are putting a link directly to the page. This will, in future, mess up any analysis someone might try to do by using "what links here". If you look at "what links here" for the proposal page you will see that it links to 50-100 pages, including (for example) Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI. ie. anywhere you left a talk page comment. It's not as bad as I feared, as I was expecting to see hundreds of talk page links, but I think a better way to do this in future is to create a redirect to the proposal you want to advertise (when it is appropriate to advertise a proposal in the first place), and then use that redirect in your signature. That way the "advertising links" can be kept separate from the links where people are referring to the page in actual talk page conversation. This might not be stated anywhere explicitly, but I hope you'll agree that this makes sense. Carcharoth 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine. Carcharoth 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Previous proposalAh. I just read this. I wondered what had happened to your previous proposal. For what it is worth Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics exists, and a Wikipedia:WikiProject British politics might work. Anyway, good luck with getting the small template talkpage stuff implemented. Carcharoth 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Bereishit FACTo reply to your comments on my talk page regarding the Bereishit FAC nom: The amount of time it was left on the FAC before being archived (4 days, 13 hours, and 8 minutes; when I looked at it that got rounded to 5 days) is not unusually short. 5 days is the standard amount of time I leave something on the FAC before archiving or promoting it. Typically, if after 5 days a nomination has multiple opposes and not a single support (which was the case here), I'll remove it. That was the case here. This is not intended to be a slight at you; however, the page tends to grow very quickly and it's not the place to be doing large rewrites of articles. Failing a FAC nomination is not the end of the world. I suggest that you review the feedback you got, make the changes suggested, and then renominate the article. As to the allegations you have made here that I'm ignoring you - that's nonsense. I get a great many comments on my talk page every day, and I do not have the time, energy, or inclination to reply to each of them. Futhermore, I've been particularly busy in real life as of late considering that I've got a major international conference to prepare an exhibit for due next week, and a phd thesis proposal due a month after that. However, with that said, your second comment on the matter indicated you really did want a reply, and I have been tardy in giving you one, so for that I apologize. Raul654 02:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Image:AustinNichols.JPGThanks for uploading Image:AustinNichols.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell (talk) (random) 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Barnstar help...Unfortunatly I am not a graphic designer. I am sure you will find one - good luck!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Article Creation and Improvement DriveSalam. Thanks for your attention and attempt Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Islam. I'll send some email to former wikipedians who aren't active now. Also I can introduce some reliable sources.--Sa.vakilian 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
AfD"COMMENT: Adding "strong" to your vote is utterly meaningless and does not add anything to the debate. Please stop it." I couldn't possibly agree more. Theres too much Strongest possible speedy keep etc etc as it is...Thanks --Amists 12:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Muhammad, Prophesy and Undiscussed EditsI know you made those edits in good faith, but the issue had been discussed in depth, and 3 out of 4 editors who bothered to add to the discussion agreed to keep the entry as was. To then, without discussion go and make very similar (and some exactly similar) changes undermines the whole process. It's also insulting to people who bothered to take the time to explain the position on the talk page. The editor who made the change used an explicitly POV argument--i don't think he's a prophet so therefore we can't call him that--to back one change and agreed to revert the other. Can you explain how "scripture" isn't accurate enough? True they are revelations, but the very idea of calling it scripture, which is entirely accurate from an academic perspective BTW, is not just a matter of accuracy but a matter of comparative accuracy. Sure the Qu'ran isn't identical to the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Vedas, Buddhist sutras, etc. etc. ... but none of them are identical to each other yet all are scripture because of their status vis-a-vis their respective religions. Describing any of them as scripture is a matter of comparison. It is helpful to readers, who if they read on will undoubtedly find out that the Qu'ran is both a series of verses and supposedly a series of revelations. This discussion should take place on the Islam talk page.PelleSmith 13:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the changes the way they are now. Youre right collection of verses sound a little funny. Ill think about the other stuff maybe give a vote.Opiner 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC) I think this section is too large and given undue weight in the article. The "Political and religous extremism" and "Criticism of Islam" could be very easily merged and shortened. BhaiSaab talk 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you made the Criticism section too long. No other major religion's article has any equivalent - Judaism doesn't seem to even have one. BhaiSaab talk 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be personally offended by my comments. Are you Jewish? BhaiSaab talk 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay your logic follows, but I still think there should be some theological criticism in that article. Otherwise, it's not fair. BhaiSaab talk 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject IslamSalam. I thank you for your attention to this issue but there isn't consensus about this change.[13]--Sa.vakilian 17:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Another Question: I find you eager to work on articles related to Islam. Whould you please tell me how much you familiar with it. For example: Do you read Qur'an? Do you have any believer Muslim friend? I don't want to prevent your participation. Even I'm happy to see your eagerness. But I ask these questions because we have some problems with somebody who become familiar with Islam through media. I mean what Edward Said wrote about 20 years ago:[15]--Sa.vakilian 10:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I honestly didn't mean you at all. it was a misunderstanding. I apologize--Aminz 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC) re. VandalHi. I have blocked 84.146.219.191 and 84.146.219.127 for a week, as being clearly the same vandal. Please report if the vandalism to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild continues from similar IPs, it might become necessary to block an IP range. Best regards.--Húsönd 17:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?About the LGBT Barnstar debate? Jeffpw 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC) I'm thinking somebody feels threatened by a LGBT Barnstar. I'm thinking that somebody has an agenda. I'm thinking I am about to lose my assumption of good faith. Jeffpw 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Islam criticismDev, first of all I hope you're not jumping to the wrong conclusions. I am explicitly PRO criticism pages in general, including Islam's, as I have repeatedly stated. I don't like the insinuation that I would have it removed--I say "insinuation" because you defend its existence in a response to my comment. The current rendition of the section, is much better than the one that stood for a long time, and it was the latter to which I was refering. That version contained said ambigious contextualiztion of presenting common "secular" criticisms of Islam. By the way you misquoted me. I never said anything about modern "hysteria". I only mentioned the contemporary "fervor" of criticizing Islam. Such a fervor may be justified by circumstances created by people or groups acting at least in the name of Islam, and I do not dispute that, but the fact remains that when we talk about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. we are talking about traditions of practice and belief that have existed for thousand(s) of years. What we shouldn't get seduced by is some idea that Islam has produced more to be criticized for, just because there is an overwhelming amount of criticism going around in the last few decades. Here adequate contextualization is necessary. Also can you please address the following point:
Re: referencing driveWell, seeing as a typical referencing drive should be a week (Spacecraft Propulsion has been running for well over a week), I will replace it next time there's an eligible candidate. According to current criteria, in order for a collaboration to qualify, it needs at least three people to endorse within a period of seven days. Though maybe I'll do it sooner since I'm pretty much desperate. ;) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC) License tagging for Image:AustinNicholsCasanovapremiere2.jpgThanks for uploading Image:AustinNicholsCasanovapremiere2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Re: Left?I've been far too busy lately. You have no idea. I'll get back to editing that article, but I won't be entirely free until Christmas. Never Mystic (tc) 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandal tagsThank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia! sorryI am really sorry if I irritated you (you wrote:I find it bloody irritating when people add random sections to an article I'm attempting to improve) I just added stuff, which to the best of my knowledge, is very relavent to Islam and generally how Muslims act. I think everybody in the world has a right to know the customs with which Muslim children are brought up with, but unfortunately, we only hear the bad news like egyptians teach their children to hate Jews etc., but we never tell the things which they perform as part of the religion and also as part of the Ummah without any difference. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) humm... maybe I should post this on the Talk:Islam page instead of here, but I came to your talk page to ask about this particular issue and so rather than starting a new section I'll simply reply here. I am much more familiar with the discussion structure of online forums than I am here on wikipedia, so if I am committing some sort of faux paux with this reply then I invite either one of you to start a section on my talk page and tell me about it. Dev920, my opinion is that you are falling too far twords the deletionism view point in this particular instance. I am not particularly invested in TruthSpreader's view that there must be a customs sub-section in the Islam article, but I don't believe that it should be deleted out of had either. Perhaps I can offer to be a mediator between the two views? --Ohms law 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) so, now i'm a "noob"?
I find your attitute to be less than constructive, and your assumption that I haven't familiarised myself with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia to be condisending. I suppose that you haven't started an argument with your bahavior today on the Islam page? There is some problem with User:truthspreader and my attitude, but your attitude is perfectly acceptable? based solely on the behavior that I have whitnessed from you today, you are hardly a proponent of any sort of Every TREE in SIBERIA philosophy. I can claim to be whatever I wish to claim to be, but it's the actions that I take that lend meaning to such claims. In my view, you are leaning much more twords deletionism than inclusionism to the moment. --Ohms law 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) OK, thank you for confirming how you view me. I will not get in your way, and I'll ask you not to get in my way. Thank you. --Ohms law 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC) ProjectsIll fix it right away. Thanks for the message. --Striver 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Guild MergerI've just been a little busy. I'll probably do the merger tomorrow night or on Saturday. BhaiSaab talk 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||
){kind=link}
