This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi there. I see you've done some work on the Logorrhoea article and was wondering whether or not you had read my comments on the discussion page there. IMHO the section on rhetoric is sub-par in many ways and actually I was considering expanding the mental health part and significantly trimming the rhetoric part, which mostly appears to be the opinion of people who don't like high-falutin' sentence structures.
Was vocabulary practice. I'd just been at the L. page, and thought I'd try making myself use it (and even use the UK spelling); I usually use "prolixity"; it sounds less insulting! Heh. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice copyedits and wikilinking on Epona. I do notice one sunstantial change that might be unintentional - you altered In [[Roman mythology] to In Gaulish and (later) Roman and Gallo-Roman mythology which implies that there is pre-Roman evidence for Epona. If you are aware of any and can cite a reliable source I would be very interested to hear it. As you willsee from the talk page, I have several times reverted well-meaning Celtic mythology edits because ther is no Celtic mythology about Epona. --Nantonos22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't have any long-lost manuscript materials or anything, just general (mythology, etc.) and more specific (Celtic myth & history) books, loads of them. They generally refer to Epona as a Gaulish and British goddess. The points I would raise:
1) Widespread worship, in Celtic terms. The Roman army did certainly spread gods around in this period, but generally by applying long-established Roman deity names as fore- or aft-names to existing local deities' names.
2) Conversely, Romans were not partciularly prone to adopting Celtic deities wholesale, but rather by using the above merging process to equate them with existing Roman deities (cf. Sulis Minerva, etc., etc., etc. It seems to've been an unbreakable Roman habit!)
3) The name is clearly P-Celtic, more cognate with Greek hippo than Latin equus; cf. the alternative form, Bubona, which is also plainly P-Celtic. If the Romans adopted her from the Celts, they would most likely have taken her name in as a loanword and kept it as Epona, and this appears to be the case. From the evidence I've seen, this was very typical, with the most common Roman changes to Celtic names being to methodically append -us (or -ea, etc.) to them or simplify consonant clusters or diphthongs they found either hard to pronounce (or simply unattractively "barbarian"; cf. Boudicca/Boudiga -> Boadicea). They otherwise tended not to Latinize them in more complex ways such as the q/p distinction. [Yes, I'm aware of the more recent Insular Celtic theory; I'm just using "P-Celtic" as a bit of shorthand here, for the point that the Gauls of this period were using 'p' where cognate Latin was using 'qu' or 'c'.]
4) The Gauls on the other hand would have known her most likely as Equinea or something to that effect if she'd been a Roman goddess originally, since they would have taken her name in as a loan word; it's highly doubtful that they would have intuited the cognate morphemes, except perhaps among a tribe that lay on a trade route between Rome and Greece and had learned enough of both languages to understand their relationship to their own.
5) She simply has a Celtic character. <shrug> >;-)
6) That the Romans apprently adopted her so readily (by way of the army) is very strong evidence of widespread and unshakable, and ultimately persuasive, worship among the subject peoples at hand (cf. Mithras), which would be rather unlikey (though not impossible) had Epona been a comparatively recent Roman import TO Gaul.
7) That there is no extant Gaulish mythology concerning Epona is essentially meaningless. The Gauls were largely illiterate, and what little evidence we have about their religions that is not archaeological deduction is highly selective and skewed reporting by the Romans and Greeks. I take your point that we don't have a surviving written mythology of Epona to point to, but "surviving written mythology" is only one meaning of the word "mythology".
8) I'm unaware of any /ekw.../-named Roman (or whatever) goddess in neighboring areas that could point to a common Indo-European horse goddess; she appears to have been "home-grown Celtic" from the evidence so far (that I've seen anyway).
9) I would still insist upon Gallo-Roman religion rather than Roman mythology, or at least as the primary wikilink of the two. By the time Epona made it into "Roman mythology" it's very difficult to conceive of it as a coherent mythology at all, but rather a corruption (or to use a more neutral term, an amalgamation) of actual, historical Roman mythology with myths, legends and new beliefs imported from all over the known world. Calling the Gallo-Roman beliefs of this period "Roman mythology" seems a bit like calling Modern English "Modern Anglo-Saxon" to me.
10) To sum up, there is pre-Roman evidence for Epona. It is geographical and linguistic (and as such also deductive, yes, like archaeological evidence). So I would say: Epona was a Celtic (chiefly Gaulish but also British) goddess, and later a Gallo-Roman goddess integrated into the latter-day, melting-pot phase of so-called "Roman mythology" as an add-on, but clearly not a Roman goddess, and nor properly a goddess in Roman mythology.
11) Solution? My edit was a bit clumsy, but it was intentional and well-reasoned. I think the reasoning is clearer here (even to me!), so perhaps some compromise edit can be arrived at. I'm not wedded to Celtic mythology in the text (though I think it should remain a Category link, because "mythology" also means "pantheon", "religious beliefs", etc., depending on the context the reader brings.) I AM rather wedded to 'goddess in Celtic religion', 'Celtic goddess', or something like that, AND to 'Gallo-Roman goddess' or 'goddess in [[Gallo-Roman religion', the this term being the most apt for the phase of her worship after Roman adoption. I'm quite against 'goddess in Roman mythology' (despite having preserved that wikilink in my original edit) or 'Roman goddess', but OK with 'goddess in later Roman religion', perhaps. How about you? Maybe we can arrive at a happy medium?
I agree that your edit was well intentioned; I disagree about the reasoning. Yes, popular books tend to glibly talk of 'Celtic mythology' as if it existed at all ages and all locations. it did not. Welsh and Irish mythology, yes; gaulish mythology, no. There is no pre-Roman mythology - it was not written. (The Gauls were not illiterate, by the way - we have assorted things written in gaulish. But no mythology. There is no mention of Epona in Celtic Mythology. (See however the later Rhiannon and Macha who may have absorbed influences from Epona).
The name is, as you say P Celtic, specifically Gaulish, as the article already points out. This is undisputed. Since Gaulish was spoken up tothe fifth century, that does not preclude a Gallo-Roman origin. (Bubona is, by the way, not an equivalent, regardless of what assorted unreferenced internet deity lists might have you believe.) There are plenty of other words adopted from Gaulish to Latin, such as the words for soap, beer, barrel and ultimately another word for horse, caballos, which is why languages derived from Latin have words like cavaly and cavalcade and cheval.
The [http://www.epona.net/timeline.html timeline of Epona evidence starts in 50-75 AD. This is a full century after the conquest of gaul. Thus, there is evidence for Gallo-Roman Epona and non, zero, for a pre Gallo-Roman Epona. And certainly no mythology.
You state that the pre-Roman evidence for Epona is geographical and linguistic. this is not so. The linguistic evidence is clearly Gaulish, but that does not make it pre-Roman. The geographical evidence, in terms of Epona statuaes and dedications, is all post-conquest and primarily second and third century.
You provide some arguments that Epona was not originally a Roman goddess (ie not imported from Rome to Gaul). Agreed, and I am not saying that, so there is no ned to convince me on that point.
In sum, I'm happy with Gallo-Roman Religion since there is evidence for that - dedications, temples, etc.
You know more about the timeline than I do, so I'll concede on that and what relates to it. Other points: I said that the Gauls were *largely* illiterate, not that all of them were. It's clear that the priestly class could write, since we have the religious and funerary inscriptions. But there is no body of Gaulish literature, either because they didn't bother to make one, or it was all lost/destroyed. They obviously HAD a mythology; we just don't have it. And, I didn't say that Latin never imported any Gaulish words. But anyay, okay, I think we can agree on Gallo-Roman religion (the wikilink doesn't work the second capital R), and everybody's happy. :-) --Smccandlish
Neither your talk nor your talk history are here. I don't know things have gotten to this state so I won't try to suggest a fix. Feel free to delete this message if you wish. I'm here because I came across your edits at List of redundant expressions and would have voted to keep. :-) hydnjotalk21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a legacy condition of having been forced by wikipedia to have the username "Smccandlish" when I told it "SMcCandlish"; I don't like my name being improperly capitalized. So, when you come to my user page from the sigs I leave in Talk pages, you are going to "SMcCandlish" which redirects to "Smccandlish". If you use a URL to directly access this page that says "SMcCandlish" instead of "Smccandlish" it may not work as expected (or vice-versa; I'm reading your comment and adding my response to this page. I'm not really sure what to do about that; I don't want to create a new account (wikipedia account names are apparently case-sensitive now, so I could start from scratch and get "SMcCandlish", but only at the cost of abandoning my entire wikipedia history to date). Anyway, if you want to contact me directly about anything use this link. — SMcCandlish[talk][contrib] - 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I went thru a rename, too. The problem was that even with a redirect from Smccandlish (real username) to SMcCandlish, someone else could come along and create a real SMcCandlish account and take over my operational username. So my real username is now SMcCandlish the way it should be. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd also come to Anthony's defence here. Wikipedia supports unicode characters and modern browsers do too. Unicode is not Windows specific. Also, despite the fact the &...; markup resulting in correct renderings in any character set, they break search engines. Since all modern browsers support or can support Unicode, I too say keep using Unicode characters. Donama 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Donama13:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I concede. The actual Wikipedia documentation on how to post says to use "&...;" entity codes, but the technology (fully supporting Unicode) has clearly progressed well ahead of the documentation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ13:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: However, I am extremely skeptical of the claim that HTML entity codes break search engines. I've never seen any evidence that is true at all, and I frequently search foreign-language stuff on Google, with no difficulties despite heavy use of entity codes on non-English pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom9118:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
LCD does =not= mean "liquid crystal diode" - a diode is a solid-state device, and a liquid crystal display is not. You might begin by reading the wikipedia article on LCD. I'm not sure who the "we" is when you state that "we" do not need more acronyms - these are often the very source for redundant expressions: HIV virus, ATM machines, and so on. Denni☯18:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
D'oh! I stand corrected on the technology point; I was thinking of LED! But, that has no bearing on the edit. Please actually read the article (List of redundant expressions). It is divided very clearly into an ever-growing list of regular phrases at the top, and a static section with a few examples of acronym-generated redundancies at the bottom, and which then refers people to the RAS syndrome article for more. That is where the list of acronymic redundancies is being maintained, separately and for good reasons; they serve different purposes and necessarily have different content. RAS is a special case - redundancies that are not even detectable as such unless one has extra-syntactic knowledge. There is nothing else like this at all on the redundant expression list. It will be too tedious to explain (and too boring to read) at every such example (and there would soon be hundreds of them, interwoven throughout the list) why it's redundant and what the acronym stands for. The RAS list only has to explain that once, and everything in its list (which is formatted quite differently, to show acronym expansions instead of example phrases) is understood by that article's readers. Wouldn't happen on the redunant expression list; people would get confused (or bored) very quickly. See also the pleonasm article, which posits that a usage the typical RAS cannot truly be considered redundant, in any objective sense, if the speaker/writer does not have the "special knowledge" required to detect the redundancy (either what the acronym stands for or that it even is one at all) - it is only redundant to a reader/listener that has the special knowledge. This is another reason that RASes are mentioned AFTER the rendundant expression list, with a cross ref. to their own article. And, to get back to what was mentioned above, the examples in the redundant expression list require no special knowledge to detect their redundancy other than a simple understanding of word definition/usage. No etymology is required by anything on the list (acronym expansion is definitely a form of etymology.)
PS: The "we" meant "editors of this article", narrowly, and "anyone who reads this article", generally, and "the world at large" in the broadest sense. Who else could it have meant? :-)
Yes, I guess I should also learn to RTFA. I've moved LCD to its proper place. I agree with you that this should not be an exhaustive list - like Euphemism, it ought to contain only the most common terms. As it currently stands, though, I don't think it's unwieldy. Sorry for sounding cranky in my first post. Denni☯16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case I'm tempted to remove one of thean existing onesthen. "If you're allowed to make the acro. list longer in that article, then so is everyone", if you see what I mean, and we'll end up with 800 of them. For this article in particular, these examples should be based on commonness/recognizableness. How often is "LCD display" said/written compared to "PIN number"? Much less. Is there an example presently in that section even less common than "LCD display"? If so, let's nuke that one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"PIN number" gets ~2.8 million hits on Google; "LCD display" gets 21.1 million. Looks like "LCD display" is a tad more common. --SigPig07:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just an artifact of the usage pattern. "PIN number" is something people say out loud rather than write/type, 90+% of the time; "LCD display" is naturally going to show up again and again, hundreds of times, in product literature, geeky message boards, online catalogs (almost certainly the reason for the large number of hits - no one is selling anything with built-in 5" color PIN numbers!), and so on., for every time that someone says it out loud. I'm highly skeptical of the utility of Google searches to establish "commonness" except when the context, usage and nature of the search term(s) makes it very clear that the results can be trusted. For example, if you do a search for two different motherboard serial numbers, the Google results are in fact likely to tell you which is the more common. By contrast if you search for li'l, little, lawr, law, guzinta, and "goes into", the results tell you nothing useful at all about how English is actually pronounced dialectically. :-) Google is a fantastic hammer, but not all statistical questions are nails. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ05:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
NIC card
Resolved
Hello! On one of your edits you removed "NIC card", stating "Removed another constructed 'NIC card' example; I do not believe anyone actually says that". I can tell you that as a former NCO in charge of an ADP cell, that's all I ever heard them called by the techies (the noun "card" was included in the description of all cards, even if subsumed already in an acronym, thus graphics cards, sound cards, SCSI cards, NIC cards). As well, Googling "NIC card" (with quotes) nets you about 624,000 hits. So I believe you may be in error in deleting this. --SigPig05:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I believe you. Never heard it myself (mainly because no one I know, not even technical people, call it a "NIC" OR a "NIC card" or a "network interface card", they just call it a "LAN card", a "wireless card", an "AirPort card" [Mac people...] or a "Network card". So I take back that it was just a constructed pseudo-example - it's clear from your deets that people in the industry say it. It doesn't really add anything to either article I edited it out of today, though. In the pleonasm article, which is already long and example-heavy, we only need a handful of examples of each variety, exception, effect, etc. that it talks about. In the List of redundant expressions article, the Acronyms section clearly says it's just some examples and to go see the [[RAS syndrome] article's own list for more. I think it would be a grand addition to the RAS Syndrome article's list, though. Just checked; it's already there. — SMcCandlish[talk][contrib] - 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, RAS syndrome is a better place for it, and keeping the recursive acronynms on "List of..." to a minimum is a good idea. Tks for the prompt reply. --SigPig05:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You betcha. :-) PS: Sorry if the Edit summary sounded harsh; there have been a bunch of genuinely bone-headed edits to both articles in the last month, all of which I dealt with today, and I think I was getting cranky toward the end. Heh. — SMcCandlish[talk][contrib] - 05:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wholesale reversions
Resolved
Whatever major revert I made, I did so unintentionally while RC patrolling. It was a mistake and didn't have anything to do with content. I apologise.--Conrad DevonshireTalk07:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I replyed to your message on the Esperanza talk page, directing you to WP:ESP/FAQ, as I think that might help you understand us a bit. I left a longer message on the talk page if you're interested, but FAQ might be all you need.
Thanks for the link. However I think you may be missing my point. Whether I personally understand Esperanza is of little consequence. Whether your materials adequately convey what Esperanza is about in general (w/o people having to go look for a FAQ) is far more important. It takes literally about 20 seconds of reading to have a pretty full picture of W:Concordia. After over an hour, I'm still confused about what the point of W:Esperanza really is, if it even has a consensus one at all. I'm not the only one to be getting a spine-tingling "Is this like Scientology or something...?" chill. That's a major "marketing" problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree you with you on that point (The one about how long it takes to found out about Esperanza, though lots have been said about the image by lotsof others). I put on the talk page sometime ago a note about simplifying and making the main page more clear, but with the redevelopment that we're going through, we've still not round to it. Hopefully things will settle down a bit soon, and then we can, as a group with maybe some outside help as well, figure out a way to better portray ourselves.
I also want to thank you for your comments. I have a feeling that this all will turn out to be very helpful with the course Esperanza takes in the comming months.
Keen. Let me know when that time comes, and I will try to help with that. I come from a PR background, so word choice and connotations are things I'm very familiar with at a professional level. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out for stuff, but I fear that it may take someone from a military or police background. A piece of equipment doesn't get accepted by SWAT teams or US commando units without extensive testing and reports and such, but these aren't likely to show up on the Net unless there's something controversial about them. In the interim, isn't there something that can be done for the basic rifle model's entry? Two of the others have extensive stats; seems kind of funny that the common one doesn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... I do not work for Corner Shot Holdings, Inc... that wasn't astroturfing... I just saw the gun on Future Weapons and thought it needed a Wikipedia article. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs)
<nod> I wasn't the one that posted the "astroturfing" edit; in fact, I reverted it as non-NPoV vandalism. :-) If you're responding to the comment in the Edit summary on that reversion, I didn't mean that I agreed with the anon. poster that I really thought astroturfing truly was going on (though I did *initially* suspect that; cf. my earlier comment that the article looked like "autobiography" in WP terms), just that I agreed with the underlying sentiment that the article as a whole read like a brochure. This is much less so now, due to the last day's worth of editing work by everyone. In fact I'd be comfortable with removal of the POV dispute template at this point - the stuff that was purely subjective marketing claims is commented out, and things that need 3rd party citation have been {fact} flagged, and that's good enough to alert readers to questionable facts, IMO. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, that's what I did! As for case, I've seen several shortcuts that aren't all-caps, though I guess that doesn't mean they'll be around long - most of them DO seem to be all upper-case.) I'll remove LoG and change Guidelines to GUIDELINES, but leave the existing WP:LoG and WP:Guidelines redirects in place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ11:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[I asked him to go vote on AfD's for two related wannabe articles after mentioning support for their deletion, on a talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ]
Hi. My subpage was just used to compose a first draft before posting the proposed guideline. It was made into a project page the same day, and is here.--Fuhghettaboutit15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Then can you remove the active category link on the subpage or something? The point was, if you are in the 'Wikipedia notability guidelines' category, this page appears there, and if you go to it, it says (or said) that it's a Guideline, which it isn't. So, it either shouldn't say that, shouldn't be in the category, or probably both. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Too late, within seconds of your change, I blanked that page entirely, and struck out the link on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) and added a link to where the proposal is. I'm not sure why it was propagating into the category—I had nowiki tags around the category link. Oh...I bet the guideline template has an internal category link. Academic now.--Fuhghettaboutit16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of plain curiosity, I'd like to see evidence of that, specifically that the passage in question was present and substantively identical to its current wording at the pont of transition from a draft Guideline on book naming conventions to a non-draft one. But it's a moot point. It is almost ludicrously inappropriate for a non-controversial guideline on naming conventions to have a totally off-topic rider in it that attempts to set a guideline in one of the most hotly-debate spheres of Wikipedia, namely "notability". If this rider was present in the original draft naming convention for books, it is entirely possible that the only reason it survived is precisely because it was a hidden rider - few who would have any reason to object would ever notice it and weigh in. If it ever represented any form of consensus at all it was only a consensus among people who a) care about book naming conventions, and (not or) b) either support the vague notability rider, didn't notice it or didn't care either way. Ergo it it not a real Wikipedia consensus at all. But even this is moot. The existence of an active push to develop Wikipedia:Notability (books) demonstrates that there is in fact no consensus at all, period, that the notability rider in the naming article is valid. If it remains, I'm taking this to arbitration, because I believe the presence of the rider to be deceptive and an abuse of the Policy/Guideline formulation process and consensus mechanism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You reverted the *consensus* version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria to the version you had proposed earlier today. That version of yours is not consensus, and you knew that when you reverted. For guidelines one needs a new consensus for major changes. Yours was a major change. It had no consensus. So I'm posting this warning on your user page, and will then proceed to revert the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria section to the version that had consensus when that became a guideline about half a year ago.
Cute, but a total misdirection (as to at least three claims, of consensus, my tacit agreement that consensus existed, and new edit not reflecting consensus, and possibly a forth, as to edit scope. I do in fact dispute, in more than one way, that the section in question represents any meaningful consensus, for reasons already stated and evidenced. I contend that it is someone's "pet" section and removable as such; that it is an off-topic insertion and thus subject to removal on other grounds; and that even if it had some merit at one point it has been superceded by the current Wikipedian editors' consensus on this topic (which is that the topic needs a Guideline, period, so one has been started as a Proposal; notably it is not a consensus that the rider needs editing and improvement; rather it is being replaced, to the extent its existence has even been acknowledged. To continue, I further assert that removing the rider would in fact be a consensus move. Wikipedia:Notability (books) would not be well on the way to becoming a Guideline if there were any consensus that the off-topic notability rider in the naming guideline already had any consensus support whatsoever. It is very notable that no one has proposed a section merger or in any other way addressed the rider as valid or worth even thinking about. It is simply being ignored. And I assert further that it is at least questionable whether it is a "major edit" to remove a small section that is more adequately covered by another article (whether that article is considered "finished" or not) that has a lot more editorial activity and interest, and replace the redundant section it with a cross-reference to the latter, as I did.
The fact that no one has even touched the rider at all since Jan. strongly supports my points that a) virtually no one who cares about notability of books is aware of it, got to debate its inclusion, or even considers it worth working on or authoritative in any way, because the topic of how to define book notability is generating quite a bit of activity on the other article; and therefore b) it reflects no consensus on the topic of book notability, period. Which is what one would expect, given that it's buried at the bottom of an article about spelling! I also dispute the notion that an approved Guideline on [Topic A] is also an approved Guideline on unrelated [Topic B] just because it happens to mention some ideas relating to how to deal with [Topic B]. If you are aware of another example, I'd love to see it.
PS: I'm posting most of this, with further (case-closing, in my opinion) facts, references and evidence, on the article's talk page, since otherwise the debate won't affect anyone's views other than yours and/or mine in User talk.
Months later, the points I raised were never refuted or even questioned at the talk page in question, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) is well on the way to becoming a Guideline, meanwhile Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria was nominated two more times for removal, with the unanimous support of those who commented, and was replaced with a wordy wikilink to Wikipedia:Notability (books). I rest my case. One may wish to actually look into establishing what consensus really is on whatever matter is at hand before presuming to lecture others about it. PS: The abuse of {{Test2a-n}} on my Talk page (it is intended, and instructed, to be used in series with {{Test1}} or a variant thereof) was very heavy-handed. I'm leaving it up instead of archiving it, because I think it says far more about abuse of the label "vandal" than it does about me. >;-)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a lot of material there, too much to respond to in any depth here. I'll add some random comments as I skim it: Many Turks and Turkic people (in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Cyprus, etc.) do consider themselves European, and Turkey is seeking admission to the EU. "Caucasian" has more than one use; it is commonly used in the US to mean "White person(s)", but in Europe generally means "person(s) from the Caucasus Mountains area". "Caucasoid" is perhaps a better term for "White race", but some people have issues with that too. How did Caucasians (in the US meaning) wind up in Europe? Migrated in from Central Asia. That much is pretty well established. However there were already indigeneous populations that are believed to have been similar in complexion to, probably, modern Mediterraneans to Arabs, i.e. swarthy. Their origin is disputed - they could be descendants of the first Cro-Magnon peoples to enter the area from northern to central Africa during the Ice Age, to compete with the Neanderthals for it. They could be a later migration, perhaps again from central Asia. Maybe both - there's no reason to assume they were all one ethnicity. There's not enough evidence to be sure. The Saami and Basques are the only somewhat genetically preserved enthicities from before the Indo-Europeans, in Europe, though the Irish and Scots may have significant Pre-I.E. genes, and the Hungarians and non-Saami Finns who still speak non-I.E. languages probably have a fair amount as well. Did Caucasians originate in Europe; well no, no one did, or at least we have no evidence other than all of humanity (H. sapiens) radiated out from Africa if you go back far enough; even Asians. Later migrations I've already discussed a little. Are C.'s native anywhere? Kind of a moot question. They are *historically* native to everywhere from Europe to India; prehistorically we have evidence of a cultural orgin in central Asia, though this doesn't say anything about when and where they might have started looking recognizably different from their neighbors. Why are the Caucaus "important"? It was theorized that this was where Caucausians originated, at least as far back as we can trace them in the archaelogical records, so they were named after the area. I think the current theory is even farther east as this point, thus the more current term "Indo-European" (or Proto-Indo-European, even). Why does C. history seem to start with the Greeks? "Seem" is the operative word here; you just seem to be unaware of the prior material from all over the Near and Middle East to India. If you want to limit the question to European history, there is also more than just the Greeks, but the Greeks (which is a misnomer - Ancient Greece was many different cultures, languages and ethnicities, most of them constantly at war with each other and with easterners like the Turks and Persians and Arabs and so on) - were the first in Europe and the Near East to create literature in any volume that has survived to the present day. Our early European history focuses on Ancient Greece because that's mostly what we've got to work with. There is no vaccum it is bursting out of. There are numerous other written traditions, in scripts like Linear B and Egyptian hieroglyphics and so forth that are contemporaneous. The Greeks reported on happenings outside their lands, e.g. in Persia, and their neighbors to the east mention Greek events in their own histories, etc. You are simply under a false impression that "frist there was silence then there was all this Greek history all of a sudden", as it were. "Whites bent on dominating mankind": Domination of the [known] world has been the aim of every empire in history, including the Ethiopian and Egyptian Empires (African), and dynastic China to name some of the major ones. China under Ghengis and Kublai Khan was constantly warring westward, after uniting pretty much ALL of central and eastern mainland Asia, just as earlier Alexander the Great had been warring Eastward. Conquest is a human, not honkey, drive. Hitler? Yeah, well look what's happening in Africa today and for the last two generations. The same genocidal bullshit, mostly African of one ethnicity against Africans of another. It doesn't take white skin to make a racist madman. No comment on the theories of Guthrie; not familiar with them. No comment on Van Loon; I don't see what relevance a children's book has. No comment on Elijah Mohammed - I don't trust the veracity of any religious text, whether it's the Q'ran or the Old Testament or whatever. Simply has no relevance to the question (likewise, I wouldn't cite an archaelogical report on issues of faith or morality; apples and oranges). Farrakhan has ministerial credentials, but he's not an archaelogist or physical anthropolgist, so I don't see what his ideas have to do with the questions you're asking; they just repeat, and make socio-political points (several of them quite valid) based on, Biblical-era folklore about "beast men". Next. "Only white people were cavemen" - this is silly. White people haven't even been around as long as the last Ice Age from what we can tell. Everyone was brown once. Thus, so were all the cavemen, by definition. Not much else to say really. You clearly have a solid agenda of your own, informed by a lot of reading, much of which to me sounds quite suspect because its based on documents of religious faith, and on simple assumptions that aren't true (e.g. no European culture before the Greeks), not on verifiable facts like archaeological and genetic evidence, or even a thorough understanding of known written history, modern scientific investigations aside. Please do not post any more troll messages on the albinism article. The stuff you want to talk about is more appropriate for the race, white people, etc. articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well sry im christian, and he(deen) brang up greece becuase he was imply that they didnt learn anything til egpytians came and thought them (since supposedly greek mythology comes from egpytians religions). And i posted on albinism cuz what i was asking had to do with it....
I was under the impression that you (Dean) and he (DEEN) are the same person; sorry if I'm misconstruing something. Anyway, with Greece and Egypt and really the whole rest of the Ancient world, it's quite a bit more complicated than that. Even in the Bronze Age there is evidence of extensive trade between Greece (and the Mediterranean in general) as far away as Britain. So of course there was all sorts of cultural exchange going on in the Mediterranean itself (some peaceful, via trade, some not so peaceful of course). Its an error to think of the religion of the Greeks as simply derived from that of the Egyptians (just as it is a mistake to think of the Old Testament as a ripoff of Babylonian and other mythologies). There are commonalities and clear influences, but much of the Greek pantheon and mythology is native to the Greeks, and indeed to the Indo-Europeans. There is pretty much a one-to-one mapping between major deities in the Greco-Roman pantheon, the Norse, the Celtic, Indian Vedic, Persian Zoroastrian, etc., etc., for a reason - all of these peoples are related, and they clearly had a very well-developed religion way back in their "Proto-Indo-European" origin in Asia, or their religions would not be so similar. Actually it's more of a "one-to-a-few" mapping in practice, because the local religions diverged over time. For example, the Norse god Thor as a thunder god (he had other roles as well) is comparable to Vedic and Zoroastrian Indra, Greek Zeus and Roman Jupiter, but in Continental Celtic (Gaulish) religion appears to have forked into Taranis or Leucetios (thunder & lightning gods, in different regions) and Sucellus (a hammer-bearing god of prosperity who is depicted almost identically to Thor with his hammer and Zeus/Jupiter with his sceptre, but has a different role in the local mythology); meanwhile Jupiter & Zeus as father-gods instead of their role as storm gods, are closer to Norse Tiw and Vedic Dyaus Pita (compare Ju-piter — the Dyaus, Ju- Tiw and Zeus all come from the same root, also the same as Latin Deus; they all mean "god"; -piter and Pita are, obviously, "father".) Just some examples. The point being, there is a great deal of clear evidence of a well developed I.-E. religion and meta-culture from Ireland to India. It was certainly syncretic and absorbed influences from other cultures readily, but the view that Europeans were simply a bunch of beastly un-people until educated by the "African" Egyptians is untenable (and the Egyptians generally appear to genetically be a mix of Berber and Arabic people anyway; ancient Egypt seems to have only been African inasmuch as it eventually absorbed lands from Kush and Nubia into the Lower Kingdom of Egypt, and thereby gained a Black population is did not originally have; the various Ethiopian-area kingdoms of Nubia and Kush fought off the Egyptians and others for quite some time). Such "barbarian" views of early Europe are common, but I for one don't see them as any different from the white supremacist ideas behind everthing from neo-nazism to the historical British, French, Italian and Portuguese collonialism - both views are that other people are lesser and must necessarily be "civilized" by a "better" culture. To say as "DEEN" does that Europeans were just a bunch of ignorant savages (based on questionable interpretations of Biblical-era tall tales, or should I say tails!) is also to say that Persians and Indic people were also just a bunch of savages, because their cultural, linguistic and genetic origins are the same. I doubt that anti-European pundits understand they are actually insulting about 1/3 of the world's population, including millions of decidedly brown people, when they make such claims. :-)
PS: I'll clarify my "trolling" comment; I didn't mean to imply you were intentionally trolling. Rather, it's just kind of common knowledge that if you bring up issues of racial origin suddenly in forums (such as Talk pages) that are not about racial issues, it usually starts flamewars. Race is a hot-button issue to people all over, regardless of their ethnicity. That was why I responded to you so quickly over there with a just-the-facts reply and moved the discussion to User_talk.
He contestado sú mensaje en mí pagina de discusión. I don't understand half of what you are saying on es:Discusión:Ley de Wilcox-McCandlish, the automatic translator can bake no bread from that. I just hope you don't mind my drastic shortening of the page title, which I stole from the english under the GFDL. I forgot to trasladadate the discussion page along with it, so you had to create a duplicate: disculpas. I've had the original {destroyed}. You will probably not find anything useful here. Saludos. — Zanaq (?) 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I was always told that it comes from the French "Jaime" (there may or may not be an accent mark over that "e" in the original French, I'm not sure), rather than the Hispanic one. I'm pretty sure this is correct, as the name "Jaime" in French is both feminine and pronounced much more closely to the English "Jamie" than the Hispanic "Jaime" is. Supporting this assertion, further, is the fact that in Hispanic culture "Jaime" is a boy's name, whereas in French-speaking cultures, it is usually a feminine name; and in America, at least, the spelling "Jaime" is almost exclusively used for girls (I should know; I'm a girl named "Jamie", and people are ALWAYS trying to spell it "Jaime" - sometimes my own friends have forgotten and spelled it like that!).
"Jamie" in American culture has also been gaining widespread usage in recent years as a gender-neutral name (see: my own name, Jamie O'Neal's name, that woman who played Wonder Woman, etc.), and has been used more and more each post-Feminism decade as a girl's name (though it may or may not be as popular or moreso as a boy's name in that spelling; I haven't checked). For instance, the woman who played Wonder Woman on TV in the 1970s had the first name of Jamie. However, this doesn't really just seem limited to Americans, contrary to what the listing on James says; for instance, Jamie O'Neal (who though she did change her surname, did not change her given name), a relatively famous female singer in country music circles, is actually originally from Australia. In contrast, however, there seems to be no movement in America to de-feminize the "Jaime" spelling; I've never met a person named that who was male and not Hispanic as well. ;)
I think the entry should reflect that in the UK "Jaime" is more often than not a male name, and comes from French, and that in America is usually a female name from the same source, except in the Southwest where it is fairly frequent as a man's name (yes, most often Hispanics, but not Spanish speakers, pronouncing it jay-mee, not hai-may) and comes from Spanish. I've lost interest in the article so I'm unlikely to make the edit myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms
Resolved
I wish I had known you could make internal article links in the shortened format you used! I made probably 450 of the 500 links by hand over time (nodding head in chagrin). I hope you used a search and replace function in a word processing program for that edit. Thanks for that and additions. I had been meaning to add a definition for the big ball concept, as I play a huge amount of three cushion, but hadn't gotten around to it.--Fuhghettaboutit21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, today is the last day of the the 2006 Sang Lee International three cushion tournment at Carom Cafe in Queens, New York. You can watch a live video feed at http://caromtv.com/home.html. All the best players in the world are there. I just checked and Semih Sayginer is playing someone (didn't watch long enough to see who). I just tried to link Semih's name and am shocked to see we don't have and article on him. Shows you how poor our three cushion coverage is. He is, after all current ranked #3 in the world.--Fuhghettaboutit21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see, he's giving an artistic billiards exhibition. He's by far the best in the world at that!--Fuhghettaboutit
Overall cuesports coverage on Wikipedia needs a lot of work. I mean, heck, we only just a few weeks ago split the shot-type terminology list (or whatever it was called) out of the main Billiards article. The wretched inconsistency of terms relating to eight-ball and nine-ball is driving me nuts. See my User page for a link to a draft I'm working on to deal with this (its presently phrased as a post to Nine-ball's Talk page, but I think I'll do it as a Guideline proposal instead now that I've worked it up with a quite a lot of detail and reasoning. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a very interesting and well thought out proposal and I would support it. By the way, I wrote pretty much every word of the "shot-type terminology list" now forked out to Billiard Techniques (with horrible and completely incorrect additions and a removal of logical text). When I first stumbled on billiards as a brand new user it was in a sorry state (not that it isn't now), and rewrote it. The glossary, also forked by a different user is mostly my text as well. The thing is, I live and breath billiards in real life. When I first came here I was appalled by the poor coverage and thought I would spend my time writing hundreds of player profiles, etc., but after an initial start, I have mostly concentrated my efforts elsewhere. Sometimes you want to get away from subjects you are very close to. Since you seem knowledgable (unlike many of the contributors who have been involved in the area) I'm glad you're involved.--Fuhghettaboutit22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been my experience that if you consistently revert stupid edits, and justify them (in Edit Summary, or if necessary on the Talk page) they tend to stick around, and dumb edits will go down over time. Vigilance! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Article getting broken up
Resolved
Hi Mr. McCandlish,
I noticed on the Association of Mergist Wikipedians page that you're a mergist, too. I have been writing an article about the letter t, but editors have begun to break it up into nonsensical entries, like Abbreviations and symbols of T. So, I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor and possibly give your opinion here? If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.
I've looked into it, but so far I agree with the edits made thus far. Sorry. I think the disambiguation stuff does belong on a disambig. page. The "70K is too big" ranter, I am a little concerned about. If it gets out of hand, let me know and I'll see about weighing in. Not that I bring all that much weight with me, mind you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ22:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Three-ball
Resolved
Actually I'd seen the new page creation in Special:Newpages and noticed it'd been a copy/paste move. Unfortunately moving the page in this way destroys the history of the page. It's not a huge problem, but strictly speaking it does break the terms of the GFDL. I've corrected it, but for the future, it's better to make use of the "move" tab at the top. Happy editing! GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point! I'd completely forgotten about that. Out of practice, I guess! Thanks for fixing. Did my replacement of the old, sparse article text with the new comprehensive text, after your fix, break anything further? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had a vested interest in that article, being the co-author of its subject. But I want to object to the deletion on several grounds. Please note that as directed in the AfD materials, I am disclosing that I am a principal author/editor of the article in question and have a personal interest in its outcome.
I have not moved for an official undeletion via Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion review at this point. Wikipedia:Deletion process says "If you disagree with a decision, please discuss it with that user", and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy reaffirms this with "Discuss the deletion in the first instance with the deleting administrator if you are concerned that a page may have been wrongly deleted." So, I am making a well-informed and good-faith effort to do this correctly.
The justification is lengthy, so I've posted it on my own talk page here so as not to clutter Yomangani's talk page.
"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer..." - That is my contention, on three levels: 1) The debate was interpreted as having come to a consensus, which is implausible in several ways, as detailed below; 2) the debate does not appear to have been treated by the closing admin as a debate of points to be examined for validity in forging a consensus, but as a simple tally of (hardly any) votes; and 3) if the "votes" are actually examined for validity under policy, they are not generally valid, for reasons touched on below but most saved for later discussion.
"Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" - Being a bit of an inclusionist, I firmly think Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia, by definition, for any additional article it has that is factual, regarding any topic that users of WP could reasonably be interested in and about which an encyclopedic article can be written, and which is not more properly a subsection of another article. Deletionists may not agree with this, in whole or in parts, but they have not sufficiently justified why they believe that WP would be better encyclopedia WITHOUT the article in question, and the burden of proof is on them, not on the editors of the article.
"A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD)" - I certainly was not. From what I can gather, it's considered poor form to AfD an article without notifying directly the regular, maintaining editors of said article. No good faith attempt to get both sides, just a one-side deletion campaign against an article unlikely to be seen to have an AfD template on it by its editors, because it doesn't change (isn't edited, or viewed) frequently enough by the regular editors for the AfD to have been noticed.
"or because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." - I wasn't aware of the AfD at all until almost a month after the fact, and would certainly have objected on several bona fide grounds (I won't go into them here; that should be for another AfD discussion after the article is restored), ergo I've been "improperly ignored" simply by virtue of the fact that the AfD was done in a seemingly sneaky manner by the nominator for deletion, preventing me (and anyone else interested, such as the original creator of the article, which was not me) from weighing in. Furthermore, the talk page did in fact solicit opinions on whether the article had any problems that needed addressing, and also noted attempts to already address concerns raised to that date, and received no response from those who (marginally) carried the AfD to a Delete conclusion; ergo I was in fact "improperly ignored".
"Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: ... Article needs improvement: List on Wikipedia:Cleanup" - Was not listed on there.
"Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: ... Article is biased or has lots of POV: List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention" - Was not listed on there.
"Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: ... Dispute over article content: List on Wikipedia:Requests for comments" - Was not listed on there.
"Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: ... Can't verify information in article: Follow the procedure on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If that doesn't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." - Procedure was not followed. Unverifiability never established, thus deletion improper unless justifiable under some other Policy-level criterion (which it wasn't.)
"Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: ... Any problem with a community-accepted policy or guideline page...: Make the proposal on the talk page, seek comment in community discussion areas." - No such proposal or community comment took place.
"If in doubt, don't delete." - Given that ONLY FOUR people responded, none of them were regular editors of the article, and one was even positive, and had I been aware of it there would have been at least two positives, there very clearly is doubt. By contrast, I did some quick math: I picked a random AfD archive page of deletions, and counted the non-comment "votes", for each deleted article that was not closed because it had been already deleted by some other means (copyright speedy, etc.), added them together and then divided by number of deleted articles and came up with 12.33 "votes" per deleted article on average; counting comments (which have as much to do with consensus building as so-called delete/keep "votes", the number would be more like 20 per deletion on average. Many had over 20 "votes", too. Those seem to be reasonable numbers to approach consensus-building (after invalid arguments, sock puppets, etc., are ignored, and legit pro and con concerns are actually weighed in the balance instead of counted as actual votes). Not 4! (NB: The most obvious comeback is that if only 4 people responded not enough people cared for it to be "notable", but alleged non-notability by itself is not deletion-actionable, and more to the point, non-controversiality is not the same as non-notability or lack of encyclopedic worth. See also note above regarding how the fact that the article is infrequently edited made it unlikely that those editing the article would notice the AfD.)
"The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." - It was treated exactly as a vote, from all available evidence. Even despite the lack of notice to contributors to this article, one of the four respondents did in fact raise pro arguments, for keeping the article, which were not addressed at all by deletion proponents.
"Also, please read the earlier comments and recommendations. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information." - Didn't happen. I had already acknowledged some of the problems with the article, on its Talk page, that were later used as the excuses for the AfD but without any of the deletionists responding on the Talk page to my requests for comment/criticism/suggestions for resolving those problems (if seen as real problems). The article opponents simply skipped all consensus-building and article improvement steps and shot forward with an unjustified AfD.
"Also, please see this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy regarding notability. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Non-notability may also prove helpful." - As usual, the general reason for support of this AfD was non-notability, but the policies and guidelines referred to there make it very clear that non-notability is not in and of itself an actionable criterion for deletion (it's simply abused on a frequent basis to justify DELETE "votes" in AfDs; wise admins ignore such "votes" if their only justification is non-notability.
"Click 'what links here' in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia." - This does not appear to have been done. The article in question was cross-referenced from several other articles on related topics. This didn't seem to be noticed by anyone, despite it establishing that the article is of relevance and value in WP, and no one even bothered to clean up the broken link mess left behind by the deletion.
"Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted." - Again, doesn't seem to have happened. I was actively soliciting comment on whether anyone thought there was anything problematic about the article.
"Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." - Didn't happen.
"If the consensus so far was to delete, but it is requested that a page be userfied, then typically the page will be moved into the user namespace." - This option was not even presented, to me or any other editor of the article.
"Do not delete a page containing a personal essay or other content from the main article namespace without first posting a copy elsewhere (e.g., in a different namespace or on the meta), unless the content is simply vandalism...[and] a good faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article, no matter how poorly worded, biased, or otherwise flawed, will not be considered vandalism." - I don't concede that the article in question constitutes such a personal essay, though this is the gist of the AfD nominator's argument. If as the deleting admin you (apparently) concurred with the nominator's view, then the deletion was inappropriate because it did not follow this posting-a-copy-elsewhere directive.
"If a given title should never have an article, such as an article on someone very obscure, then remove all links to it, making it an orphan." - If this was your view, this directive was not followed. There are several links to the now-dead article still on extant WP encyclopedia pages.
Alternatively, "If a given title should have an article, but the current content is useless, then consider listing it on wikipedia:requested articles." - That wasn't done either.
WP:DGfA also refers to Wikipedia:Consensus for defining whether consensus has been reached. So...
"Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation..." - There was no negotiation. The very paltry AfD results were treated as a straightforward vote, counter to WP:AFD.
"Consensus works best when all editors make a good faith effort to work together..." - Didn't happen. The editors who actually cared about the article weren't even notified directly of the AfD.
"Precise numbers for 'supermajority' are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." - But this appears to be exactly what happened here; to the extent that delete "votes" were justified at all, the justifications are quite questionable and in some cases patently invalid under policy. Again, the arguments for keeping the article (such as had an opportunity to even be made; I have many more such arguments) were never even addressed, ergo no consensus was even attempted much less reached.
Note also that "consensus" is in reference to editors not lurkers. If the principal editors of the article were not present in the debate, no consensus on the article's nature and fate can possibly have been reached, pretty much by definition.
And lastly, all of the delete arguments appear to fall prey to one or more of the pitfalls listed here: User:Daduzi/Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (not policy, but sensible nonetheless), especially the second one ("Just a policy"), the "Google test" fallacy, and the "Just a vote"/"Per nominator" ones. I.e., the pro-deletion arguments are simply uncompelling and again were improperly treated as votes rather than attempts at consensus on legtimate, deletion-actionable problems with the article that could not be rectified by anything but the extreme step of deletion.
I could go on, but I think I've already raised enough issues with this deletion to at least open the question of whether it should be restored (even if to straight to another AfD that is more inclusive and is vetted for actual validity of the arguments, both pro and con, to arrive at what the legimiate consensus really is (if any).
Again, I'm not actually addressing much in the way of the particulars of the specific DELETE "votes"; I think that would be more appropriate for a deletion review or a post-restore 2nd AfD, etc. But I do maintain that they are generally very questionable, and against which I have strong counter-arguments in most cases (and for those I don't, they are matters for article improvement, not deletion.)
I'm satisfied that the article would have been deleted even if given further time, but since you weren't informed I have undeleted it and relisted it in the AFD log. To address a few of your many points:
Note also that "consensus" is in reference to editors not lurkers - I have always read this to refer to general editors of Wikipedia not solely editors of the article. Indeed, if we were to discount those who had not edited the article under debate then AFD would be quite pointless. The defender of the article during AFD was much closer to being a lurker than the other participants.
"If the consensus so far was to delete, but it is requested that a page be userfied, then typically the page will be moved into the user namespace." - This option was not even presented, to me or any other editor of the article. - "but it is requested" is the important part here.
To present the main argument as notability is a wrong. To quote from the nom : "There are no reliable, third party sources to be found on this phrase anywhere. There are also serious problems with original research and article ownership". The multiple reasons for nomination indicate why none of the alternatives to deletion may have been considered.
Personally, I don't regard "per nom" votes as intrinsically bad - I treat them as if the user has read the article and agrees with the argument put forward by the nominator. I would reject straight "Keep" entries.
> Indeed, if we were to discount those who had not edited the article under debate then AFD would be quite pointless.
Didn't mean to imply anything that extreme. The point I was trying to get at was that the entire WP:Consensus concept is that *editors* should come to consensus. And if an article is being AfD'd then the editors of said article should be in the mix, as well as other WP editors at-large (and you seem to be in agreement, thus your undelete). I didn't mean to imply that only people who had edited the article in question should participate; that would indeed be silly! I did mean to imply, however, that I feel that the AfD process has become something of a "sport" that non-constructive lurkers engage in for personal entertainment. I find that digging around in AfD logs, if I look into the wikitivities of some of the most vociferous and prolific DELETE "voters" many of them spend way more time destroying articles than creating them... But anyway, it wasn't really a big point.
> "but it is requested" is the important part here.
True; it was really just a sub-point of the "didn't get notified of the AfD" issue, for me. If the 2nd AfD succeeds, I'll request userspacing until the article can be fixed enough to possibly survive a 3rd AfD.
> To present the main argument as notability is a wrong.
I'm not. I'm saying that the majority of the (very sparse) support for the AfD nomination was notability-based. As for the original nominators' concerns, I agree that some of them are valid, though not supportive of deletion over fixing, and that the rest are highly debatable.
> Personally, I don't regard "per nom" votes as intrinsically bad
Me neither; I agree with the "arguments to avoid..." essay author Daduzi, though, and observe further that any arguments that militate against the original nominator automatically also weaken the value of any bare "per nom" DELETE 'vote'.
> I would reject straight "Keep" entries.
That seems biased to me. If a KEEP entry that does not explain itself isn't to be considered valid then an unsupported DELETE entry shouldn't either. But maybe I am misunderstanding you?
I should have perhaps expanded: I would also reject straight "Delete" entries, as well as anything along the lines "it's useful", "my friend has one", "I hate it" etc. By the way, I have informed those who took part in the original AFD, so they can present their arguments in the new one. Cheers, Yomanganitalk11:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and the notificaitons. I don't have high hopes for the outcome, because I think that irritated deletionists are going to come out of the woodwork to say Delete just because they don't like article resurrections, but I'll have the chance to say my piece. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't see that anywhere in the logs, are you sure you have the right title? I didn't delete it as part of the AFD. You appear to be correct about the AFD - I'd get in there before it snowballs if you want any chance of saving it. Yomanganitalk17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: the archive page it was actually Talk:..., and it is still there; I was just not paying attention. Re: the AfD - yeah; I have actual work to do today, but will try to address the concerns with the article tonight. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just same article name under User:SMcCandlish would work fine (there's also the talk page and I believe 1 talk archive page, no other subpages I'm aware of.) Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The edit that you so reverted to included the phrase "Some topics are considered of inherent value for inclusion without the assertion of notability" and yet you conclude that this does not mean "nclude mountains regardless of notability"; could you please explain this dichotomy? Incidentally, why on earth is that a "harsh" edit? (Radiant) 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood you, but you removed a passage that in effect stated that mountains (and the like) are inherently notable, with an edit summary that said you were doing this because mountains should be inherently notable. <fzzt pop spark> Does not compute! Does not compute!> :-) And, yes I conculde that it does not mean "include mountains regardless of notability"; it means that they already are inherently notable. I said it was a "harsh" edit, because it removed a very significant passage - the one saying that certain things are not even subject to notability criteria because of their inherent nature, and which gave examples of what sorts of things qualify; it's a passage that has been depended upon many times in preventing AfDs that shouldn't happen; and the edit wasn't (unless I somehow missed it) discussed in Talk:Notability for consensus-building purposes. Just seemed kind of random. However much I may have issues with how Wikipedia:Notability is sometimes misused, it is a Guideline and to me shouldn't be willy-nilly edited in a substantive way (e.g., fixing typos wouldn't be an issue) without prior discussion, or another round of flameouts are likely on the already overheaded talk page. Heh. Again, I may have misunderstood what you were getting at with that edit, but at present it seems to me that you are misunderstanding what the disputed sentence means and the ramifications of removing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it seems we're not quite on the same wavelength :) The way it's phrased is important. The wording I object to implies that some kinds of articles get a "free pass" because of their nature. I disapprove of that reasoning, mainly because this forces us to enumerate all those natures that get free passes, and argue over the exceptions and so forth. Instead, I think (and this is backed by AFD precedent) that mountains need establish notability just like anything else - it just so happens that it's easier to establish notability for e.g. the Matterhorn than it would be for the birch tree in my back yard. In practice all mountains on this here planet turn out to be notable, but there may be quite a bunch e.g. on Pluto that are not.
By the way, if your issue is that things shouldn't be changed without discussion, note that this text was recently added without discussion, contested by someone else, added again, and then replaced by my version as an intended compromise.
Also by the way, it seems to me the guideline isn't disputed, but the present wording is under debate. Yes, there are always some people who do not like a particular guideline (and in this case there are also several who believe it should be policy for some reason) but what matters is whether the page is accepted by consensus. (Radiant) 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll just back out of this one, then. If you revert my revert, I'll leave it alone. :-)
> Also by the way, it seems to me the guideline isn't disputed,
Well, except that a bunch of us have been disputing its validity for some time. Of 200ish articles I'm watching, not one of them has anywhere near the Talk page traffic that one does, the only ones with article edit rates that high are ones I'm working on in draft form myself in my own userspace, and none have anywhere near the level of vitriol.
> but the present wording is under debate.
That too, certainly. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw between "the guideline" and "the wording of the guideline", when all the guideline consists of is wording... But anyway, what I see is that A) a number of people (and this isn't new; they've been fighting this the whole time, and making new converts, including myself for quite a while) don't think this should be a guideline at all. B) Others (like me presently) think the process is bad AND that the guideline's text needs a lot of work, wording-wise. While C) even many of its supporters as a guideline also think it is worded poorly. I'm not sure what "disputed" means if it doesn't mean this.
> Yes, there are always some people who do not like a particular guideline
A significant number in this casel juding by the talk page, by the Non-notability essay, by the outright failure of two earlier notability guidelines to go anywhere, etc.
> (and in this case there are also several who believe it should be policy for some reason)
Well, that one's obvious - if it becomes Policy those pesky inclusionists will just have to shut up and sit down.
> but what matters is whether the page is accepted by consensus.
Indeed. My contention and that of most of the other critics of WP:NN is that consensus has not been reached, that the guideline did not actually achieve nearly enough consensus to be labelled a guideline (especially after the putsch failed twice in a row and spawned the competing non-NN draft, and so on), and that the consensus situation is actually worse for NN now than it was even just a few months ago because of the level of "voting" abuse going on in AfD based on it.
I don't mean to rant about this. I'm just saying there's a *presumption* of consensus, but little *evidence* of it. I'm not even opposed to the idea that WP needs a NN guideline, or even Policy. There are some dork articles in an acre of articlespace that I care a lot about, and I can't wait to get them AfD'd. I've even written a draft notabilty guideline for billiards. I just have serious problems with the way NN works right now. I'm a big fan of certain notability-derived guidelines that are much less contentious, especially WP:NFT. Not sure what else to add, really. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Schweet! It'd be nice to do something with the player sidebar, too. I adapted the snooker one, but it needs improvement probably. And forking into a variant for non-current players like Crane (the current one focuses on present-day tournament stats.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Collective. I don't think I was entirely understanding what the original template was for (I thought people were doing the moves not bots, thus the unclear wording), and I don't think you were grokking with fullness the purpose of the variant, which admittedly was badly written. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I read it again and I have decided I do understand after all. I take it from the edit that you do want robotic help moving any categories with this template on? - because that's what will happen! --RobertG ♬ talk14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the case (though not what I'd originally expected would happen). If someone creates a wonky category called "Pool sharks on the West Coast", and we use this template to say everything in there should be moved to "American pool players", then if a bot carries that out for us, that would be grand! Are there any clear dangers I'm unaware of? Is there a human-processed equivalent of the bot-processed category? That might come in handy some times. It's probably not a huge deal for my purposes, but the template variant was intended to be general-use, not just for Wikiproject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No real pitfalls, although in the case you cite I think the better option would be to nominate it for deletion or rename or merge at WP:CFD which normally works quite smoothly. The original {{category redirect2}} is done by hand, I believe, which is one reason why it doesn't put articles in Category:Wikipedia category redirects! I assume that the template variant we are talking about can at some point be replaced on the category with {{category redirect}}? --RobertG ♬ talk10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
League of Copyeditors
Resolved
I just wanted to take a few moments to welcome you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. You have already been a big help both on the project page and in the Coolie article copyedit. Normally, I take this time to encourage new members to introduce themselves and get involved on the discussion page, but you have already jumped right into the project.
I am looking forward to working with you. Your help is more than appreciated, especially since my time recently has been a bit limited. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. Trusilver04:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad to be of service. :-) Your WProj is one of several that organize the kinds of activities I just do at random when I see problem articles anyway, so why not! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyedit portal
Resolved
Hi
I find it very disturbing and depressing that huge amounts of WP editing time are wasted on unnecessary and clearly amateur discussions of naming and spelling issues. Judging by your user page and extensive edit history, you of course realise that almost all discussions on language use by normal people (i.e. not professional copyeditors or linguists) make fools of almost all participants and that they waste a very large part of editing efforts on WP. I'm getting so fed up with this nonsense that i'd like to ask you what you think about the idea of setting up a copyedit portal or copyedit emergency squad to get some sanity and professionalism into this completely amateur aspect of WP. I see you're a stickler in terms of conventional spelling and WP policies and spend a lot of time trying to fight chaos. I've asked a few linguists to join my project, but it would be good to also have members with more traditional approaches to copyedit issues. As you know, almost all modern linguists have a purely scientific approach to language and consider anything OK as long as it's used by more than a few people, and even then they don't label it wrong in anything not communal like a wiki. See Talk:Académie française and Talk:Genealogy#reverts_of_WP:OR.2C_private_.28conspiracy.29_theories.2C_and_other_nonsense for more details... --Espoo09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'd suggest starting it as a WikiProject first, though, I think. For the record, as a linguist (non-pro; I was a linguistics major) I of course am a descriptive grammarian, but as a Wikipedian I tend toward prescriptiveness when articles look sloppy and amateurish, or when there is no defensible reason to stray from consensus formal English. But see also my cue sports spelling conventions draft Guideline, which deliberately eschews some prescriptivist notions, like hyphenation of compound adjectives, when Wikipedia article clarity might be at risk. Also I am essentially a professional copyeditor and writer when I'm not doing web development (or futzing around on WP...), so I am probably a good fit. I'd also suggest going over the exting WikiProjects, Portals, TaskForces, etc., to ensure that this wouldn't overlap significantly with any of them (see for example the message here immediately above yours.) See also my main userpage in the Wikitivities section for links to some other Wikipedia cleanup projects that might be of relevance. I haven't even found them all yet... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find that (Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors) despite searching because it's not in the category "copy editing". (I tried to add the cat just now but couldn't figure out how; somehow the other cats are not listed in the edit version like on other pages.) Looks like someone already started my project, but judging by the very small nummber of users, it's not doing a good job recruiting help or getting itself advertised to provide emergency help. I'll look at the other links you mention too. Thanks, --Espoo11:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Espoo, I strongly support your thoughts on a Portal. I've already joined the Wikiproject by the way, and I was led here on the talk page. How lucky I am! This would be a great portal in my opinion. I also agree that grammar mistakes make Wikipedia a bit foolish and amateur-like. Good Luck, Kyo cat¿Qué tal?•meow!22:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the WikiProject's categorization. The other cats it shows in rendered view aren't in the code because they're put there by templates, FYI. Anyway, it's pretty new and I think it is doing a good job recruiting, compared to many other WProjs of the same age. At least one new person joined less than 24hrs after I did yesterday. See my draft wikiproject on another category, about 90% of which I put together in one afternoon. A similar mega-edit of that sort could really get the existing WProj on copyediting jump started (esp. a to-do list with actual targets!). I honestly don't think a Portal is warranted at this stage, unless the WProj on the same topic really takes off. That is to say, rather than competing with this group just Be Bold and get heavily involved in making it live up to the standards you're envisioning. That's something I think I could support strongly. See its talk page on "getting itself advertised" - I've recommended a "WikiProject League of Copyeditors Article Clean-up in Progress" talk page banner (which I may create myself if someone doesn't beat me to it), and have already created a userbox for it, so the recruitment problem is probably on the way to becoming a moot issue (or another way of looking at it, a competing Portal would have precisely the same needs.) Not trying to squish any ideas, just saying collaborate where possible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: Just to be clear, I'm not saying a portal is a bad idea or anything, just that it might as well be done collaboratively with the copyediting WikiProject. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking it over, it does appear to be subject to WP:DEL#Problem articles where deletion may be needed, row 2, under WP:WEB, and I don't think it would have survived AfD due to WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV issues, unless seriously cleaned up. Sorry for the false alarm. Reason/excuse: The AfD didn't say it was a webcomic, but a comic, and "Notability (books)" (which I believe would cover paper comics) is still a just a draft proposal, so the SD looked like it might have been overzealous at first glance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Your thoughts are much appreciated. FYI, I don't necessarily think an admin's vote should count higher than anyone else's either. I know "Wikipedia is not a democracy" but I'm still trying to understand what it IS. :)
As a newbie I have made my mistakes, but my philosophy is that mistakes are only bad when they are not learning experiences. And so far I have learned a lot from the mistakes I've made here.Dgray xplane02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the way to do it! :-) PS: I don't mean that admins' "votes" count more, but admins have the power to undo deletions and stuff like that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you meant some change to the way stubs in general are standardized. :-) Still, your narrower area of interest in that regard sounds like a Good Thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Move
Resolved
(grumble) as I mentioned (gripe), I can't imagine asking any of my roommates if they wanted to go down to the (grumble) Cue Sports Room for a game (mumble, gripe). Nevertheless, have you (shudder) tried to do the move, or just assumed you couldn't? As I understand, so long as the redirect (grumble) hasn't been used for anything else than to (gripe) point to the article, the software allows the article to be (mumble) moved onto the redirect. This is how accidental moves can be undone. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hadn't actually tried; the 'graph on that seemed to suggest it would only work as the reversal of a previous rename, but maybe I didn't understand it properly.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to feel pretty strongly about this (WP technical moving issues aside.) I'd like to understand better (you say "as I mentioned", indicating a post on this topic that I've missed so I'm about to go look for it in likely places). It's my intent that "Billiards" still get you quickly into poolspace. The idea is to start moving game-specific content into articles on those games (e.g. all the talk about ball and table dimensions for snooker vs. pool, etc.) and build those articles up into something really impressive. The problem with "billiards" as "the" main ariticle name is that it means at least 3 different things, depending on where you are from, and people feel very strongly about those meanings. My attempt to rename a darned videogame sub-sub-sub-category has been blocked by Englishmen up in arms over what they see as the "Americanism" of using "billiards" in a broad generic sense, and this is certainly their en.wikipedia.org, too. Not sure how to keep everyone happy... Anyway, of course no one says "the cue sports hall", but they don't say "the billiards parlour" anymore either, unless they're my grandma's age. Us "yanks" say "pool hall", the Brits say "snooker room", etc., etc. :-) I don't see a clear path to non-dispute without treating it from a kind of scientific classification perspective (which also meshes with attempts to promote cue sports at the Olympic level, incidentally).— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Apology
Resolved
I seem to have somehow offended you at Wikipedia talk:Notability. I apologize for whatever I must have said to cause your response under the "Example 3" header. I've never been accused of borderline trolling before, and I'm kind of hurt by the accusation. I've been working hard on that page in good faith, and I'm certainly not trolling, by any definition of the term that I'm aware of. Your response makes it clear to me that you've misunderstood various things I said, and yet you complain that I misunderstood various things you said. You seem very impatient with the fact that I don't already understand you, but you seem not to already understand me, and I'm not mad at you about that. I'm not looking for any kind of combative debate, but for mutual understanding, and above all, mutual respect. I like participating in discussions where participants treat one another with a high degree of courtesy and dignity. If you're not interested in that, then I suggest we not communicate any more, which I would find sad, but necessary.
Please consider that your impressions about me may be mistaken, and that we may agree on more than it seems. Also, please accept my apology for rubbing you the wrong way; I assure you it was not my intention. -GTBacchus(talk)09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I apologize. I should not let my frustration let my civility lapse. I'm not trying to bash you, I'm simply exceedingly frustrated that I've had to go over and over the same arguments again and again. If you read the last 6 or so entire topics on that talk page (yes, it's a lot of reading, but it's pretty substantive) all of the questions you are raising have already been addressed, most of them several times; that's all. Re: mutual misunderstandings: I agree, which is why I suggested starting a new topic where you explain those two closely-related concepts of yours (the objective notability idea and, I think you called it "graininess"). There literally isn't anything further at all I can say about my views on WP:NN, regarding anything raised thus far, that have not already been said multiple times on that talk page in that last three days (i.e., I'm done); meanwhile whatever ideas you are trying to get across (to everyone there; whether I personally "get" them is perhaps of limited if any importance) are being drowned in the flood of "debate with SMcCandlish" messages. "Be Bold" and start your own topic.
PS: I've apologized on the NN talk page. Hope that helps smooth things over. I am a forceful debator, and can be collectively pushed into a short temper, but I shouldn't have taken it out on you personally, and I'm not here to piss people off or make them feel bad! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ10:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that very much. I will post a new topic attempting to explain myself better. I won't do it until I'm satisfied that I've found a better way to articulate my idea (which are not mine in the first place), which apparently haven't come across in our exchange up to now, or so it seems to me. I'd like it if I thought you knew what I meant, a bit. So far I haven't gotten that impression; I've mostly picked up on a lot of frustration. I find that getting things done at Wikipedia involves a lot of repetition, and the person hearing the 100th iteration doesn't really know why you're so upset, because for them it's the 1st.
I did post that new topic, attempting to explain myself better. It's WT:N#The difference between notability and verifiability. I'm interested to hear what you think. It's a bit wordy, and I think that, two days later, I can get the definition I'm suggesting down to a sentence: "Notable" is how we describe a topic that has been the subject of enough indpendent coverage to make possible a WP article that complies with WP:V and WP:NOT. "Notabilty" refers to the possibility of writing an article from sources. The upshot is that yes it's redundant with existing policies, and no that's not a Bad Thing, because it can save repetition. -GTBacchus(talk)20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
re: [[Talk:WP:NUKE]]
Resolved
You do realize that you got suckered by the anon who is pushing for the creation of this inflammatory redirect, don't you? I'm re-deleting in deference to this discussion rejecting the proposed redirect but I'm going to leave the Talk page in place to document the problem. Rossami(talk)15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not realize that; I'm simply not that "wikipolitical" (the only issue I care about in that area is WP:NN's bogus claims to being a Guideline and its direct conflict with Policy at WP:V and WP:DP, a hot debate topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability). As long as WP:NUKE actually goes somewhere such that a non-moron can figure out what was intended and get to the historical material being cited, then I'll be happy. I think it would be preferable that WP:NUKE go to a page marked historical/inactive, and that it tell people that what they are probably looking for is WP:DEL. But this present situation with an extant Talk page is better than just having it gone completely. I.e., mixed feelings on your partial revert. I do agree that "NUKE" is confrontational/antagonistic and should not appear in the list of "official" shortcuts on the WP:DEL page. This could perhaps be resolved by removing the "R from shortcut" and just having it be a redirect. Or the historical/inactive template being put in there, or something. My only concern here is that redlinking it has a negative impact on currently active Policy/Guideline debates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
So WP:NUKE is guaranteed to cause offense, then, no matter how it's used (even in no-malice-intended circumstances, not as a deliberate threat or insult)? 170.215.83.420:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be the idea, on the talk page cited by WP:NUKE's detractors. Or rather, it seems "likely" to cause offense or upset; I wouldn't say "guaranteed". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No trolling
Resolved
Hi.
I'm that guy who posted the post that you claimed had all those logical fallacies in it (now that I've gone over the arg it seems that maybe it did have holes in it...), and I wanted to say to you that I was not intending to troll, and no "malice" was intended. I guess I felt a little strongly about my position on WP:N, however I'm going to back down now, considering that you seem to be getting stressed out like crazy with all these people hammering on you (look at how HUGE the threads have gotten there), and I don't want to cause any more problems, so I'm leaving this debate for now. There was only one question I would like to have answered: how would you get the admins to change that "NN! Delete!" mentality, anyway? Just maybe it could help me understand your position a little better. But anyway, the debate between you and me is, at least for now, over. 70.101.147.7400:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Noted, and sorry if I offended. As for the question here, I've just addressed that in my last or next-to-last post to the NN talk page. Will also update my apology on the NN page to include you as well as GT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ00:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just read the response. So, you're saying then the way to get them to try and change is to get WP:NN removed from guideline status, so nobody can use it's "vague" "multiple non-trivial sources" "definition" to try and delete everything in sight? That could actually make some sense: I'm not a big fan of the ultra-deletionist approach either, by the way. I just wanted to have rigor and something compatible with established Wikipedia tradition, but if this isn't it, then I guess that's the way it is. Well, we'll see how things turn out, then... The debate, at least for now and at least between me (I don't know about the others, though) and you, by the way, is now over (I know, I said so on WT:N, but I thought I'd reiterate it here just to emphasize this point.). I think the discussion was quite good, actually. Thanks a lot for all the answers and the discussion! It went a lot better than some other online debates I've had, that's for sure. 70.101.147.7401:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please take a look Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move, where i seem to be the only one defending WP policy, observance of accepted usage in other encyclopedias, and normal English usage, which i guess interests you most as a linguist. If we can't make the name of an article on the French sacred cow conform to normal English use and use in reference works, this disease of pretentiousness and lack of usability will spread. --Espoo10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been away for a while, where is the fight against notability currently headquartered? Looks like you're doing good work, Trollderella13:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: apparently you uploaded Image:Leeloo.png to Wikipedia. Your summary was (Just an icon for my user page.) I regret to inform you, though, that you may not use it on your userpage. Please see this wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:User page#Images on user pages. The leeloo image is copyrighted, so the only permissible use on Wikipedia is fair use. But according to the guideline, user pages may NOT have fair use images, since user pages are licensed under the GFDL.
Since Image:Leeloo.png is too small to be used elsewhere, including The Fifth Element article, it is being nominated for deletion. It is likely that it will be deleted by the 7th of December.
I'm sorry! Wikipedia's goal, as I'm sure you know, is to make knowledge free as in freedom. (You seem to be astute regarding copyright law, anyway.) Even if all of the images in the world can't be free, we may as well start by having free userpages. Thank you for reading this, and keep editing! GracenotesT § 22:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[I'd asked on Goldenrowley's talk page what it was that needed to be sourced in the article in question, in response to a templating of the article that it needed citations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ]
Hi, in answer to your question, I think this article has a lot of potential to be popular (and highly used) under the categoory of religion and mythological archetypes and could be expanded. Where did the trinity/triune definitions come from? That could be the source for the introduction. What souce said this is a "mythological archetype" (if any)? This is to enhance and validate the article. Thank you! Goldenrowley02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The "triune", "trinity", "triplicate", etc., are just dictionary usages. I.e., the words have clear meanings, so no sourcing seems necessary for them that I can see. It's like any other "list" article (e.g., there might be one on "Lord of the Rings characters", divided into "heroes" and "villains" and we don't need to cite sources for the definitions of those two words, or their usage as classifiers.) I don't mean to be argumentative on that, just saying I don't see what the dispute potential really is. I do see your point about "mythological archetype"; I hadn't even thought of that when that phrase was added, back when, but it does seem to be a specific claim of fact regarding a mythographical term-of-art, so it probably should be sourced.. Any recommendations? I don't have any Joseph Campbell on hand (I honestly don't agree with his categorization of just about everything as a variant of this archetype or that), but I do have some Gimbutas, Graves, etc. If you have good refs that can improve the article, please go for it. I created it, but I don't at all WP:OWN it; all I do is try to keep it formatted nicely and make sure people don't put fictional hooey in it like Tolkien's trolls in The Hobbit, and so forth. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish, just to let you know I partially reverted your edits here. The sup title="blah blah" code you reverted to (yes it was a revert because I had tested out that exact code previously) isn't as universal as the span code. (→Netscott)02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, I doubt you'll encounter any resistance doing that as the span code certainly works on any other browsers that the sup code works on. Cheers. (→Netscott)02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing: I believe Safari isn't recognizing title code in a sup call because it doesn't conform to CSS rules so technically it's not a "bug". (→Netscott)02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You might add style = "white-space:nowrap" to the span code to prevent wrapping. It is a bit of a slicker solution. (→Netscott)02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The display:inline trick doesn't work universally either. Trust me I've done plenty of research on all of this. (→Netscott)03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Also know that semicolons are needed only if there are follow on style codes. One style code does not need a semicolon. It's a minor issue (and not worth reverting in {{or}}) but good to know. (→Netscott)03:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well aware; I just like to use them because it prevents future mistakes. E.g. if you have <span style="foo:bar">, it's very easy for someone to mistakenly do <span style="foo:bar baz:quux"> :-) On my last major dev project, I made closing anything in CSS mandatory as if CSS were PHP, in the project coding standards, and I think it saved us a lot of headaches! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that's sensible... I pretty much realized that which is why I didn't remove your addition of it. Thanks for helping to improve and standardize the templates. (→Netscott)03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Harm? Goodness no. I thought it was OK before, that doesn't mean it's not OK now. I liked it OK before because I wrote it it. But maybe its better now, who knows? No problem, I was just saying. Herostratus03:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The use of "of the encyclopedia" is just consistent/predictable now. It was always being used in the one column and not the other, until the very last one, which reversed it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have looked closer at the history, found a number of occassions where it taken 3hours+ to revert so I have semi protected the article. Also if you would like to add any comments I've directly asked here for some more editors to add to their watchlist. Hope this helps Gnangarra14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
theres no specific time frame generally it gets unprotected when an editor requests. Its on my watchlist so I'll keep any eye on the article anyway. Gnangarra16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the thanks but can you please remove it from the talk page as any admin with fives minutes to spare digging through the history would have also protected the page. Gnangarra16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep article talk page, Thanks for the praise but protecting the article was nothing special its just part of being an admin. Anyhow its almost 2am here, I'm off for some sleep enjoy your break Gnangarra16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I use page preview about every 30-60 seconds! When I'm editing something that I think may be controversial at every word, I err on the conservative side and explicate every single change in detail. Reduces disputes. Look at it this way, would you rather have 5 min. extra time dealing with edit summaries regarding Wikipedia:Notability or 5-25 extra hours of annoying arguments on Wikipedia talk:Notability? :-) If you think I was excessive today, I apologize; I'm just trying to be cautious and explanatory, and give people an opportunity to see precisely what I'm doing and why, and revert/alter what they want to with equal precision. I think it's a good tactic; if you don't, I'd be genuinely interested why. PS: Yes there were some dumb typo self-fixes in there. I always seem to find ridiculous errors 5 min (or 15 sec or 3 days) after I've already looked it all over ten times and then submitted it. Argh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ19:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an "old timer" (in Internet terms) phrase. I didn't plonk you, did I?! Was intended for <ahem> someone else. Anyway in this context, it means "I'm going to ignore this person to the extent possible in the absence of an actual killfile, because they are irrational and full of <ahem>". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you plonked me. I don't remember where I saw you use it, but I was more comfortable asking you than asking the person I saw use it most recently, who plonked someone right next to me, and I felt it. <shudder> -GTBacchus(talk)20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty severe. I've never felt even close to compelled to it in wikispace (or actually outside of Usenet in years), until the other day. And it was on WP:N talk; I concluded in one of the numbered sub(sub?)topics that some of the responses to the issues raised had been nothing but sport-argument fighting for its own sake, on every possible tiny nitpick, and that I didn't have time for such juvenile must-win hostility. It probably wasn't helpful, I admit, but we all have our limits, I s'pose. I do note that the hostile behavior slacked off after that, though... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"The tarsier, especially if it's a male, is also a territorial creature. A male would attack any young tarsier venturing into its territory and kill it with a fierce bite...." (from Philippine Tarsier Foundation).--Fuhghettaboutit (a guy with a penchant for uselessly answering rhetorical questions:-) 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this editor LadyLyon (talk·contribs) is creating false (minimum unverifiable) articles right and left. I noticed Mikes Life, an alleged 1980's cartoon series with Andre 3000 (born 1975, no show business career as a child). I can't tell how much of this editor's contributions are total garbage. Fan-196717:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate! :) —Randfan!!
Wishing you a happy and safe Christmas season, and a blessed new year. Enjoy where you are, and who you're with. Merry Christmas! From, Defrag and Jilly.
Out on a wikibreak? I had completely forgot that I had left this message on your talk page! In any case, thanks. Good cop or no good cop I have taken that opportunity to simply edit the paragraph so that it basically says: if you want to know about notability of books this is not the right place to read about it. By the way, your comments are also very welcome on the talk page of WP:BK if you happen to have an opinion on the current version. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson23:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to take a break from this stuff for a while. As for WP:BK, I'm an inclusionist, so my opinion of WP:BK will be the same as that of all of the notability guidelines (i.e., they should be abandoned). It does no harm at all (unless the Wikimedia Foundation is running out of disk space) to have "non-notable" topics in an e-encyclopedia; non-notable articles simply won't be read by many people, and the few that do actually seek out an article on such a topic will be glad that it wasn't deleted for alleged non-notability. I may drop in to WP:BK to try to shift it toward being less deletionist, though. We'll see. If it's more-or-less consistent with the other such guidelines, I probably won't bother. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[I no longer hold the "notability must DIE" opinion expressed above, and am fully supportive of a consistent and objective definition of notability on Wikipedia. Just for the record. See Wikipedia talk:Notability or its archives for the month+ (as of mid-Dec. 2006) of debate that changed my mind. In the above discussion I was really talking about WP:FAME, not the current conception of Wikipedia:Notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ]
Gad what a mess eight ball is. I'm gearing up to rewrite it if I can figure out a logical way of doing so. Regarding you query on the section about the Mexican ruleset (where you wrote "Is there a name for this?"), I don't know of a name but I know the origin, and if I can get off my ass and do the cleanup I can take care of it. In short, after B.B.C. Co. Pool was invented, eight ball went through a number of distinct ruleset periods. One of them, which lasted for a number of years, had these exact rules. Once that is defined, it can be added that these rules are still used in Mexico.--Fuhghettaboutit14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The blackball section could probably use expansion. My take on it is that it should dispense with the "possible" ruleset language, describe the intl. std. rules, and if/where they differ mention that the APA or VNEA or BCA or whatever rules differ on this little point[cite], and continue. Amat. variations like bank-the-eight and last-pocket should remain in a "rules variations" section. Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not sure exactly how to do it, and I agree that "possible variations" is clunky as hell, but here's what has been percolating 1) continue the history section I started, going into the variations up to the modern era. Then define the world standardized rules. Then the standard bar/recreational rules and how they differ from the BCA (with some explication of that there is no standard because no formal ruleset, but widely followed and explain that they vary). Then we can go into game variations such as last pocket, etc.. Last pocket, by the way, is apparently very, very widely played variation in South America.--Fuhghettaboutit
I'd suggest doing the WS rules, and interspersing them with Big League differences as needed (BCA/VNEA/Blackball/APA/IPT), just to keep it shorter - might be a bit frustrating to have follow-on sections like "BCA exceptions", "VNEA exceptions", etc.; then close with a section on amat./"bar rules" variations (which will need somehow to discourage additions of "in my neighborhood..." variants; I think the present HTML comment language is probably a good start). Agreed that last-pocket is huge in Latin America; was why I added it. EVERY native Mexican, El Salvadorean, Nicaraguan, etc., that I've met plays that way (and not the "magic side pockets" way detailed earlier in the article; I'd demote that to a minor variation), and without any differences (e.g. as to 2 free scratches, etc.) It seems quite uniform. There's a bar called City Club in the Mission district of San Francisco with really great players none of whom seem to speak a word of English where what I described are the house rules. The players are from all over Latin America, quite friendly to Gringos if we can figure out the rules, and they never internally argue about the rules - these seem to be the rules they've all played with their whole lives. It's a called ball-in-pocket (not called shot) game, e.g. "cinco en está lado" however way the five gets into the designated side pocket, which I forgot to mention, so it has a bit in common with the older (pre WS) BCA rules, I think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe it's my POV, but the way I see it the article should start with WSR as the "official rules" and then in subsequent sections instead of defining the whole rulesets, siimply state how they depart from the official rules. For instance for bar'recretaional rules (which I do think need to be prominent as they are so widely played--probably the most wide ruleset for the most common game in the U.S.) all that needs to be done, is state that (in contradistinction to official rules): wins (or not) if eight ball made on break, choice of group is decided on the break, if both groups pocketed then it's choice, no foul rules but for scratches, scratch penalty is from the kitchen (and can move object ball to foot spot if none available), most but not all venues make you call every nuance of every shot (rather than "ball and pocket"), the Player loses sometimes if he doesn't contact the eight ball when it's his object ball, eight ball has to go in "clean", and the alternating racking crap. That's may not be exhaustive but there's not much more. If those distinctions follow a treatise on the correct rules, little defining should be necessary, so the section would not need to be very long.
Doing it by defining each separate ruleset's variation for each official rule would be confusing I think, and an invitation for endless parenthetical notes. Plus, the way articles evolve, people add a one-off difference from some game to one section and then go their merry way. So then we have each official rule followed by variations from some other groups of indistinct rules, with each official rule being treated separately, some getting variations some not from the same league rules. It seems to me it would lead to an organizational mess.--Fuhghettaboutit16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Just wanted to make sure that the VNEA, etc., variations get in there, and are differenced from the mess of "bar pool" variations; many of them predate the WSR by a long way. :-) NB: "Rules variations" or "variants" seems like a good section heading, perhaps with a three-"=" subsection header for each set discussed? I'm thinking in terms of the promised but presently vaporware article "templates" at WP:CUE. I guess eight-ball is as good a place as any to start developing that. NB: Also thinking that the "rack" article could really be folded entirely or almost entirely into the articles about the various games it covers. I think this sort of opens the more general question of what to do about equipment articles. My present take is that I'm not sure we actually need articles about cues, chalk, racking, tables, etc., rather than general mentions at Billiards (side point: Should we move it to Cue sport now?) and more specific details under particular games (nine-ball, etc.) or game-type (carom billiards, snooker, etc.) articles. This is probably a better pack o' questions for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports but I don't see any reason to not come to a two-person initial mini-consensus on the direction here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that subtopic articles should only be taken so far, but I don't think articles on specific items of equipment or specific things such as racking are too far. Let's look at rack (billiards) for example (and of course the elephant in the room is that I wrote the majority of that article, but I'm not just being protective): First and foremost, I can see someone coming to Wikipedia interested in how racking is done across many billiard games. Second, I can see someone coming to Wikipedia seeking clarity because of the confusing multi-use of the word (physical object; various types; used to describe the balls in starting position; the verb for placing the balls, etc.). Third, there is a quite limited number of specific objects and things in billiards of which racking is one. We don't and never will need an article on the foot spot--how much history can be found on that topic? How much room for expansion? It's a blackhole of content, but when it comes to racking, breaking, english, I think they can all have subarticles if someone is willing to take the time to write them (citing ulitmately to reliable sources:-). There is much room for expansion of racking, from other games, to the history of it, to primary manufacturers, to the Sardo tight rack (and the controversy that has arisen in professional play over its use), etc. Or take cuetips, they have a fascinating history and there has been much written about them. Did you known leather cue tips were invented in debtor's prison by Captain Francois Mingaud around 1823 who was later accused of sorcery for the amazing things he was able to do on a billiards table using them? Regarding cue sports, I have not really been following the debate. I'm not too concerned since if it's done or not done, the information will be retained and having been following the debate too much. If you have consensus, go for it.--Fuhghettaboutit17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the info will just have to be a little duplicative (in that the details on how to rack for eight-ball specifically need to be in the eight-ball article as well, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]?05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Resolved
