User talk:Amerique/Archive 6

UCR FAC

As you may or may not know by now, Raul654 closed the FAC discussion as unsuccessful ... while I was in the middle of copyediting it thoroughly. (I've always thought I was a good copyeditor, but either Raul was unaware of my ongoing work or I'm not good enough at it for him.) I left a message on his talk page complaining about how premature the closure of the debate was. Since I don't expect him to reopen the debate, which is something that's done only in extreme cases if at all, how would you feel about sending it back to FAC once we're 100% sure it's all nice and polished up?

BTW: I haven't seen ST around in months. Do you think we should request unprotection? szyslak 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't pay close attention to the intricate workings of FAC, so I assumed Raul himself made the decision to close the debate since it was done though his account. There could very well be a bot-assisted "close automatically after no support in X number of days" practice, though. But I assume GimmeBot marks debates as closed based on whether they're transcluded on the FAC page, not how many supports they've garnered or any other criteria. Perhaps Raul decided the article needed too much work, or that Tony1's copyediting concerns (or other issues that haven't been discussed) were too serious to overcome in the course of a FAC debate.

So yeah, I agree that we should keep it off FAC until we're absolutely sure there's not even the slightest MOS or prose problem. I intend to keep my copyediting project going until there's not a single thing I can do to improve the prose. szyslak 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I've given you rollback rights per your request. Use them well. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Amerique^dialectics 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SummerThunder

Yeah, I agree we should request re-protection only if it gets out of hand. I figure he's a little easier to deal with now that most of the possible titles for his "UCR mascot" article have been WP:SALTed. I also went ahead and got myself a rollback button, and I see you've done the same. szyslak 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin went ahead and semiprotected the page for two weeks. I won't argue with that action. szyslak 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Analytical Review

Thank you for helping us try to find a consensus wording at AR. Unfortunately I had to change some of what you added back for factual and paragraph coherence reasons, but I tried to keep as much as possible. Again, thank you for mediating in this dispute. Awadewit | talk 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet

Re your message: That account has been blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Took care of that one, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: No problem, though I wasn't much of a fan of his. Rap music isn't really my thing. =) I don't think I look much like him either. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the comment on my talk page. I decided to leave the editor about why the article was deleted and a short bit about the personal attack. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: UCSC athletics

From my experience as a UCSC student, I found most people there don't care much about UCSC intercollegiate athletics. Up until the 80s or so, UCSC wasn't even part of the NCAA, and the "Banana Slugs vs. Sea Lions" debate only came up after intercollegiate play began. I think the main reason is that it's just not part of the culture. Upon its founding, UCSC rejected all that was thought to be wrong with higher education--grades, professors who cared little about undergraduate teaching, and competitive, big-money athletics. Personally, I'm proud that UCSC doesn't waste money on a Division I football or basketball team. Instead, they spend it on important things, like a $30,000 dog run. szyslak 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

UCR

Hi Amerique, Thanks for the feedback on UCR and the heads-up about the last part of the History section. I've been edging up to that but nibbling here and there in other sections as well. I tend to read through articles multiple times to get a sense of the whole. As I go, I often fix nit-picky stuff that I see that I might miss on a later pass. That reminds me, I ran the link checker that lives at [1] on University of California, Riverside, and it found several broken links. To get the article through FA, you'll need to fix those. Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away. My best, Finetooth (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How does one join a wikiproject

Hi, I've been editing UC pages recently and run into your name often. How does one join the Wikiproject to maintain the UC pages? Does one just sign one's name to the wikipage, or does someone coordinate the members? Vantelimus (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Marigold linton.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Marigold linton.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline admonition on USNWR figures

Great idea.Vantelimus (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Thank you for the support.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes!

[2]. szyslak (t) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. KnightLago (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

University of California-Irvine

Nice work on the edit of the Anti-Semetism controversy!Mysteryquest (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Btw, that's the first barnstar I've ever given. Thanks for keeping the discussion at WT:V reality-based and research-based and making great arguments with few words. I could learn a thing or two from your example. Keep it up. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my userpage. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

UC template

Hi, Amerique. You're doing great work on the UCSC article. I feel a tug of guilt that I haven't found time lately to put a concerted effort into the thing alongside you. When I find a few solid hours, I'll have quite a bit to add. It'll be good to put aside the piecemeal contributions I've had to content myself with lately, and do some solid writing.

I noticed that you switched the image in {{University of California}} to show a detail of Cal's Sather Gate. While the Sather Gate Fiat Lux starburst does work as a good symbol for UC, the rationale behind my original design choices was to make sure the template remained as campus-neutral as possible (campuses in alphabetical order; including only the campuses, the hospitals, and the big, University-wide research institutions; making sure the colors and embedded image couldn't be pinned down as belonging to any one site in UC, etc.).

By doing that, along with introducing a new, cleaner format, I hoped to avoid seeing a redux of the template's long, long period of unsatisfactory instability. With the image, especially, I felt it was important to not implicitly ask, "What feature on which campus should go here as the best possible symbol for the University of California?" The map made that question moot. (I used a similar approach on {{University of Alaska System}} by using a photo of Mount McKinley from the same angle as it appears in their official seal, rather than a specific campus feature.) Plus, it was really neat to have a guide right on the template itself to where, geographically, everything on it is. It might have been the most unambiguously encyclopedic thing I've ever used in that style of template.

Anyway, I'm going leave it in your court whether or not to roll back to the previous version, but we should definitely consider a more-neutral image choice. --Dynaflow babble 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The problem with the map was that the writing was illegible at that resolution and the image itself drab. Sather Gate was built when Cal was the only UC and using the "Fiat Lux" star detail, rather than the gate itself, de-contextualizes the symbol from its setting in a way that effectively conveys the idea of the whole university, I think. Any photograph we use is necessarily going to be situated on one of the campuses, unless we want to use the UC president's office pic, which is ghastly; I would rather the image be of an all-encompassing symbol, wherever it's located, than something that attempts to legibly represent all the campuses within thumbnail dimensions. The "Fiat Lux" star is on all the seals... I don't immediately know of a better concrete representation of the whole university than that, and I say this with no special affinity for or affiliation with the Berkeley campus itself. My solution may give an implicit nod to Berkeley, but they are the founding campus of the system anyway.

If you want, make a proposal at WP:UC. I'll go with whatever recommendation they suggest. Anyway, there is a ton of on-line accessible material on UCSC... work on it on my part hasn't been proceeding quickly, because there is a lot to digest. The campus officials definitely had a sense of destiny about them, recording oral histories and such, while their history was still in progress. (Such a contrast, really, from UCR. Did you know UCR doesn't have the papers of its founding provost archived? It's like neither he nor they wanted to leave any evidence of a crime behind.) But this only means that there is more to go through and make sense of, and I have no special familiarity with the campus, (outside of a brief trip I took there a few years ago) alas. Amerique^dialectics 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fearing an edit war - request for help

I Amerique, I fear an edit war regarding the Dorje Shugden article. There came a group of new editors who made substantial changes without discussing any of it, omitting verified sources and including sources from anonymous web-pages. I like to ask you to have a look on it, to give your comment or to temporarily block the article until there is a discussion on the changes at the talk page. If you are not a suited person, please pass my request to an admin, who is capable or experienced in such issues and can help, mediate or offer advice. You can see from the history how the things developed, that the substantial and radical changes by Helen37 even were reverted by the WPRobot, and that no one of the new editors discussed on the subject matter to come to agreement. Thank you very much for your time and help, --Kt66 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Amerique for your kind reply, all the best, --Kt66 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Neillty

That user has some very strange article moves. Usual thing with images but doesn't seem to be editing the same articles. Best to just watch for now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. The BADSITES drama was long ago, but taught me a great deal about how Wikipedia actually works; sadly, it still keeps popping up in various forms, but it seems not to be quite as virulent as it was in the past. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NTWW

Do you have a headset? dorftrottel (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ID/C68

I know there's a chance it'll be merged in, and really, I don't want it to happen, because the likely outcome is a slap on the wrists if it is merged in. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Salcan

Re your message: Account blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it was taken care of. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! It was quite unexpected and I am honored to receive it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

re: intelligent design revert

Amerique - I can only think from your edit summary that you didn't actually read what I said in the discussion. please do that, and then reconsider your actions.

the fact of the matter is that I feel that page is biased, and I can make very good arguments to to that effect, and point to a proper resolution to the problem. all I want is the opportunity to make those arguments and get a reasoned consensus rather than the obstinate power consensus that's there now. believe me, if someone can actually refute what I'm saying I'd be the first to give it up. but I would like to see that refutation, rather than just have my comments refactored away. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I saw your comment here, and maybe you now see how this place tests the patience of granite. But you don't know the half of it. I used to try editing Holocaust, and there will be editors who want to include in crap that the Holocaust didn't happen, that this ethnic group was treated worst than another one, and you just tire of it. I haven't edited Intelligent design in months, and though I read it now and again, it's the same arguments from the same and different editors every day. Look at Evolution or Alternative medicine. Interesting that you find the same editors pushing the same agenda in both. I'm trying to stay nice, but just look at the stuff written. It gets difficult every day. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know it. When I was in the WP:AMA, I saw a ton of nationalistic, ethnic and regional conflicts, from all over the world, basically, replicated on this site. Intervening in them gradually got to be too much for me, and i more or less ceased responding or editing on WP for awhile. now, i mostly work on a few low-stress, low-maintenance articles that i have a mostly meandering or sentimental interest in. The problem with dealing with "fringe" topics, (or any topic that has a significant "fringe" interpretation, like the Holocaust or the 9-11 articles) is that they attract "fringe" people who positively think that NPOV means lending equal weight to whatever the "fringe" view is. it really would take a very special person, a person i am not, to deal in those articles on a prolonged basis without losing it. however, i have to think the point of making voluminous dead-ended rhetorical arguments on talk pages, as a strategy, is to get the "other side" to make a mistake by showing incivility. Then, they can act to get their antagonists impeached on behavioral grounds. This seems to me what has happened to members of the so-called "ID cabal," to yourself most conspicuously.

What is interesting to me, though, in a way that I am afraid may be revealing of reality "in the real world," is the extent to which the POV of various defunct or "fringe" ideologies, "white pride," "Intelligent Design," whatever, seem supported or are supported by otherwise mainstream individuals. The fact that Arbcom felt a need to hold a secret trial entirely without informing you was heinous, (the fact that the community was not entirely united against them was also pretty bad) but the context their collective action was embedded in is, I think, a widespread and many-tiered emotional reaction against science or progressivism, not only from those that feel whatever "cause" they may be personally invested in (creationism, racism, whatever) has lost out in the real world, but more broadly from those that mourn the decline in "traditional values" associated with the rise of progressivism, hence their sympathy for the standard bearers of regressive causes. Best Regards, Amerique^dialectics 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)