User talk:Shereth/Archive02

Question

I posed a question to you at Talk:Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. Smee 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

• Sorry for the mess there now, but it seems we reached a resolution, at least regarding our responses to my new question. The question itself, however, still remains on the article's talk page... Smee 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Re: Arizona county templates

• Thanks for your opinion! As an Ohioan who goes to college in Pennsylvania, I know rather little about local government rather farther west :-) Since the articles on some of those places said that they were towns, and other articles said they were cities, I thought it best to split them. I can see, however, that a line for "Municipalities" should work fine.
• As far as the population: as an "outsider", I'd prefer not to make such distinctions, especially since the city, town, and CDP articles I checked seem to use census estimates rather than the 2000 official numbers that the Ohio articles generally use. I suppose that someone else could modify my templates later, but I'd rather not do it myself.
• And one last thing: how is the Phoenix template that you gave me defined? Is it exactly one county's municipalities and CDPs, or is it somewhat otherwise?
• Thanks! Nyttend 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure when I'll get the templates made, but in my sandbox I have a complete list of places statewide, sorted by what they are (municipality, CDP, other unincorporated). In the mean time, since you give third opinions, would you please comment on the question of moving Village of Oak Creek, Arizona to Big Park, Arizona? Thanks! Nyttend 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Last night, I created a county template for each remaining county and placed each one on the county article. I also reformatted the Pima County template to be like the others, except sort by population instead of city/town/CDP/other. At the moment, all towns in Apache, Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma Counties have templates, and eight counties remain. Nyttend 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Four more counties are done; only Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai remain. Nyttend 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All counties are done. Nyttend 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at Bellevue, Ohio: it has four county templates! As a matter of fact, it is possible to hide these templates: see Template:Delaware County, Ohio compared with the Arizona ones; someone recently went around and converted a few county templates from central Ohio to this format. I'm not exactly sure how it works, since (if I remember right) when I tried to convert another one, it looked really bad. That's why I made the Arizona templates as I did: I knew that they weren't the best, but they'll be far easier to improve now. Nyttend 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts requested

As you recently gave the 3O comments for this related issue, and my edit in question was actually before your comments, but after Jossi's, I was wondering if you could provide your thoughts at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Smee_reported_by_User:Lsi_john_.28Result:.29 ? Regardless, I will most certainly take your 3O comments into consideration, from Talk:Mind Dynamics. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee is attempting to justify revert warring. Lsi john 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am simply asking for you to take a look at the material posted in that section of the 3RR page, and give your thoughts on the matter. As for User:Lsi john curious sudden appearance on your talk page, I can only say it takes two to edit war, but for my part I am done with that on those articles, as I am satisfied with the resolution on both talk pages. User:Lsi john may have stated that he has only stopped edit warring while waiting for the 3RR outcome, but I will not continue regardless. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue is resolved, and any action would be punitive in nature only. Smee 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi!

Hi! I come from Finland, and I dont speak very well english, whereupon you possible dont understand all what I try say. You can ask whenever what I try say, if you dont understand.

I want ask this: what means three lines in this map? And what are areas what belong anywhere town? Towns are like ´´islands´´ in a ´´see´´. In Finland all country are cut in townships (Image:Halsua in Finland.png).

Ragoni 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Are native american reservations same thing as indian reservations? How many native american reservations are in Arizona? Why in this map, borders are different than in this map? Are all areas what aren't municipalities, native american reservations?

Ragoni 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Are in Arizona Soccer Arizona's Championships or somethings else Arizona's Championships? Ragoni 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope Fillon

Good explanation on the close. Good work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Maricopa County Map Updates

Hey Arkyan,

I am still trying to keep up on the Maps project, so since MAG has released a new map, I have taken to updating the maps I made a few months ago accordingly. I have noticed that you uploaded some additional maps for assorted unincorporated cities that I didn't create originally, and I just wanted to give you a heads up that I would like to re-upload updated .svg files for these as well. I will go ahead and leave the maps you made alone until you give the word, at which time I will upload the maps based on the locations on your existing maps.

Regards,

Ixnayonthetimmay 09:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

By the bye, how is your venture to make the mapping process more automated coming along?

Your comment on my talk page re: i-prefix

I appreciate the notification on my talk page. I looked over the new article, and it looks like you did a good job with the merge. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Thanks. I was thinking that discussion was not quite over and that the merge you mention should take place. -Indolences 14:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Parana_river.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Parana_river.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arkyan. If you are the author of this image, please re-tag it with {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}}. If not, please provide some evidence (a link?) to the claim this image is licensed as cc-by-sa-2.5; If the image author gave you permission to use the image, please follow the instructions on WP:COPYREQ for knowing how to document this permission. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Same for this image: Image:Port of asuncion.jpg. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've posted an optional question for you. –Pomte 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

{{afd}}

Thanks for the kind comments. {{afd}} makes me sick.

1. I dread it because way too many participants see the deletion fora as a free fire zone where WP:CIV doesn't apply.
2. And I dread it because an alarming number of participants feel free to exercise a kind of know-nothingism — "If I never heard of it, or I don't like it, it is not notable."
3. I dread it because it seems to me hardly any participants are prepared to actually read the responses I put to the concerns they raise.

That guy Nick Mallory? I don't believe I have ever interacted with him before. Where did his venom spring from?

I think the viciousness of the deletion fora, and some issues around it, represent the wikipedia's most serious weakness.

What is really missing from the wikipedia is a fora where wikipedians can have a calm reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of the various competing unerlying design philosophies. Deletionism, Inclusionism, Mergism,

Instead I am aware of no disccusions whatsoever of the strengths and weaknesses of these underlying design philosophies. Instead, what I think I see is competing cabals, who not only don't have a meaningful discussion with proponents of the competing philosophies, they don't even discuss the strengths and weaknesses with other proponents of their own philosophy. As I see it, as the wikipedia grows, this problem will grow more acute, and may shatter the wikipedia.

What I am afraid I see is that instead of having meaningful discussion proponents use the deletion fora, and other similar fora, to form packs and gang up on the proponents of other design philosophies.

I have had several administrators tell me, "You can't discuss deletionism". No, I am not making this up. Even if all they meant was the deletionism was too entrenched, and I might as well save my breath, that is very alarming.

What is my design philosophy? I worked as what we would call an intern on Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu for a term when I was in University. Are you familiar with his work? He and Douglas Engelbart are the two guys usually credited with the idea of a hypertext. Ted coined the term. He is a brilliant guy. Very foresightful, big picture wise.

I fully agree with him that the implementation of the standard web-pages is incredibly flawed. Standard web page links are one-way. Unlike the wikipedia, there is no "what links here" button. Deletionist, and more particularly Mergists, don't really understand how powerful the wikipedia's "what links here" feature is.

Well, I won't go on about Nelson's ideas, without invitation. But even when Deletionists and Mergists are acting based on their chosen underlying design philosophies, like in the deletion fora, no one is prepared to listen to anyone who doesn't already agree with them.

About the Guantanamo articles, Arkyan, there aren't dozens of them. There are over four hundred. I don't know exactly how many, but there is one for every captive whose transcript, or summary of evidence memo has been released. And there are articles for the captives who won mention in the press prior to the initiation of the CSRT, or who won mention in the press even though the didn't participate in their CSRT or ARB.

The reason why I mention this is that I really, sincerely, don't see how a union list could replace the individual articles. I mentioned. the draft of a union list that is in my rough notes -- [[1]]. I keep mentioning how huge it is when people bring up the idea of a union list. But no one ever responds to this. If you are prepared to spend a few minutes looking at the file, it may take most of the first minute to render the file, but I would be really grateful if you could spend the part of the remaining minutes looking at it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to help

Yeah, it was a lot of work. Well over 1000 hours. Maybe well over 2000 hours.

After I wrote to you User:Dysepsion left another message on the {{afd}}, where he repeated that the only personal stuff was in the first sentence. (presumably he meant the first sentence.) I left him a [[2]] too, which may have been a mistake, since I know it is considered bad manners to take {{afd}}s to people's own personal talk pages. After I left him a message I realized what has happened. Everyone has their screen resolution at 1024x768 or 1164x864. And they are only seeing the first screen full of the article. No one is scrolling down to the factors.

And, no offense, I remembered your comment about the looking at dozen identical articles. Initially I didn't put in those two or three paragraphs explaining the context of the combatant status review tribunal and the context of the administrative review board. I got complaints. People needed some kind of context. But very a very small handful of exceptions the articles are all different. Different allegations. Different testimony. Sometimes press reports.

Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari is one of the longer ones. So is Abdullah Khan's.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think the material in those articles merits coverage on the wikipedia. Now, I know I don't own my contributions. If I have become myopic, too focussed, and the consensus is this level of coverage is too detailed maybe union articles makes more sense.

FWIW Walid Said Bin Said Zaid is already on two lists, over and above List of Guantanamo Bay detainees — al Farouq training camp and al Qaeda safehouse, Karachi.

I have a philosophical problem with excessive merging individual articles to lists, instead of having lists that supplement individual articles.

One of the little chapters in Ted Nelson's brilliant book "Computer Lib" had some cute little pictures of piiles of blocks. One pile had blocks labelled "God", "Man", "Yale". Another pile said something like "Birds", "Bees", "Flowers". IIRC he said something like, "All hierarchies are essentially arbitrary". He is right. This is deeply and profoundly true. IMO anyone who tells you that a particular order is the obvious order, has a POV they are pushing -- and probably isn't aware of it. Taid Said Zaid.

• We could eliminate his article, and try to shoehorn details about him on the list of Saudis.
• We could eliminate his article, and try to shoehorn details about him on the list of people whose names start with "Z".
• We could eliminate his article, and try to shoehorn details about him on to the list of people alleged to have attended the al Farouq training camp. (the most widely attended al qaeda training camp, one he is actually alleged to have attended...)
• We could eliminate his article, and try to shoehorn details about him on to the list of people whose names, or known aliases, were found on "a list of 324 Arabic names".

If we eliminate the article about any particular captive, and shoehorn some of the details about him onto a list, then we seriously short-change any reader who wants to traverse the tree of human knowledge through a different path than the list maker.

If, on the other hand, we have a larger cloud, or smaller, more connected articles, readers have the freedome to choose to travers the multidimensional tree of human knowledge on their own path, with no artificial restrictions.

This is profoundly powerful, and this power is lost whenever we let a list-admirer lock us in the heirarchy that makes sense to them.

If the main details, even the relatively modest ones we have about Said Zaid, are in an article devoted only to him, then all the lists he could belong in can link to his article, without shoehorning in details about him, and his compatriots, onto lists where those details don't really belong.

I warned you about my frustration that no-one wants to listen to others advance the advantages of the wikipedia's competing underlying design philosophies.

I have to be careful about those suspicious lists. I am extremely curious about them. I would love to do something like traffic analysis on them. But I can't do that in article space. That would be a violation of WP:SYN or WP:NOR. I am not going to do that. But simply wrapping a list of the the captive's listed on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's web-site would not be a violation of WP:NOR. At least I think it wouldn't. Just as it I don't think lists like allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism, Casio F91W, al Farouq training camp, Khalden training camp, don't violate WP:NOR

There were a bunch of newspaper articles, shortly after the transcripts came out, that tried to list all the captives who faced the allegation that they owned a Casio watch. There were newspaper articles that listed the known alumni of Khalden, or al Farouq. They only found a dozen watch owners. Similarly, they listed a few more than a dozen alumni. Well, the wikipedia lists over a hundred al Farouq alumni, and several dozen Khalden alumni. Some people might say this is "original research", but some of the more experienced people I trust concur with me that this is merely collation, and fully complies with policy, so long as I am disciplined enough to refrain from injecting my own opinions.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[3]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[4] or History of Northeast China[5][6] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hi, we have filed the formal mediation request. Feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taylor Allderdice High School. You are not listed as a party, so you have not to put your signature. Cheers! --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration in mediating Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-31_Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

I gave up on fighting TDC over this article last year. So for all I know, his recent deletions that led to this mediation request can all be justified by WP policy - even if motivated by his political agenda. However, I do not believe that he edits in good faith - for reasons that I have placed on the article's Talk page here: Talk:Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Why_WP:AGF_does_not_apply_to_Torturous_Devastating_Cudgel Ribonucleic 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas

the fact that this article keeps being resurrected in a slightly different form by a different editor is a fairly strong indication that this is a notable subject that people keep coming here to find information about.

But you want it deleted? That makes no sense. Every time we try to write a neutral article to debunk this stuff, Nomen comes in, disrupts the article with pseudoskeptical garbage, and nominates it for deletion. Why are you supporting this when you claim to want a neutral scientific article? — Omegatron 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process."

It needs work, not deletion. Deletion is for things we shouldn't have articles about. — Omegatron 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.

Also make sure you read through both articles. I completely rewrote Brown's gas the other day to focus on the patents instead of the bogus claims, so it's a different sort of article and I don't think there's any reason to delete it. HHO gas I'm still working on, because the claims in the journal article are hard to follow. But still, articles shouldn't be deleted just because they're unfinished. — Omegatron 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hey, sorry that your recent attempt a becoming an admin failed. Apparently people are too worried about deleting wasteful articles than promoting good users. BH (Talk) 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, youre a good user who hopefully will consider taking another shot at adminship down the road BH (Talk) 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add: I'm sure you'd make a very good sysop, and it is a shame that those stupid "deletionist" witch-hunt allegations played a large part in sinking your RfA, rather than focusing on your solid grasp on policies and guidelines and respect for community consensus. Nevertheless, keep up your good work on the project, with maybe a little bit more work in mainspace, as that was the other main argument opposers had; in a month or two, I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors. Krimpet (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the supportive thoughts. The "deletionist witch-hunt" line rather amuses me :) All the same I'm glad to see that most people are willing to judge on contributions rather than statements of opinion, even if the few who judge otherwise were the deciding factor. Either way I intend to keep up my work here with no real change, and perhaps in a couple months give it another shot and see if people aren't more willing to look past a philosophy and at contributions. Thanks again! Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much known as an inclusionist and I don't really have a problem with you being an admin. I really wanted to support you at your rfa but I felt even a strong neutral comment might prove disruptive to the then active mediation. Had I known how that was to play out I would have. I'd like to apologise for that. For what it's worth, I think you'd have made a good admin. Hiding Talk 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I really appreciate the vote of confidence. No need for an apology though, I can totally understand your point, as a vote on the RfA could have been misconstrued as some kind of conflict of interest given the Medcab case underway. There's nothing wrong with your wanting to play it safe - and there's always next time, should I try again in a while :) It is a shame the case had to close the way it did though, and I am sorry that in a way, the rug was pulled out from under you. Thanks for your work during that case, I think you presented yourself and your view masterfully. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, thank you back. Look, if you ever want to run again, I'll gladly nominate or co-nominate you. With regards that case, to be honest, I think it has dragged out long enough, over a year now, but this is wikipedia. I console myself that there's no deadline and nothing is set in stone. Hiding Talk 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate that! Should I choose to try again or someone brings up the possibility of a nom I'll be sure to let you know. Perhaps in a couple months. Meanwhile, see you around the 'pedia :) Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. I'm sorry that your RfA didn't succeed -- I don't think your deletionist philosophy should even have been an issue unless people thought you would close deletion debates against consensus (which I note nobody argued) -- and hope you will try again soon. I've always taken away a positive impression of you from our interactions at AfD and I think you could help a lot as an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rfa

Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

		Thanks...
	Thank you for showing your support in my recent RfA. Unfortunately, consensus was not really going my way, so I decided to withdraw my self-nomination last night. The final vote tally was (15/7/10). Your support does mean a lot to me, and I will certainly let you know when I go for my next RfA, most likely in a few month's time. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (talk/work) 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffco maps

• Great work putting together those maps for Jefferson County municipalities. ([7]). You have my admiration. --Dystopos 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's always nice to know that someone has noticed your work :) Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Hi Arkyan. I like the maps you made for Mobile and Theodore! I'd like to make one for Semmes. Can you tell me what tool(s) you used and how you created them? Thanks Вasil | talk 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The maps were actually made from the US Census boundary files located here. I wrote a custom PHP script that converts these files into the SVG maps that you see on the 'pedia. Unfortunately since Semmes is neither an incorporated municipality nor a Census designated place, it doesn't show up in these boundary files and thus didn't get a map generated. What you can do is take one of the existing Mobile County maps (such as the one for Mobile) and change it to make a dot on the map to represent Semmes, since it doens't have official boundaries. I also use the Inkscape program which is a free SVG graphics editor here to touch up the maps, and I'd suggest downloading it and using it if you'd like to generate and modify SVG images. Or, if you'd like, I could do that and upload one as well. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fast response! I was thinking of creating one for Semmes based on the zip code (36575). Is this plausible? If you've the time to create one I'd appreciate it. I'd like to do it but it might take me a bit to get up to speed. Вasil | talk 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The script I have isn't compatible with the ZIP code boundary files so I'll have to manually insert it but it shouldn't be too hard. I'm about out of time today though, but I'll try to get around to creating one for you tomorrow and getting it uploaded. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! That's right neighborly of you. Thanks, Вasil | talk 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Thank you very much! Вasil | talk 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome :) Happy to assist. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Arkansas

the way you said it was perfectly OK with me from the first--I was trying to say that I felt thoroughly stupid about it, because I apparently checked it too superficially. And I was so proud of seeing the break, for as you say there was a break. At least I wasn't the only person who was caught out. I fixed the wording to clarify so nobody will think I'm complaining.DGG 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD closure

I'm not going to reopen. There are many redirects on wikipedia that are based off typos. Who knows, maybe someone searching for it in the future may forget the second parenthesis and validates the redirect. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean DRV? RfA is for adminship. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003

Brave move! but well founded.Garrie 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Seeing as the 5th day of the AfD is imminently dawning, I have tried to split them up into the number of articles which have since undergone development and the great majority that have not, feel free to review my categorisation (it was more to separate the speedies from the others). Orderinchaos 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard Equipments Used In Carrom

I was thinking that, unless you are closing the AfD discussion along with adding the {{db-copyvio}} tag, you should keep the {{AfD}} tag too. --Evb-wiki 15:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't notice that the {{AfD}} was gone. I didn't remove it though, it looks like the article author is the one who took off the AfD tag. I'll go replace it and keep an eye on the article to make sure the author doesn't take it or the {{db-copyvio}} tag off, either. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah . . . it looks like you're right. Sorry. --Evb-wiki 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem, no harm done :) Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you visiting and commenting at my RfA, I have tried to expand on my philosophy and answers, and quite a lot has happened since you last commented. I do hope that the new comments address your concerns. Even if they don't, thanks for stopping by! DrKiernan 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard Equipments Of Carrom

You had deleted my three articles that these are copyrighted. i want to add that Laws of carrom are only copyrighted to International Carrom federation not with any websites. The source was pscamohali.googlepages.com not carrom.org. You are not supposed to write anthing like this without knowing about particular game. I am a carrom player and playing since above 10 years but i have never heard of copyright with laws if you dont want to keep the article simply ask me i am not mad to throw my contributions or my works here. WHO IS THE ADMINISTRATOR????......user:hpt_lucky 16:26, 16 June 2007

Ck lostsword's RfA - Thanks

	Thanks very much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed successfully at 40/2/1, making me Wikipedia's 1,250th administrator. Your comments were much appreciated, and I will endeavour to fulfil your expectations as an admin. ck lostsword • T • C
File:Ck lostsword copy.png

ck lostsword • T • C 17:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Zona Norte

Hello Arkyan, There is a translated version from the WikiEs in the discussion for Deletion.

The Spanish article was based on this entries on this blog:

http://experienciastj.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

Hey there

Hey there, just wanted to know that my comment on the AfD wasn't to insinuate that you don't know WP guidelines, I was just bringing up for discussion purposes. Have a good day. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. Happy editing, Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent complete re-write of Zona Norte!! --Oakshade 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Arkyan

Thanks for cleaning up my mess with the website-stub page, it's my first time here and i'm finding it a little confusing! Where can I post an article correctly? Mediademon

Various locales in Bradley County, Arkansas

Remember Vicks, Moro Bay, etc. Good catch with those; each - and others - has been the subject of vandalism by altering the population numbers. BTW, I learned that the census bureau does publish estimated populations annually, however these are limited to counties and certain larger or incorporated places. Each data point for the little burgs in Bradley County was off (usually by a factor of 2 or more), trying to track down the culprits yielded newbies and ip addresses. But I've cleaned up the worms you've unearthed. Hard to catch those things. :-) Carlossuarez46 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New York City population

What is your source for the 2006 count of 8,214,426 for New York City? Alansohn 16:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's [8]. I'll add the cite to the article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info and for adding the source to the article. Alansohn 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I wasn't quite fully awake when I started slapping the new Census data into these articles and the first few went without the cites. Thank you for calling it to my attention. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Populations

Is there an easy and efficent way to change all the populations, say for examples all the Iowa counties and cities? Is there some program that can change them all, or would I have to go in and manually update them all for the new estimates? Thanks, Ctjf83 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. It is possible to write a script or a program to do this sort of thing for you, and here we would call such programs a bot but unless you're well versed in programming it tends to be more trouble than it is worth. Your best bet is to probably do the updates manually. I would offer to use my bot for the task, as I have a bot that is slowly updating every city article, but it will be some time before it gets to Iowa. Arkyan • ^(talk) 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio warning

Hey, I noticed you just warned User:PennyBot123 about copyvio. I thought it worth pointing out that this user has been indef blocked. Just to save you wasting time warning if you find any more (which, judging by the talk page of the user, seems likely). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Benjamin Bratton article has been radically overhauled, just in case you fancied giving it another chance at its AFD. If it helps, I was strong delete until I did a bunch of work on the article. See how you feel, your call. All the best. The Rambling Man 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Not precisely my preferred outcome but it's always good to see people improving articles instead of expecting someone else to do it :) Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. I'll be back to try again in the near future. Hiberniantears 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for your input at my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed, but I'll try to make improvements on the concerns your brought up. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it, it was more of a "frustration with waiting for admin tasks" moment. I probably will try later. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing: To me, that RfA was more like an editor review since I didn't have high hopes anyway. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  08:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. I especially appreciate the support I received from editors with whom I've interacted extensively, like you. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your successful nomination! I'm sure you'll make a fantastic admin and look forward to continuing to work with you on the project. See you around! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Male genital mutilation

I've requested this mediation months ago. I tried to accomplish some neutrality, but I've noticed that POV-pushing from pro-circ editors on circumcision and related articles ans redirects was too strong to fight. And some of this editors are admins. So I decided that it is better for me to give up dealing with such editors, than to uselessly lose nerves.

But if you want to try to make this articles more neutral, go ahead! Because answer on your question is yes, there is still still an dispute that requires mediation.

Even if you decide to de-list the case, thanks for showing the interest! Good luck! --antiXt 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to call you on what you said to see if you are bluffing :P . Okay, so doing random articles I found a town called Hampstead Maryland. I looked up its shopping centers and found over 10. I chose what news sites were considering as the biggest and here is what I found. Looking it up, its called North Carroll Shopping Plaza. It is between Hampstead and Manchester Maryland. I found these links on it: http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/brownfields/N_Carroll_Shopping.pdf http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/reforms/2-11.htm http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/plan/w-splan/2006%20update/chapter4.pdf http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/bays/libres_char_text.pdf They are owned by HM Mall Associates. And they opposed Weis food store from opposing them: http://www.weisproject.com/articledetail.php?num=6 It is also called North Carroll Plaza. They have a WalMart which has caused controversy and other news. http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22North+Carroll+Plaza%22&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.carrollcountytimes.com/articles/2007/04/10/news/local_news/newstory2.txt&w=%22north+carroll+plaza%22&d=e7ZryurnOq8o&icp=1&.intl=us http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/compplan/hampstead/chapter%2010.pdf http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22North+Carroll+Plaza%22&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.carrollcounty.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/local_news/newstory4-01.txt&w=%22north+carroll+plaza%22&d=ekhF5OrnOtbA&icp=1&.intl=us

Website of the owners I think: http://www.cordishleasing.com/

My search terms were North Carroll Shopping Plaza and North Carroll Plaza. NobutoraTakeda 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• The offer I made was genuine, but the problem with the provided sources here is that none of them offer any contextual information about the shopping center, let alone establish any sort of notability. They are almost exclusively government planning documents which merely list the site. This is not the sort of thing that is meant by reliable sourcing. Karrinyup Shopping Centre, on the other hand, now contains a number of news articles that (again, based on the titles) are about the shopping center itself and demonstrate that it has some measure of notability. Again, should you find multiple sources that actually contain substantial, contextual information about this shopping center (and not incidental mention in a list) I would be happy to assist with article creation. The sources you have provided give me no information upon which to build an article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided two news articles also. The government articles were to establish where it was and how it fit into the town planning. One of them declares that the county and state government feel it is one of the biggest shopping centers in the area and important for economic growth. That has to account for something if the other one counts as being notable. NobutoraTakeda 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For example: http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/compplan/hampstead/chapter%2010.pdf The government's plan. On page 123 it says "The two existing major concentrations of commercial development are in the area of Roberts Field Shopping Center and North Carroll Plaza. Opportunity exists for further development of these sites and some surrounding property. To maintain the integrity and success of these areas, commercial development should to be concentrated here or in the downtown areas. Allowing commercial development outside of these areas would hurt the existing businesses". If the government finds it important enough to focus only having businesses on the North Carroll Plaza and the other Plaza then it must be important location to more than just the citizens. There is also mention of the Wal Mart. It is also under local controversy if you look at the two provided news articles. Thats more notability than what was given for the other site.

The information is the equivalent to: "During the latter part of the 1960's, the Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority developed the Corridor Plan for Perth which was published and adopted in 1970.[3] The plan called for the creation of five 'sub-regional' retail centres". And the Wal Mart info is equivalent to: "During 1997, major works commenced to provide a significant upgrade to the centre.[9] Initially valued at $95.3 m AUD (1997), the redevelopment on completion expanded letable floor area to 54,400 m² and included;[9][10][11][12]" I can get you more information. There was over 1,000 results on the topic. NobutoraTakeda 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look - either you are seriously misinterpreting Wikipedia's notability criteria or this is just some disingenuous attempt to bait me, to what end I don't know. I'm not going to argue with you ad nauseum about why appearing in planning documents does not establish notability whilst a news article covering the event is. Consider reading WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT. If you are genuinely interested in creating an article about North Carroll Shopping Plaza and genuinely believe you have sources to establish notability then I have no issues helping you. However the apparent familiarity you have with policy indicates that you have no need of having notability criteria explained to you, and the vehemence with which you are arguing for the deletion of Karrinyup Shopping Centre leads me to believe you have no real interest in creating articles about minor shopping centers and you are trying to prove a point. Such behavior is antagonistic and disruptive and I have to ask you to stop. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Another map update

Hey Arkyan...

I have been focusing mainly on the major agglomerations where a large population resides, and where the maps tend to change. This is why I haven't been using the Census 2000 data, and trying to find sources more up to date. I must congratulate you on your work though... to slough through all of those maps, even using assorted custom tools, is quite an accomplishment.

Right now, I am (slowly) working on Clark County, Nevada aka Las Vegas, but was planning on returning to do other counties in the general LA/Southern California area, such as Orange, San Bernardino and Imperial counties. If you would like to generate maps for me based on the PHP script you made, I would very much appreciate it...I would probably update the actual incorporated area boundaries based on whatever most recent files I could find. I would be sure to give youi due credit, though :)

Again, my maps project has been pretty much unofficial..I am still trying to learn the consensus and "formal procedure" for projects and whatnots that Wikipedia seems to have, and trying not to piss off too many people along the way.

Again, very good work!

Ixnayonthetimmay 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

A primarily religious cabal dominates the Circumcision topic ... to the point where many subsections are fraudulent. Gross omission and misrepresentation of fact.

How can I get strong neutral editors to review?TipPt 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to achieve smoe neutrality in this topic few months ago, but I gave up because they were too strong, some of them are admins and I don't want to get blocked just for trying to make things more neutral as they should be. But if you think you can handle them, go ahead, I would be glad if you achieve something, however I think that it is very unlikely.

However, good luck! --antiXt 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Time

Hello Arkyan, there is a notice at the top of the page that says: Arkyan may not reply to messages quickly during evenings or mornings. I just thought I should point out, it is always evening or morning somewhere in the world, so the statement does not hold much meaning unless your place of origin is well known to someone reading your talk page. Even so, you could live in one time zone and work in another. While this would narrow the ambiguity there still would be times of day where someone could not be certain if you were indeed indisposed or if you were ignoring them out of spite. Now there is a point where evening crosses over into morning. What of the wee hours that are kind of between morning and evening. Are these, too non-message answering times or are you referring to the point between afternoon and night or dawn and mid-morning respectively? ~ Infrangible 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, I hadn't really thought about that! I changed the message a little bit to something a bit more generic :) Thanks for the heads up. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fudgie Frottage article

Please revisit the AfD page [[9]] and article to see if your vote might change. Benjiboi 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		Thank you
		Thank you for your opposition of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. —TomStar81 (Talk) 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)