User talk:Unquietwiki/Archive1

Hi!

Just thought I'd drop a note here :) MikeCapone 07:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoa Nelly!

I don't have a problem with your expressing the exasperation you clearly feel wrt the treatment of your article, and got a little chuckle out of your characterizing the removed content as "Exiled Article #1", but I am troubled by your apparent impugning of those who have expressed concerns about it as "apparent followers of Deletionism", and with your characterization of the voicing of concerns as "attacks"... This could quite easily be construed as you engaging (albeit somewhat covertly) in personal attacks against a group of editors at large...and while nobody, I don't think, has yet thought that the article makes you even remotely vandalistic or in need of banning, if such a discussion ever comes up, such characterizations are going to be among the first evidence presented. I understand you're probably feeling frustrated (or as I like to say, "conflusterpated"), but keep in mind there are policies that govern such things (and tomorrow, you'll agree, that they exist for good reason). All the best. BTW, while JayJG is the one who slapped the VfD tag on it, I think I was probably the first to notice the article and to point out that it had some troubling (from the perspective of Wikipedia's NPOV policy) content. I didn't mean for you to be insulted, nor certainly to bite a newcomer, and hope that eventually you'll understand that I pointed the article out because I strongly believe in the WP project and do my best to guard the spirit of its policies jealously. Tomer ^TALK 22:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Frustrating, yes, but at the same time I was hoping for discussion & to have people mold it to something that could be used; not to be deleted at the get-go. I removed the "deletionist" reference, with reservation: it seems like how I treat articles is based on the "evolutionary" or "inclusionary" models; which would permit the article as it was, or provoke modification, not deletion. Cwolfsheep 22:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• • BTW, I'm not opposed to your including some of the excised content, in an NPOVized form, back into the article...in case that wasn't clear from the outset. Next time, try to write it a bit more gently from the outset. :-) BTW, the VfD tag was probably premature, and JayJG will probably even acquiesce on that point with a little pondering...although I understand his thought-process in doing it. -tTomer ^TALK 22:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• • • It seems like we've managed to solve things. I really don't want to waste a week defending "a humanist rant." If we need to delete the article still, can you speed up the time table, else go to them and say "hey, its fine now?" I do appreciate your attempts to be a peacemaker in this. Cwolfsheep 22:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I've left variations of the following message on the Talk pages of everyone who has participated in either the voting or discussion thus far:

• I don't want to "campaign" for this article, especially since I think I was actually the first one to throw a stink about it, but I think that through working with User:Cwolfsheep, the article has been sufficiently altered (by which I mean pared away of its POV), to warrant a reconsideration of your criticisms (and possibly the speedy removal of the VfD tag). Please review the article, as well as the discussion on the VfD page and on Cwolfsheep's user and talk pages in the process. Tomer ^TALK 23:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Good luck. :-) Tomer ^TALK 23:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry to read about the premature demise of the article. Searching for articles related to autism or some such turned up a link to 'childlike mentality'. It was a disappointment when the link didn't work. The first inclination was simply to modify and restore the article, but that would first require careful consideration and, more dauntingly, more research. Not knowing the motives of the dissenters, it is easy to assume their good faith at this point. In any case, sections should include headings like neoteny and assortative mating, factors which might be contributing to the apparent escalation of sustained childlike behavior in the US (it's not just TV and fast food), especially of the hyper-focused and morbidly deferential kind. Another side of the coin is ADHD, where normal childlike behavior, associated with a prolonged childhood/adolescenthood (allowing more complete maturation) is treated as offensive, bordering on criminal, and worthy of chemical intervention. The alarming prevalence of childlike bullying in American schools, especially by those whose maturation is prematurely arrested, truly beckons thoughtful intervention strategies. And, of course, a Wiki article to serve as a hub for amassing knowledge on the subject. Ombudsman 05:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting observations Ombudsman: I will keep them in mind! :) Cwolfsheep 05:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thought police

Hi, Cwolf! Hope you've been having fun with the Wikipedia and life in general. Hey, are you up for a favor? Could you check out the VfDs for the Thought police, Elliott Valenstein, Holonomic brain theory, and Moral compass articles, and perhaps vote your conscience? thanks in advance for consideration. Ombudsman 08:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• I did the votes: two can go or merge; two can stay. I also gave you a Wiki Wiffle Bat Award because of your attempt to rally some support against a Deletionist push, without asking of me if I'd join them or not. You stood your ground. Cwolfsheep 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Please consider joining the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign. Also, please note, deletionist has continued to escalate disruptiveness, having put God complex up for VfD. Cheers! Ombudsman 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Voted on. Is this a deletionist war? Cwolfsheep 06:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, nothing so grand, just one deletionist behind it, apparently, thus far. Merely attacks on Wikipedia's institutional memory, under color of authority. The content deletion attacks started in earnest after a compromise was offered, of simply keeping one (New Freedom Commission) of four Wikilinks introduced into the mind control article, with several editors rebuffing dozens of reverts by the deletionist. The root issue is, ironically, deletionism on behalf of the drug industry and their umitigated spam. The legal drug pushers leverage their propaganda influence from an Rx market with a cash flow, in the US alone, of a quarter trillion dollars. Of course, with that much influence, it's not surprising to find their supporters here at the Wikipedia - just look at the nonsense editing over on the vaccine articles. Having the Wikipedia's moral compass eviscerated by a single thought policeman represents a very minor skirmish in the mind numbingly hypocritical drug war. The war, which is being played up to keep prices of both licit and illicit drugs up, recently took the life of Gary Webb on the one hand, and triggered an autism epidemic, among many other drug industry tragedies, on the other. Ombudsman 07:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki dating

As of August 5, 2005, Wiki dating isn't functioning! Did the website shut down permanently or is it just undergoing some maintenence that is rendering it unviewable? --SuperDude 02:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ExtremeUS1.jpg

Hello. I noticed you removed the {{badJPEG}} tag from Image:ExtremeUS1.jpg, with the claim that the file size of the PNG version is 300K. This will probably be true if you convert the JPEG image directly to a PNG, because the image will still contain all the compression artifacts that the JPEG compression algorithm introduced. What needs to be done to fix images tagged as {{badJPEG}} is to go back to the original source of the image, before it was converted to a JPEG (in this case, a map from the CIA World Factbook) and save that as a PNG. I am absolutely confident that this map will have a smaller file size and much better quality if it is made as a PNG instead of a JPEG, so I put the {{badJPEG}} tag back. —Bkell 18:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I see your point. I will vouch that better source yields better compression: high-res video compresses a lot easier than noisy stuff. Cwolfsheep 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly the same reason. —Bkell 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nemesis

I have removed all of your changes to the Nemesis (star) article. While the Binary Research Institute proposes the existence of a companion to the sun they do so in a much shallower orbit and do not identify it with Muller's Nemesis (a name that never even appears on their website). Hence their theories don't really belong in the Nemesis article, but perhaps you could start an article about the BRI? Dragons flight 17:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't even know they existed until something on Slashdot showed up this morning. They however did cite Muller regarding his comet work. If you feel it all needs to be explained under a new article, that would make some sense.
  • That's actually a weird place to cite Muller since he actually doesn't believe in the "belt of comets", as he generally chalks that result up to observational bias and statistical error in judging the significance of the enhancement. I do think though that any discussion of a companion with ~20 kyr orbit needs to happen in a different article since Muller's Nemesis proposal has a 26 Myr orbit, and hence is a very different object. Dragons flight 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll copy-paste this to Nemesis discussion for future guidance & I or someone else will work on this later. Cwolfsheep 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Super_typhoon_forrest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Super_typhoon_forrest.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're from Chapman?

I saw your entry on Talk:Joe Engle and saw that you lived in Chapman. I used to live there too. Did you graduate from the high school there? What year? --Shultz IV 00:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Chapman from roughly 1985-1990 as a small child. I much prefer Florida now, lol. Cwolfsheep 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dang. My family moved to Chapman in 1990, so we may have barely missed each other. I left for college in '03, and my family's moving to Lindsborg early next month. --Shultz IV 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerome H. Lemelson

Hi! Please could you be more specific with respect to what needs cleanup in this article. I'd like to help. Cheers. --Edcolins 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• The table of contents is in the wrong place.
• Out of place quotes.
• Two sections with neutrality disputes.

Does that help? lol Cwolfsheep 17:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Modem modulation standards

Could you explain your thinking behind replacing the article stubs with redirects to the ITU standards page? My belief is that (a) not all modem standards are ITU recommendations and (b) each one is notable enaough to justify an article in itself. Cheers. WLD 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited or created articles that are absorbed into larger subject articles on a regular basis. I am attempting to codify this as a standard practice to reduce redundant article and subject matter. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Efficiency Cwolfsheep 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I happen to disgree with that practice in this particular instance, but such is life. WLD 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In my line of work, you deal with redundancy and user impatience on a regular basis. I also know at least 2 people that avoid Wikipedia for its lack of clarity or "truth," and a few others that mock it. I want to do my part to eliminate those biases. Cwolfsheep 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ive posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Efficiency -Ste|vertigo 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Move done!Cwolfsheep 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Autocracy & totalitarianism

Hello! While the creation of a new template is a good thing, I reversed your inclusion of totalitarianism, stalinism and military dictatorship, while including enlightened despotism. The reason is clear: concerning military dictatorship, these are often collectives. Concerning totalitarianism, nazism, fascism & stalinism, the concept of totalitarianism (whether you agree with it or not is a different question) was made specifically to attempt to distinguish it from traditional forms of tyranny and autocracy. If it was a simple autocratic regime, no doubt Hannah Arendt would have used this term. If she used the term "totalitarianism" it was because she thought that stalinism, for example, marked a definitive rupture with the Czar's autocratism. This is of course discussed & the concept of totalitarianism is a bit controversial, but you can't reduce this concept to "autocratism". Please leave me a comment if you need further explanations for my move, regards, Santa Sangre 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let's split it between the two disciplines then. The idea is to highlight forms of government where the people have little say in their governance. Something along the lines of the programming template...

Template:Major_programming_languages Cwolfsheep 19:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is quite a lot of debate on the concept of totalitarianism itself. By "totalitarianism", H. Arendt meant Nazism and stalinism. Others mean Nazism and (Italian) Fascism. Others believe it is not an adequade, descriptive, term (see the Wiki article). Most people, however, agree in that Nazism, Fascism & Stalinism are all modern regimes which all appeared after WWI, and which relied in part on modern technology (for propaganda, etc.) But it stills remains problematic to include them on a template, because totalitarianism is not really a form of government. All this means that you can't make a subcategory: totalitarianism, and then include "nazism, fascism & stalinism" because the whole thing is disputed. Maybe if you just put something like "Others" and include all four of them (including "totalitarianism"). But I really believe you should restrict the "autocratic" template to traditional forms of government, the matter is really too much controversial. Cheers! Santa Sangre 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

TFD tags

Hi Cwolfsheep, I just closed the TFD for autocratic and noticed that you already removed the tfd notice from the template. Please don't remove such notices from templates if the discussion is not closed. Although TFDs end in seven days, administrators don't always close the discussion right away; sometimes there's a backlog, and sometimes the discussion are run longer purposefully, perhaps due to a close decision or irregularities. Thanks, Pagrashtak 04:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you for getting around to it. I reviewed the rules for deletion & noticed the window for votes had apparently cleared. I didn't want a bunch of deletionists showing up to "finish me off" when I apparently survived the vote. Cwolfsheep 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting etc

What? I don't think your spiky comment helps much at all.[1]. I have studied politics for years. WHY CAN'T I??--maxrspct in the mud 14:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Making an observation, nothing more. Deletion has this nasty habit of causing fights and such: why not merge to a better article of your creation? Cwolfsheep 14:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Template

My bot, User:Alphachimpbot has just modified some of your cleanup templates. I just figured I would tell you... {{Cleanup|MONTH YEAR}} is not a valid template. Use {{Cleanup-date|MONTH YEAR}}. Just figured that I would tell you. --Alphachimp ^talk 16:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Cwolfsheep 16:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Trams in London and London Trams CANNOT me merged because they are on different subjects.

• Trams in London is about trams that have run in London.
• London Trams is about the Transport for London subsidiary in charge of running Tramlink.

Just thought I'd let you know.--sonicKAI 11:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I was making the suggestion because someone requested it on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers: I have pulled that entry as a result of your findings. Cwolfsheep 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Integration

Thanks for the help with the merging list.

Ditto! Thanks to you, we're finally rid of the remaining unsigned/undated listings. Those were leftover from when I refactored the old Wikipedia:Duplicate articles page (with its patently illogical alphabetical format and title that no longer described the actual usage) into Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.

I like your idea to separate the consensus-backed and debated proposals into separate sections.

Have you checked out WP:INT yet? Cwolfsheep 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it appears to be a worthwhile endeavor that matches my mergist philosophy. (Ah, I see that you've linked from that very Meta-Wiki page.)

Thanks again! —David Levy 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp ^talk 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that I already told you. Earlier. Anyway, yeah, I just figured I would tell you. Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: hard to remember which templates have dates, and which don't. Cwolfsheep 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. No worries. Just a reminder. (I actually made a template for reminding to make it easy =)). {{subst:badcleanup}} Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

lol Cwolfsheep 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

North Dakota

Could you please comment on Talk:North Dakota what the issue with the Poitics section is? Thank you. --AlexWCovington (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC) My goof on that one: I forgot that Daschle was from South Dakota. I pulled the tag. Cwolfsheep 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:INT

Are you sure WP:INT is suited to Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects? It states "Must be active, systematic, have lists, & need help.". I see no lists in WP:INT, more a general invitation to trawl stub category lists looking for articles that coule be merged. Worthy as I think that is, AFD I do not think it is. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I use category markers as lists. Lists themselves get really sloppy & unmaintained. Handle it as you wish. Cwolfsheep 12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent merger

Hi, I hope you're doing well. Recently, on the 6th of July, you merged the articles UFO Baby and UFO baby into Daa! Daa! Daa!, however the very person who nominated the above merger initially, Squilibob, retracted his position and furthermore proposed the merger of Daa! Daa! Daa! into UFO Baby instead, due to the concensus being reached on the talk page to instead merge/move Daa! Daa! Daa! into UFO Baby instead, after I explained that UFO Baby is the official English title of the Daa! Daa! Daa! anime series (Daa! Daa! Daa! is the original Japanese title) - reference for the official and better-known English titling. Unfortunately, the reverse occured and UFO Baby was instead merged into Daa! Daa! Daa! and the proposed merger was removed from the list. I therefore request that you move the Daa! Daa! Daa! entry into UFO Baby, as per the aforementioned consensus. ~ Ganryuu (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Copied discussion there. Cwolfsheep 17:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for copying the discussion to the talk page. The concensus I mentioned earlier to move the page into UFO Baby has been reiterated again by user Squilibob, that it has been agreed by us that the article be named UFO Baby, the discussion of which you can find in the Daa! Daa! Daa! talk page. Therefore, if you could kindly move the page into UFO Baby, then it would be highly beneficial, in order to further help improve the page to hopefully featured article standard. - Ganryuu (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done! Cwolfsheep 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

Since you attempted to merge English garden with another article, please take care of the multiple double redirects your merge created. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I checked both lists... have specific articles that are causing an issue? Cwolfsheep 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Please do not move articles by cutting and pasting the contents. If you want to change the title of an article please follow the policies and procedures outlined at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Thank you. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The only cut & paste move I've done was for UFO Baby, and that's because the old article was already a redirector to the content I was moving. I should have been clearer in the edit log. Cwolfsheep 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Spacewarp and Alcubierre drive

Thanks for handling the merge of these articles. The merge content looks fine to me, but if you want more qualified eyes on it, post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics asking for it to be reviewed. --Christopher Thomas 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I will. Thanks! Cwolfsheep 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing Windows categories

You are making a vast number of errors in your category changes on Microsoft and Windows-related articles. There appears to be absolutely no logical sensibility about it whatsoever, nor does it seem you're doing it from a perspective of being sufficiently informed about the subject. So, I kindly ask of you, STOP. I'm already going to be spending quite some time reviewing every single change you've made and reverting a large number of them as it is. I don't want to have to bring this to mediation or RfC but if you continue to make poorlyinformed, damaging changes to the categories without any kind of explanation, that's going to be the next step. -/- Warren 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've spent most of my spare time today trying to de-orphan stubs and get rid of the clutter. I know you or one of the other guys went in and made some new categories, so I followed suit. The biggest problem I've been trying to overcome is there seems to be three kinds of product that we're dealing with: development, multimedia, and productivity; and they've been all badly mixed together. Hell, there's programs I've found that I never knew existed. I didn't mean to make a mess: if you have a better solution, by all means, I'll give you the space to do it. I've had my own problems with malcontents: I refuse to become one myself. Cwolfsheep 19:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Left and Right

Hi, why did you create these utterly vague and ambiguous categories Category:Left-wing politics and Category:Right-wing politics? Intangible 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Something to start with: Politics itself is several hundred articles long. I'm hoping it'll get less vague as time progresses. Cwolfsheep 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there is already a hierarchy up at Category:Political parties by ideology or Category:Political theories, and plenty others. So one just needs to find the correct hierachy, instead of making up a new hierarchy based on simplist and ambiguous terms as "left" and "right." Intangible 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing those out. If people had stopped adding to Category:Politics like crazy, we would be using those more often. I'll utilize them as I scan the articles and merge the other "wing" cats as needed. Cwolfsheep 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More Politics

Hi, regarding your edits to Politics, don't you think administrative lists like these belong on the talk page rather than on the front page? Best, Ziggurat 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to compensate for the spillover of the subcategories. Move it to talk if you want: it'll go away after organizing is complete. Cwolfsheep 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad that someone is tackling that mess! I figure that the talk page is a better location for the behind-the-scenes editing notes, so yeah, I'll move it in a bit. Ziggurat 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have you checked out WP:INT yet? Cwolfsheep 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have, and although I'm working in other areas at the present I appreciate the intention behind it! Good luck navigating the rough waters of categorization, though - it's one of those areas that people seem to have strong feelings about. Ziggurat 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can tell from my talk page I've ran into that already. My roomie says she'd be banned from Wikipedia for her uncivil responses if she was getting the flak I have. Cwolfsheep 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I understand that completely. In my experience it's best to run through a few extra steps when dealing with big category changes / creations, like seeing if there's a Wikiproject that deals with that area already, starting discussions on recategorization at the various talk pages, and basically stepping carefully! Ziggurat 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. I'm shocked the main Political groups haven't made an effort on this already. Cwolfsheep 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)