Thanks for the clarification on tactical bombing versus close air support versus air interdiction. Your divisions make sense from a taxonomic perspective, but to a layman they can seem interchangable. What's your source for splitting things up the way you did? Brendano 01:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response. I 'preciate the kind words. I'm obviously new to the wiki thing, but not to the Web, writing or collaboration. This is a *very* interesting medium. One thing that's odd is this particular snippet of conversation - it's gone back and forth between our Talk pages, but reading each page is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Is it common? I see a lot of threaded discussion on articles' discussion pages.Brendano 01:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I feel your pain in regard to the long opening "definition" of terrorism. I would comment that the way the issue is handled there is, in itself, instructive of the world view toward the issue. I'm not sure how to tackle this, would almost be inclined to let the apoliogists keep the purity of their embarassment, but I'm also mindful that the person searching the wiki at least deserves a common-sense base definition. I will think on it and see what I come up with. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments and input on The Signpost. For the time being, I'm finding the workload of just writing up the latest newsworthy happenings is challenging enough by itself. But my vision for where The Signpost can go in the future definitely includes things like your suggestions, content that is more "soft news" than the current "hard news" focus.
I'm not sure that a column specifically about the history and development of various Wikipedia matters could run regularly on our current weekly schedule, as I think it might burn out its material a little quickly, but it could be rotated in periodically. And the topics you suggest are all excellent; in fact, most of them have the potential to warrant pretty regular "hard news" coverage, which is partly why their evolution is also interesting. Anyway, I'm sure there's enough potential material for regular "soft news" content (another possible angle to use is reinventing Great editing in progress, a nice idea that never got much traction), and I'd definitely like to work some historical columns in.
If and when you're able to help out, I would love to see articles from you. You're one of the people that comes quickly to mind as being thoughtful and well-informed about the community, and would be a valuable addition to the project of reporting about it. Until then, enjoy reading. --Michael Snow 22:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
WP introductory pages
I see you added links to the discussion at the Welcoming committee talk to a couple of them--I just added links from a couple of the others. My opinion is fairly clear by my post at the WC talk page, while you have (probably very smartly) veiled yours. If the main activists in this area don't join the discussion, I will probably leave messages on their talk pages asking them to join the discussion. It seems a bit anti-Wikipedia to persue wholesale changes without discussion. (FWIW, I still hope to get back to my 'guide' someday--main topics I see are naming conventions for new articles and making sure they don't already exist under a different name, ways people can contribute other than new content, and maybe some advanced topics like tables and infoboxes.) Niteowlneils 16:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
New Mathematics Wikiportal
I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.
I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.
I would like to revive this project. I noticed that you've added yourself to the list of available Spanish-to-English translators. Are you interested in working on Spanish Translation of the Week? — J3ff 06:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate the thought, but could you run Sandbot less often on the Tutorial sandboxes? They aren't edited as frequently as Wikipedia:Sandbox, and I think it's useful for newbies to see other people's experiments. It helps them see what works, and it also makes them more comfortable experimenting if there's already stuff there. I think cleaning once every week or two would be sufficient. Isomorphic 18:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Will be running every Monday, each week, around 6:48 AM Pacific Standard Time (-8 hours from UTC). -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't catch his nomination until a few weeks after the fact, no; in fact, I didn't even notice it until I restored the Minions list and saw EventHorizon there. So it should probably stay live. He's also recreated his pet article, this time as Ambition (cards) (which I won't link to directly), and taken his puppet show to Usenet . I haven't deleted the article, since it's substantially different to the old one, it's more reasonable in scope and claims, and he's not trying to promote it in irrelevant places, yet. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sock puppet check
Let me know the accounts and I'll check. Jamesday 13:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Young fellow, I am going to give you some good advice so that you do not involve Wikipedia in a libel suit and thereby cause problems for you and others who operate in good faith, here. Stop asserting or implying, parenthetically and otherwise, that a third party is promoting himself when i) you have no proof that is the case and ii) when it is untrue, as is the case. Be aware, too, that even when what you assert is true, if does harm to someone's reputation or ability to make a living, it remains subject to libel law. If you have any doubts about this, you best confer with your recent dinner partner, Jimbo Wales, who is well aware of the potential dangers, here, especially given the financial status of Wikipedia. Fora such as these do not give people license to say anything they want about other people. I suggest you edit your exuberant and unfounded remarks, and that you get control over your obsession with my contributions. Criticize them, call them unworthy, unimportant, or minor, but do not impugn the integrity of uninvolved parties who are not hiding behind the veil of anonymity. These Javert-like tendencies, also evident in the Church matter, will get you and, unfortunately, others, including Wikipedia itself, into trouble. icut4u
- I have no desire to be your friend or your enemy, though we certainly could have been friends, for we share several interests. As for arguing the case, you gave me no chance whatsoever, you merely revert without discussion, indeed, you seem to pride yourself in this. I have made a number of useful edits, I think, over the last six or seven months, and I should have thought you might inquire with me. I don't think I have ever reverted someone's contribution (other than in cases of obvious vandalism) in the entire time I've been here, and I try to bring my points up on the discussion page when I disagree. I certainly never would revert based on a suspicion or a belief that I could not demonstrate. Indeed, I do not even revert people who change my stuff; I move on to other things, for as someone you admire says, things will eventually get right. In any event, I have tried to make meaningful contributions, and I am sorry you disapprove of them. I certainly did not mean to be patronizing to you (it comes with being an old so and so), and I apologize for that, but I am perplexed and somewhat exasperated by this. I, too, shall simply drop the whole thing and avoid the area of dispute, for it's not that important, as you say. I do wish you well. icut4u P.S. By the way, I made no legal threat!!! What I said is that what we say about others, here, could have untoward consequences, and I noted that you (and others) have been careless in several cases and should be more cautious.icut4u
- Thank you. And, actually, I should like to be friends. After reading a great deal of your stuff and seeing your picture, I knew you were a kind and earnest person, and that you take Wikipedia very seriously. My wife knows Berumen...she is a professor and has worked for him before; that is the root of my interest. I don't disagree that he is minor, but he has come up with ideas that are provocative. I am a disabled physician with too much time on his hands. I am going to delve into other areas, now, perhaps the philosophy of science. I, too, like economics...tried my hand at libertarianism (I am not one, but I am interested in it), but people are too passionate about their beliefs, there. All the best to you. icut4u
Bring back quickpolls
New Mathematics Project Participants List
In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.
Hi Isomorphic, I'm writing to say thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination. I appreciate it very much and will do my best to live up to it! ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's held at ten pages for 11 months, but yes, they've all grown to varying degrees--the Talk page one seems to have spun the furthest out of control. I think much of the growth has been by people thinking about a specific topic in a vacuum, instead of contemplating the relative priority within the entire tutorial (I know I've been guilty of this--for example, I think I added both the AE/BE section (or at least greatly expanded it) and the 'don't cut&paste move' section, but in reality I think the latter is far more important to get in front of new editors). Also, 'cool' tricks like Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)#Alternate endings probably are good candidates for removal--as long as people know how to get the job done with [[fiction|fictional]], why confuse them. And yes, Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)#Categories is pretty spartan, but I'm not the person to expand it either, unless to mention how to alphabetize people's names properly. Looking at entire pages, the Namespaces one seems the least valuable, with 'related site links' probably second. And, actually, the essentials of the 'Talk pages' page (they exist for both articles and user pages, they're where discussion takes place, they're the only place you add your sig., and 'new comments to the bottom') could probably be boiled down to a single paragraph that could be moved to some other page. This discussion has also started me thinking that instead of a single 'advanced' guide for both potential builders and cleaners, I should split it into a 'content-building guide' and a 'housekeeping guide'--not only for brevity, but to increase the chances of my actually getting around to finally finishing at least one of them. Niteowlneils 04:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Overloading the Intro's Talk page with discussion of all pages didn't seem like a good idea, but neither did having the discussion spread over all 11 Talk pages, so I concluded it would be better to have a subpage just for the project, and starting with the current framework seemed like a good way to facilitate people taking a holistic approach to it, so I created Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Tutorial v2, then added comments about things I think could be pared down. Oh, and I don't know if I ever mentioned it to you, and other than a small edit in Feb it looks like I haven't worked on it since last summer (I didn't realize it had been that long; jeez), but this is as far as I got developing ideas for the Guide(s). Niteowlneils 04:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I am thinking April 30/May 1 would be a good weekend for me. Would that be good for you? If so, I think the first thing to do would be to pick a place for people to stay. Are there any cheap motels you can think of? Danny 23:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --Bjarki 13:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Khazars is up for nomination on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. Since you were involved in some discussions I thought you would be interested. Your vote and/or comments would be appreciated. Thanks! --Briangotts 16:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Your point about organization is well taken. For me, I prefer an article to have maximum info organized as efficiently as possible. I really dislike having to link to different articles (i.e. "See Main Article: History of such-and-such"). If someone else wishes to organize the Khazar article in that way (and does a good job of it) I wouldn't object. It's a matter of personal preference in balancing completeness and ease of access. --Briangotts 19:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You said:
- "Maximum info" has limits. An article like United Nations can't possibly contain all the relevant information available on its subject. The main article on any subject is intended to stand alone and serve as a fairly consise general introduction. "See main article:X" is used to direct a reader to more information, but only if the reader is interested in that particular subtopic. We don't expect that most readers will actually read all the spin-off articles, and that's fine. Don't forget that Wikipedia is intended for everyone. As much as possible, physicists and auto mechanics should be able to read articles on history and art, while artists and historians should be able to read articles on cars and physics. We often fail to reach that lofty goal (many of our mathematics articles are opaque even to math students) but we do try. Featured articles in particular are expected to reach a general audience, since we'd like to put them on the Main Page for all to see. Like I said, I'll try to do some smoothing myself, and definitely do try the Peer Review people. Isomorphic 20:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you to a point. Your example of the United Nations makes sense because there is such a huge volume of information out there. But the truth is there is not all that much definitively known about the Khazars beyond what's in the article already. I wrestled with the idea of doing a number of separate articles ("Khazar history", "Khazar religion", etc.) but it seemed too disjointed and incohesive. I feel that the separate articles would be too short to be of any use. That said, you have more experience with these issues than I and I look forward to seeing what changes you make to the article.--Briangotts 21:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any particular reason you stuck the 'see also' on my user pagg? I'm just wondering.... --Gmaxwell 04:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA! And from another quiz bowler, I see (though my team hardly ever makes it out anywhere, alas). I shall attempt to put my shiny new buttons to good use! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A familiar, um, face
How very odd.... -FZ 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
De Havilland Goblin
Hi Isomorphic, I'm new about here - I hope this is the right place to talk to you - if not move it and put something on my talk page. First, thanks for being interested in De Havilland Goblin. It's nice to colaborate on something I'm particularly interested in. I've a question: the text from EnginesUK is not paraphrased. Do you think this is OK ?
The DC Meetup date has been finalized to May 7/8. Even if you can only come one of the days, that's still fine. Please watch this page for new details, which will be posted in the next couple days: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip --brian0918 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it was cool meeting up in DC. See you around. —thames
A question about Controlled Substances Act
Hi Isomorphic, Im almost done with college, getting senioritis, and since im not doing HW, like some of my elder colleagues, im going on wikipedia. I was looking up something and came accross the Controlled Substances Act and was kind of upset with the pro-legalisation slant that the examples sections had. I dont have the experience, finesse, knowledge or prowess to correct it, but someone should. And since the discussion page was kind of scant (you can see my contribution), and you are the only other wiki contributer I know, therefore, by definition, the editting is your job! Logic must be my forte, I should have been a philosopher! Anyway, hope you are doing well for yourself, and hope to talk to you soon. Send me an email or something im on the umsps listserve.
Oops, another question. how does that disclaimer tag get put on an article (like terrorism), and what is the tag for putting your name and date at the end of a post? Also, is there a list of all the tags: like stub and other such things.
Thanks! That does look useful. -FZ 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank You for the Warm Welcome
and for your compliments regarding the articles I've contributed to thus far.
Ladycascadia 22:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your note in my talkpage. I'm glad that my edits were helpful.--Tabib 06:23, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Any updates on Dagestan??? Vital Componebnt--
Issy, how has the research on Dagestan been going along? I still cant find any information on it. Did you get more last weekend? Vital component 3:19 AM Monday (EST)
Well, most of his edits are targeted better at Tabib, but his intention as he stated on User talk:Dante Alighieri is pretty plain. He has no real intention of editing in good faith. "I have big pool of different IP addresses, which I am going to use to cut any of his edits, no matter what his POV is." .--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Closing VfD discussions
Good evening. You recently closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Everson. When you have a minute, would you mind looking over the Deletion process? We need all the help we can get cleaning out the backlog of old discussions but it's there's also value to getting the discussion properly archived. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that you reverted the copyvio notice. I don't know enough about the law to know whether it would qualify as fair use, but I've never heard of using fair use text on Wikipedia. That strikes me as unlikely; Wikipedia text needs to be GFDL so that it can be edited and reused elsewhere.
- It's a couple of paragraphs that, in my opinion, would be difficult to write n a different manner while conveying the same information. As such it's fair use because the information must be conveyed and clearly no creative act was involved in the original act of imparting it.
- Plagiarism? I have altered that article to credit the college's website. If they kick up a fuss we delete the article. Why do you think they would do that? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I make a request, addressed to Iso only, via a discussion whose topic is
- Dispute Assistance
appearing on User talk:Jerzy/Dispute Assistance; the following points describe the discussion:
Thanks for the welcome
Wow! That was fast--I posted the JB article only a few minutes ago, and it's 2 am where I am in the world. I appreciate the welcome; actually, I've been a user of Wikipedia for a few weeks now but had no idea I could introduce myself on any forum. Since you haven't read the play, perhaps I could ask you a question I posted on the Talk: J.B. page. The article seems a little POV in its interpretation of the play, but I don't know precisely how to fix it.
Thanks again. Reediewes 08:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
..for pointing that welding article out. I like it very much and I'll see what I can add.TTLightningRod
i uploaded the image file but i can't understand the syntax so that it can be displayed.
Thankyou very much!
Hi there, thankyou for the welcome, and glad you liked the article. Got a few more in the pipeline- and it's a really nice tradition to welcome new people like that!
Hey, did you get any response from Google or Yahoo regarding that site that is using Wikipedia only to pump up their rankings? (from this discussion) Just wondering where we should proceed from here. - Taxman 03:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this subject. If you don't mind taking more time over this silliness, would you go vote at the talk page? Mothperson 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to The Signpost. I went ahead with the article pretty much as is, because I wasn't sure how best to handle it. It fell outside our usual style of trying to stick with objective reporting, but I figured rewriting it to be "objective" would destroy the effect. In any case, Wikijunior is a worthy effort and I hope this may bring some more attention to it. Since many newspapers also carry advertising and editorials, the departure probably isn't that serious. --Michael Snow 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
You'll give up the fight on June 14
Wikijunior name vote
m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum P.S. On behalf of the whole Wikijunior (or whatever name we choose) community, thanks for taking the time to write an article for the Signpost.