User talk:Meelar/archive 2

I noticed the entry for tenet also and now see your message to UserBubba. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and before I saw your message I listed the entry on the VFD page - was that inappropriate? I was going to write a polite message to the user also which is how I found yours.

--Bob Palin 23:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Meelar, regarding deleting the page, it was also in the context of having to delete a previous obvious vanity page about a nonfamous individual. This one seems to be a nonfamous person, with only one hit on Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Adam+Beaugh%22+furman&btnG=Google+Search. Feel free to re-create if you feel it should be back here, and then it can be worked out on through due process. But I deleted it preemptively because it seemed like vandalism/vanity/nonsense. Fuzheado 23:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And edit that you made earlier somehow managed to make a second copy of the entire cleanup page - a glitch in the URL maybe? People then carried on editing for a while until somebody (in fact User:Jerzy) noticed.

He then reverted to the state of the page before your "edit of doom" and set about restoring the edits that he'd effectively just removed. He had to log off for some reason, so I'm just finishing up the job. Shouldn't take more than another few minutes.

I'm not sure Jerzy's way of fixing was the best possible, but now that he's started the easiest thing to do is finish it.

Onebyone 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help, but all finished now - it only took me 10 minutes to finish what Jerzy started. Onebyone 00:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have made a page on the alien experiments from Lilo & Stitch. You can check out the page here:

Alien experiment (Lilo & Stitch)

Enjoy! BigT27 00:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You've listed me for a copyright violation. The material you referenced is a copy (properly cited) from the Wikipedia article. It something from an article I split, not something I wrote, anyway. See my talk page for the top of the article showing their citation to the Wiki article. P0M 05:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I checked the history for "Horse Breaking," and the original versions appear to have fallen off the end of the archive, so I can't tell who wrote the stuff you cited as "copyright violation." P0M 05:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Meelar thanks for the welcome. I do indeed have rather a lot of respect for the late great Douglas Adams. I am surprised that my 'self-referential' quotation comparing the Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy with Wikipedia was so utterly and speedily removed by someone else from Washington (?), but there we are. User:Brequinda

Hi Meelar,

Since you're on the welcoming commmittee, I'm letting you know that there's a new page at Wikipedia:New user log. It's intended to let new users introduce themselves. You might want to change your welcome boilerplate to suggest that a new user sign the page. Thanks, Isomorphic 05:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Meelar,

BigT27 here. Check out the article I made on the biggest cold snap in U.S. history. Go to The 11/11/11 cold wave. Enjoy, BigT27

Congress Meelar, keep me in the loop re Congress. I can't promise anything, but I'm def interested. jengod 18:57, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the spoiler message on Riddley Walker - sorry I forgot that - you beat me to it by about 5 seconds! --Hob 21:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vote on revert policy

Hi Meelar,

I would like you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version. I write you because I hope that we can come as close to consensus as possible on this matter. This would make enforcement a lot easier.

You wrote in your comment that "I support it in all but rare cases, where, with gentle comments, reversion can guide new users to what's acceptable, and end up with a better version." Please understand that the proposed policy does not prohibit reverting. It prohibits edit warring, i.e. reverting more than three times. This, in my opinion, goes clearly beyond "guiding new users" - at this point the guiding should really take place on the discussion page of either the user or the talk page of the article.

I have seen many users turn into trolls because their edits were reverted constantly and they felt "suppressed" by the Wikipedia "elite". Add to this the fact that most newbies do not realize that they, too, can revert a page, and it can become really frustrating to them -- they repeatedly, carefully make what they think is a positive change, and within seconds, it vanishes. They may not even see the comment in "Recent changes" because they do not know that this function exists.

That's why I think reverts should generally be a last resort. And I say that as someone who would probably have agreed with your reasoning a year ago. My experience on Wikipedia has led me to believe that it is very important to talk to users directly, and open a friendly dialogue.

In the spirit of consensus, I would very much appreciate it if you would think about voting in favor of this policy.—Eloquence 03:34, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

If you wish to address an edit of mine, the best way to do so is via my talk page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi, Meelar:

Thanks for the kind words. As you seem to agree, an encyclopedia entry is no place for the sort of slanted rhetorical tricks common in debates about current affairs. After correcting such a trick made by somebody else, I was embarrassed to see that I had went down the same path myself. I hope you agree that, after correcting my own mistake, the end result of all of my edits is better than what came before them.

The ironic fact that Bin Laden was a member of the mujahideen does belong in this encyclopedia, in the appropriate places: the Osama bin Laden and mujahideen entries.

Likewise, the mitigating fact the lion's share of Iraqi armaments came not from the U.S. but from the Soviet Union and France, may also have a place in this encyclopedia, but not where I put it originally.

Best Regards,

-- M. E. Smith

Hi Meelar, sorry to take so long to get back to you about the maps, I've been out of town (still am, actually). The electoral maps were derived from the public domain government one at http://nationalatlas.gov/electionsprint.html and I put them up with their original coloration.

While I see nothing wrong with changing the color, I don't really think it would be worth the extra work involved. I'm not sure the major parties have official colors on maps; I'm pretty sure I've seen red and blue used interchangeably during the course of several election years going back to the '60s (although all the major news outlets seem to agree on a standard within a particular election year, I'm not sure there's an overall standard). - Hephaestos|§ 22:27, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Doublings of Cleanup

Each of the following two edit-history lines on page history of cleanup appears twice in a row with the same time:

. . 18:30, 2004 Feb 15 . . Meelar (added "Editorial Televisa")

. . 23:00, 2004 Feb 27 . . Meelar (removed "Poster Child")

Each was associated with doubling the content of the page, by embedding a second copy within a copy. (I.e., the head appeared twice, then the tail appeared twice.) As i know really nothing else about you, i consider it good sense and not just WP practice, to assume good intent on your part; i conjecture that there is something about your browser (and probably how that browswer interacts w/ the WP server at present), or, less likely, something about the way you edit, that makes this likely. It may or not have anything to do with edit conflicts or saving twice when the server seems balky,or editing using "Edit this page" instead of the "[edit]" section-edit link.

I urge you to seek assistance, perhaps at Village pumpor by contacting a sysop or developer, in troubleshooting this. And since we know so little of each other, i hope you will not resent my asking you to let me how you decide to pursue it, since i would feel remiss if i did not, and someone -- someone almost certainly far less responsible than you -- chose to ignore these events.

I doubt i can be of significant help on this, but of course you should not hesitate to ask for my help if you think of something that maybe i could do, or you don't see a way to proceed. TIA, Jerzy (t) 05:47, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

No, of course you didn't know. It's something a person could make happen intentionally, but i don't think there's any reason you should have known. I would have been no more diligent abt the info you had than what you describe yourself having done. And i should make clear that when i noticed the first of these, i didn't even bother to notice who did the crucial edit: it just happened that i recalled your name bcz i noted one of your other, normal edits needed restoring after my rushed effort that got the fix started, and it was still familiar to me when looked at the circumstances of the second in week on the same page.

I am far from assuming, BTW, that you are more than the victim of a pure coincidence, and in any case i doubt we are doing enough to educate users about risky editing behaviors that anyone deserves to feel embarrassed even if they could have prevented such a problem.

Keep smiling & edit boldly! --Jerzy (t) 01:02, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)

On the Late Great Trenton Ray

Oh, that's all right. I would have been fooled too, if I didn't know Central Texas so well.

By the way, thanks for the support on my abortive admin nomination by Jengod. To be honest, I knew it wouldn't fly, but I was curious to see who might give me a thumbs up even now. In other words, the worst form of egotism. :) -- Decumanus 21:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the reply to my talk page comment. RE: talk pages - I assume your statement that one should not edit talk pages doesn't apply to one's own talk page, and also that its okay to edit your own talk on other people's talk pages or article pages? ChessPlayer 04:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Triple Goddess

Your new context sets the Triple Goddess in the context of the modern Wiccan religion. But she is a major image in the mythology or Near Eastern and Minoan Bronze Age culture. Isn't this like putting "Emperor" in the context of the Tarot deck or the Great Pyramid in the context of the Shriners or the design of the Dollar Bill? It seems eccentric. Wetman 22:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Probably. Look at the entry for Uzza, part of a three-in-one young, queen, old triad of a goddess in pagan pre-Islamic Mecca. Or Cybele. And no, "neo" anything is never the same thing. Think of the difference between the Parthenon and the Lincoln Memorial! Triple Goddess needs a lot of work though... Wetman 23:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good. I edited the opening just now, and added some links to help orient readers. Wetman 00:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: [1]. A good starting point is Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. Good work! -- Cyan 01:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heh. It's not even the first time the Bush picture has been swapped like that... Evercat 04:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meeler, I took out your thing about how Bush's chances of winning the Nobel are small, because you are speculating. It may or may not be the case that people think he won't win, but there is no hard data that most people think he won't. Until you can produce such data, your speculative comment will be removed. Acornlord 11:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

5 out of 7 is not a consensus. Neither is 4 out of 7. Davidodd did not vote to delete. Anthony DiPierro 02:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bushy persona

Thanx for removing this para; talk about useless information. Cecropia 20:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

White flight

I'm afraid I haven't a clue. -- Cyan 02:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

D.C. Statehood

I'm very glad you picked that one up right away. I was afraid it would sit there for a while. -- Decumanus 06:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to trust you on that one. My experience living in D.C. was two years in the early 1980s going to Georgetown, and regular visits since then to friends. But my gut says the position itself is not extreme, but that its advocacy is relegated to the fringe because it is considered an impossible goal. It was actually almost part of the Democratic Platform in 1988 (or was, I knew a delegate who was gung-ho about it and held up big banners in Atlanta). So I think the Democratic Party doesn't waste any breath on something they know will never fly, considering the Republicans are in control of Congress, and it is generally accepted that D.C. statehood would automatically mean 2 more solid Democratic seats in the Senate. -- Decumanus 07:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there any reason at all why the USS HMAS pages should not be deleted immediately? Tannin

Because since when was the Royal Australian Navy part of the US Navy? That "USS" prefix is both laughable wrong and quite offensive. Tannin

On second thoughts, I think we can cover these two under the "patent nonsense" rule. I'll just delete them. Thanks. Tannin 07:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

USS Hmas

Er,...,uh,...actually that page might have been right. I think this page: [2] and a few others lend me to believe that there was a transfer of vessels perhaps from the Australian navy to the U.S. navy (as happens oftens between nations by sale, etc.) and that the vessels was renamed as a US destroyer without dropping the Hmas. There were a few ships like that. -- Decumanus 07:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New User - John Kerry Page

Thanks for the kind advice. I have had two people step forward and I appreciate it.

One question: I tried to email this and it said I had to be logged in and have a valid email address. I was logged in and have a valid address. Does the software send me a required confirmation by email? I haven't got one.

Thanks

Gustnado 00:36 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Hi Meelar,

Just wanted to say thanks for the warm welcome you left on my page. I'm going to try and get some info about Pudovkin's films up soon and expand his page, I was surprised to find that there was nothing there already!

Cheers, Chris 15:53 (GMT) 12 Mar 2004

Thanks for letting me know about the Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. listing on VfD. Jamesday 04:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Idaho

Go Broncos! :) -- Decumanus 18:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vfd erasures

Meelar,
When you remove articles from VfD, I believe it's customary to move the comments from the VfD page to the disputed article's talk page, and to remove the VfD notice from the article. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to discourage housecleaning, I just happened to notice an oversight and tip you off in case you didn't know.<G>. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stonewall/Judy

Hi, I noticed you edited the Stonewall Riots article, and I couldn't help wondering--why was Judy Garland a hero to gays? It doesn't mention anything about the reasons in her article. If I were a cat, I'd be dead by now. Yours, Meelar 02:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did an initial clean on Judy Garland and the Stonewall Riots articles in preparation of adding content on the why's and how's of her icon status with the gay community. I think it will be a separate article, though since it is long. Davodd 02:29, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your nomination! That was kind of you. Moncrief 07:39, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

About the hardcore punk article, I added and removed Anti-Flag only because it's listed under anarcho-punk, and it seems someone made an effort to not overlap the two lists. Also, you reverted to a version that had two sentences that made no sense at all, which I had fixed. Anyways, this is the first time I've used usertalk, so forgive me if i've made a mistake in using it! YahoKa.