User talk:Richwales/Archives/2007

Image:Wong Kim Ark edit glitch.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wong Kim Ark edit glitch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your tireless work preventing vandalism. I can't understand why anybody would want to vandalize some of these articles. --Metzenberg 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Kreetassan Apology Closeup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kreetassan Apology Closeup.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to troll around for lehakholis (Aramaic word, you might be able to guess what it means). --Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rich. The Haredi Jews themselves actually dislike the term "ultraorthodox" from what I understand. Thanks for your comments. I was asking you because you have done a great job in keeping vandals off some pages I work on. No need to be Jewish to comment on and understand this. --Metzenberg 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing sourced materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

JPEG to PNG

Regarding our previous conversation about Image:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.jpg, I note that you have created a PNG version at Image:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.png. However, it is clear that all you have done is to resave the JPEG file as a PNG file. This is not sufficient to address the problem, as the image still contains visible compression artifacts and is not efficiently stored (i.e., you have saved the image in 8-bit grayscale, but the image has only 1 bit of colour information). In short, the PNG file is of no better quality and is just as large as the original JPEG.

Please recall that the {{badJPEG}} cleanup tag reads, "If possible, please upload a PNG or SVG version of this image, derived from a non-JPEG source so that it doesn't contain any compression artifacts (or with existing artifacts removed)" (emphasis in original). If you don't understand what this means, or don't know how to remove JPEG compression artifacts yourself, then it is better to ask for help or to wait for someone else to perform the conversion than to attempt to perform the conversion yourself.

I have now uploaded a correct conversion to Image:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.png. However, please take my advice for similar situations in the future. –Psychonaut 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Namingchart.PNG

Do you know how to make charts? I put it in a pic because I'm quite bad with the formatting of them. Epson291 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'll have a go at it again. (I already tried) But if you have time (and are inclined), please try to do it, I can give you the source of the chart. Epson291 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, emailed you, if you want it formatted, email me back, i'll send it in html/.doc Epson291 17:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look's great, great job! Epson291 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian stress

I agree that most of the NNPE article is unsourced but it is largely based on the phonological and phonetic data available in each of the phonology pages and sections for the languages in question. That's certainly no excuse for not sourcing everything but adding what (as apparent with your comment in Talk:Indian English) is uncontestedly original research is a step in the the opposite direction from where we want to go. As such, I am keeping an eye on edits like this and removing them. If you find a reputable source, by all means, use it and include it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Broderick

Thanks for adding the info to the Carlfred Broderick page, I see that he is your father in law. He was a good family friend, and has been missed dearly. I am also LDS and in CA. I have been doing some work on various LDS pages for some time. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to wp.Isaac Crumm 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dreapta / stînga

Hi. Very interesting question indeed.

I think the use of nouns dreapta and stînga (for political wings) in the feminine instead of masculine has at least two reasons. One could be that traditionally the right- and left-hand sides are called using the feminine forms, possibly, as you said, because the word for hand is feminine, or because the word for side (parte) is feminine, although it may be because the masculine form is reserved for the feet/legs: dreptul means the right foot or leg. The other reason I can see is the fact that the use of these words for political wings originated in France, where the feminine, not the masculine, is used: fr:Droite (politique) and fr:Gauche (politique). In French, the choice between masculine and feminine was probably made for similar reasons (la main droite -- the right hand); for the political meaning I suppose one of the original wordings was l'aile droite (the right wing, where aile is feminine).

These reasons must be combined with the linguistic principle that homonymy is naturally avoided, especially when the potential homonyms are used in similar contexts. The French masculine noun le droit also means the right as in "the legal right", and since law and politics are often discussed together, confusion was avoided by using different gramatical genders. The same applies for the corresponding loan translation into Romanian: drept, dreptul.

The etymology considerations are mostly my own thoughts, but at least the meanings of the words can be checked in the dictionaries:

• Romanian drept: Meaning B is about the left/right direction, including the political meaning under "3. (Substantivat, f. art.; în viaţa politică)". Meaning D is about the legal right.
• Romanian stîng: Political meaning under 3.
• French droit, droite: The political meaning seems to date from as early as 1793: "les députés de la droite de l'Assemblée".
• French gauche: The political meaning goes back to 1790.
• English etymology: right (see the second entry)
• English etymology: left, giving about the same years for the first use in French.

I hope I was of at least some help. I tried to find reliable sources about the use of these terms in Romanian, but was unable to. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

You may want to see the discussion at User talk:Tone#Smallville music first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re; Romanian Communist Party edits

Apologies for the incorrect edit, I have added language tags to that article, and later today I will search for the other articles containing 'comunist' and derivatives to tag or correct too. Rjwilmsi 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan

Saw your post in the Moldovan language article. What cable system has Moldovan news? Thanks. --Chris S. 07:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-native pronunciations of English

There has been plenty of discussion on the talk page. For two years, there have been complaints (not only from me!) that the article is a morass of original research and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. Putting up tags requesting sources has not worked. The original research simply has to go. —Angr 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Angr, that is simply not true. I read discussion archive and there is only one complain about lack of sources. Yours.Errorneous 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Anchor Baby" dispute

Hi, Richwales. Concerning the present RFC on Anchor Baby...I feel a compromise indicating both usages is best for Wikipedia. My personal opinon of the term is I don't like the term nor would I use it in conversation. But, my opinion besides, I still feel no consensus exists presently that term is pejorative. I want to personally thank you for the opportunity to try to work this situation out - I am at a loss as to how to resolve a dispute when one of the party's to that dispute will accept nothing but his opinion (despite evidence to the contrary) rather than compromise or consensus building. If you have any other suggestion out of this impasse let me know and I will consider the option. --Northmeister 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think your arbitration proposal in light of the personal attack made on myself through parable and an admins participation in it afterwards are worthy causes for Arbcom. The refusal of two editors to actually engage in discussion is causing the current impasse. I am open to revision of my edits, of taking them out if consensus feels they need to be, of adding something else if it works better to balance the article. The block made did give me a chance to reflect on WP:3RR and the changes made thereto since I had last read the material. Reverting anothers edits is not wrong - doing so excessively in short period of time or doing so while discussion of those edits is ongoing (which the admin did on this occasion) is not helpful. I am happy with our original compromise. You've been fair minded and have sought a solution. I've tried to hold up Wikipedia's standard of NPOV, despite my belief that the term is most often pejorative.

We came to an agreement. The agreement was implemented. Another user added material making the article once again unbalanced. I attempted to represent the other half. Objections were made. I asked what was the specific nature of the objections (related to OR, asserting ourselves as linguists, not supported by sourcees) so that I could address them. Immediatly the material was removed by the admin editor into talk (who having had a history here should of left it alone until we discussed the problem with the edits) while keeping other editors material. I removed the other editors material (as it was within the edit removed already) to address that as well (to keep fairness). Instead of engaging in discussion the other two engage in a personal attack through parable (one directly - the other by not only refusing to remove the attack as an admin but by commenting on it afterwards and then trying to give a novel interpretation of its contents)...Another admin jumped in when I reverted to the original edits (based on the assumption that the objections were not credible considering there was no response to my questions) and then made two additional edits (not reverts) trying to cover the objections made after the original (namely 'descriptive' as a term etc.). That is when I was 'warned' for possible 3RR violation, I objected to this as not appropriate considering I took a full day off (per suggestion) from the article - waited for a response to my questions of the objection (without answer) and tried to address the concerns of the two editors. This block was then amended to include 'edit warring' which I agreed was the case involving the other two as well having started with the admin editor. I also agreed not to revert there again except as to revert myself and let the article stand without my edits and the other editors until discussion is complete. I asked for an apology for the parable and a removal by the editor who wrote it or by the admin who participated with further comments and lack of action. I got no action - so I removed it myself. - I felt it necessary to make a public record of what has occured in case we do go to Arbcom. The situation is grave - admin abuse and personal attacks; failure to discuss objections etc.

I am still open to revision or to agreeing to some sort of removal of my edits in questions if any editor engages me in a civil discouse over the matter. I would like to get away from this subject satisfied that the article is truly NPOV. Sorry for the long post. But, I am placing one thing in your hands. If you agree with the other two on the note of my edits and think they should be removed - then I'll stand by your decision. If you feel the material warrants coverage but in a truncated manner then I will work with you and anyone who engages me politely and in a civil manner to do that. If you feel the present article (minus the one section maintained) is best - I will support that decision. Then I would like to take a long break from this whole process and move on to other things. --Northmeister 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Moldovan Flag Reverse Side.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moldovan Flag Reverse Side.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The ArbCom makes it clear that they wish parties to engage in dispute resolution, including mediation, before they will hear a csse.[1] We went through an important stage of dispute resolution, an RfC. How would you summarize the input gained from the RfC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If the RfC resulted in a consensus then I suggest we go back to it. Holding an RfC and then ignoring its input is pointless. Dismissing mediation without trying it is not helpful either. If the question boils down to whether using "common sense" qualifies as original research, then we might post a new RfC asking that question. It might be simpler to ask that question on Wikipedia talk:No original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:No original research#Defining terms by interpreting quotations ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On the RFC...What is the consensus spoken of? Maybe we could work from there onward. The two issues before us are Ramsey's and my own edits beyond what I believed to be the consensus compromise. If we can clear these two matters up - then that would help in moving forward. I am a consensus builder and believe in that process. My position is not die hard stuck in the mud on this - so there is room to compromise on my part anyway. We just need to steer clear of the personal stuff. What I propose as a last measure before any further action is taken (and I support going to Arbcom on this or mediation if that is best to try first) is that you and I work together to try to combine Ramsey's edits and my own into a workable couple of paragraphs portraying the opening sentences or at least we as editors try this on the talk page. I am open to getting this past us and moving on to other things. --Northmeister 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Citizenship of India

Hi, I introduced a new section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship#Overseas_Citizenship Please check it. I felt this is consistent and clear. Mugunth 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Eureka Noche de Sueños Oregon flag.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eureka Noche de Sueños Oregon flag.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eureka_Noche_de_Sueños_Oregon_flag.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eureka_Noche_de_Sueños_Oregon_flag.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)