Talk page archiveEdit
Age of ConsentEdit
I didn't delete any text; I just moved Massachusetts from 18 to 16, since that's the law there. Dbinder 09:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your words, I'm ecstatic to have some good discussion. :-)
Statutory rape stands as its own legal concept. Violations of age of consent are not necessarily "statutory rape" because they didn't actually reach the age at which statutory rape comes into play. My text addition reflects the fact that the term "statutory rape" is a legal term being misused.
Some of this is covered in the third paragraph of the statutory rape article (the text which explains this I wrote myself. :-) I see now that the AOC text that I added really doesn't things explain very well.
On a side note, I said in the statutory rape article that the reason for the confusion is because of all the different laws and non-parallelism from state to state. However, we might just be dealing with the fact that statutory rape laws have been around for some time and are for the most part unchanged (for instance, Ohio's law is 12 years old...which likely was the AOC in Ohio from way back when) and the lesser graded AOC concept with its higher age range is a relatively recent thing. It's a hunch that might be worth including.
How about this for new text: "In the United States, violations of age of consent are often, but inaccurately, called statutory rape. Statutory rape is a much more severe charge where the age of the minor is so young (typically pre-pubescent, 12 and under) that the offense is legally equivalent to forceable rape. This cultural confusion is due to the complexities of sexual offense laws, as well as the historical roots of statutory rape laws (which likely served as the age of consent until the 20th century, at which point modern age of consent laws, and their higher ages, were introduced.) Jimbobjoe 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with your idea. What do you propose? How about..."The term "statutory rape" is a specific legal term and doesn't always refer to any violation of the age of consent. See statutory rape for usage conditions." ? Jimbobjoe 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(quote)I guess the harsh fact is that it is considered rape because the minor is not able _under law_ to give consent.(endquote)
That is not technically true. The state is recognizing that the minor has some ability to grant consent, but has chosen to make the act illegal anyway.
Here in my Ohio, sexual conduct with a 12 year old is statutory rape. A 12 year old is completely unable to grant consent under any situation, even with another minor (Ohio Revised Code 2907.02)
Sexual conduct with a 15 year old, by an adult, is unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. (Ohio Revised Code 2907.04) This charge recognizes the fact that the 15 year old is capable of giving consent, but the legislature has decided to illegally prohibit the act for reasons unrelated to the consent.
After all, if the 15 year old was forceable raped, the person would be charged with a standard rape chage. Only with the 12 year old is consent completely unrecognized, so the charge is the same. With the 15 year old, consent is "possible" and a lesser charge is levied. Jimbobjoe 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
After thinking a bit, I see that my last post opens a bit of a can of worms...but for purposes of accuracy, it's one I propose we follow. Wee! Jimbobjoe 18:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- (quote)Yes in some regions the law gives different terminology for different situations. (endquote)
I'll have to look at the chart of violations again...but I don't believe there is a single US state that has doesn't have a tiered statutory rape with lesser unlawful conduct with minor structure/penalties. (Canada, I think, does, but it retains a "more traditional" AOC.)
There's a colloquial usage of "statutory rape" which people use to refer to any violation of the AOC, and a legal concept of "statutory rape" which, today, refers to more severe violations of the AOC. I guess my goal is pointing out that there are two uses, which aren't necessarily interchangeable--if someone thinks the definition of "statutory rape" is a charge brought on by sexual conduct with someone under an AOC, that is equivalent to "rape" in penalties and severity, then they are more likely to be wrong than right.
If you follow my thinking, then the definition for AOC is actually a bit more complex than what I thought just 3 days ago. As it stands, AOC is being defined under the traditional concept before the tiering existed.
Some wording for the portion we're working on....
a.) there's a colloquial definition of "statutory rape" that is used by people to mean any possible charge connected with violation of a jurisdiction's AOC, and a legal concept of "statutory rape" which does not necessarily cover all violations of the AOC
b.) While the term "statutory rape" is often colloquially applied to all violations of the age of consent, statutory rape is a precise legal concept which is applicable only under certain, severe violations of age of consent laws. (See statutory rape for more information.)
a.) is a little less pointofviewy--in that it recognizes the usage of the term, whereas b.) is a bit more oriented toward pointing out such usage is wrong.
I see you haven't made any changes recently...was curious to see where your thoughts were.
I note that you removed my terminology for "active" and "passive" AOC. I suspect your reasoining is that the terminology is not used by anyone else, though I thought they were good terms for describing a cumbersome concept. In any case, Ellen Goodman, in her article for the Boston Globe ("When teen sex education goes too far"dated 2/24/06 says that "Kansas is one of 12 states in which underage sex -- under 16 in this case -- is a crime even when it involves teenage peers." So therefore there are 12 US states which have a "passive" AOC, and that's worth including. -- Jimbobjoe?
- I'm not sure I understand the difference between this active/passive dichotomy to which you're speaking. I'm trying to keep the article fairly straighforward. The main body of the article should (IMO) cover the view of the various laws around the world. Most laws draw a line somewhere, some might have a grey line which allows certain teen with teen activities, others do not. Could you explain again this active/pasive idea? I've been a bit pinned down lately with other things I have to do. But I'm in the middle of a proposed edit for the whole page as I'm trying to get people to discuss on the talk page. Perhaps this discusion point can be part of the new page. -- Monotonehell 16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well hello there again. I hope you're doing well...I've been a bit busy myself.
- The concept of "active" versus "passive" is this: a passive "AOC" is a law only regulating sexual conduct by an adult with a minor. It doesn't actually say anything about what the minor can do with another minor. (So in a state with a passive AOC of 16, a sexual relationship between two 15 year olds is not illegal.) An active "AOC" says an individual can't engage in sex at all until they reach that particular age. (A state with an active AOC of 16 can prosecute two 15 year olds having a sexual relationship.) This distinction appears important enough to me to include.
- I've been troubled in recent times by the confusion and mess that this topic brings on. The fact that the concept of AOC is used improperly (since in most instances it's referring to an age that's higher than the real statutory AOC, but implies a new concept) needs to address, imho, somehow.
- If I had my way, I'd add new concepts (of course wikipedia isn't the place for this sorta thing, but maybe you can ingest it in and see where you can take it.)
- AOC used to accurately refer to the age of consent, the age at which an individual can grant consent to sex (anything before the old AOC is statutory rape.) Jurisdictions added a second age on top of that--creating a range in between where a minor can grant consent to sex, but where the act of sex with that minor is still illegal, but not rape because consent is recognized. Then jurisdictions added a third age which is where an adult in authority of the minor may not have sex with that minor, though they could if the adult weren't in some position of charge. (Once again, consent is recognized.)
- I'd called the original the AOC, the second the ASM (age of sexual majority) and the third the ASE (age of sexual empowerment.) Until I write an article on the topic and get it published somewhere respectable, I guess my nifty terminology is off limits for wikipedia. Nevertheless, it might be useful to you in putting something together. -- 12:37, 20 March 2006 Jimbobjoe
- Ah now that first paragraph explains it better. Now I understand what you mean. Perhaps you can reword that into several clear paragraphs and add that to the article? -- Monotonehell 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I stand corrected on usage of "wastebasket" in MacOS not being a UK thing (I'm from the UK, by the way, so wasn't trying to be American-centric). I don't mind adding in examples other than the Recycle Bin such as Wastebasket, if you want to put that back. The important thing I think is that "Trashcan" is actually the Amiga name for it (even if it's used elsewhere), though confusingly the icon type is "Garbage", plus sticking a link to Recycle Bin should hopefully explain it best. Mdwh 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Age of Consent referencesEdit
Hi, I've added the references to the Age of Consent article about the argentine law. They're in Spanish, anyway. Hope that helps. Cheers. --Ojota 06:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Age of ConsentEdit
Hi there, I now see what the sentence "some jurisdictions forbid sexual activity outside of legal marriage completely" was meant for, but it could benefit from a little rephrasing -- as it stands now, the relation to the article's focus ("This article refers specifically to the AoC Laws regulating sexual acts") is not very clear. I humbly propose the following: "in some jurisdictions where the AoC is above the marriageable age, sexual activity outside of legal marriage can be completely forbidden". This would limit it to the topic at hand rather than sounding like a general prohibition of adultery. How does that sound? JREL 16:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well that wouldn't work either lol - There are some jurisdictions where sex outside marriage is completely forbidden (I'm thinking Saudi Arabia and possibly Malaysia for Muslims but I'd have to check that). The purpose of that paragraph is to introduce what is discussed in the entire article. Also bear in mind that the sections below are to be expanded as time goes on. I admit the paragraph is in my usual non nonsence style so I'm open to edits (as long as they don't change the meaning and purpose of the intro). I guess I also have a bit of an ownership issue since I wrote it. You dont have to be humble at all! I'm not the boss, this is WP after all. Any more suggestions of what to do? --Monotonehell 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well no actually -- not that I feel very strongly about it :-) I guess the Marriage section explains it quite well now anyhow. JREL 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- PEDANT! Shush you - pedantism is my gig - lol! --Monotonehell 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly, I've moved beyond that to pedagogue. hydnjo talk 03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine we all need correction sometimes (my spelling borders on the dyslexic at times). Just as long as you don't move through pedagogue to pedaphile (sic). No wait... strike that. ;) --Monotonehell 09:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly, I've moved beyond that to pedagogue. hydnjo talk 03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
in the news - picture highlightEdit
- Righto - I'll keep an eye on it thanks. --Monotonehell 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Turkish literature's introductionEdit
If you don't mind my asking, why is the introduction so vehemently hated? —Saposcat 07:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Haha I was being a little sarcastic - it was attacked twice on the mainpage talk page (A little harshly in my opinion). --Monotonehell 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I just found that now. The quibble about having the subject in a "natural place" and whatnot does indeed lead to awkward phrasing, though I don't think that this particular sentence was exceptionally awkward (these are all just stylistic tastes anyhow). And the misinterpretation of the word "normative" was off-base as well, since it does not in any way mean "current" in the opening sentence (as the phrase "such as" reveals). Oh well, I changed it back anyway. Perhaps I'll work on it a bit more. Thanks for replying. —Saposcat 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems you've been reverted... Perhaps I'll try to edit the intro. Marskell 07:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- First check the comment to your comment on the Main Page's talk, if you care to. —Saposcat 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
We must fight the good fight and always remove linkspam on sight. If it keeps getting added, then we must keep removing it. If we relent then the spammers win! In some cases I've found it helpful to insert a hidden comment in the External links section, asking people to see the Talk page before inserting any further external links, and then explaining on the Talk page why a particular link or series of links don't belong. I'll keep on eye on the aoc page for a while (at least) and remove that link if i see it re-added. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
May and June 2006Edit
Age of consent in AfricaEdit
I have restored Age of consent in Africa per your request, since it seems in keeping with the rest of the Age of consent pages. The later version (which was visible when the page was tagged, and ultimately speedy deleted) had been vandalised, so I have left a few edits deleted. Hope this helps └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As you seem to be the "authority" on the age of consent wikipedia page, I wanted to contact you because I'm about to contribute to it. I saw the "map" in particular and realised it was not extremely clear nor complete so I decided to make a new one from scratch.
I uploaded it on the wikimedia commons website. You can find it here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Consent.png
I'd like to have your opinion on it before I edit the age of consent page and include it. Thanks in advance :) Thiste 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- LOL! Authority? Maybe the LOUDEST and most annoying. ;) Your map is very good, however the reason there is so much grey on the current map is due to the the Wikipedia policy WP:V that all information must be verifiable. The previous version of the map had a lot less grey areas as it was based on the now defunct (and wrong) ageofconsent.com site. Other sites like avert.org have a more up to date listing BUT we here are ruled by the verify policy and so the map is only updated as the information comes in. That information is on the subpages;
- The map is a little behind the current subpages as we like to wait a bit for the info to be disputed and so on. Sorry you did all that work already! (I just added a note to the file's page saying similar) Cheers --Monotonehell 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well the thing is I don't think it's very satisfying that the map is so empty, so grey... :) Look what I found, a website promoting gay rights in Africa, that lists all african countries and their laws on age of consent & homosexuality. It's not complete but pretty good nonetheless. They cite the articles from each country's penal code. I hope this source is good enough to be included in the age of consent article & thus in the map ?
- I'll try to find other sources so we can soon have a more satisfying & complete article & map. That would be cool Thiste 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- [UPDATE] : I just found the interpol website, didn't see it was already on the wikipedia article. What makes the data over there not reliable ?
- Continuing the search. Thiste 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- [UPDATE2] : found this : http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/ilga_world_legal_survey%20introduction.htm
- It's already cited as reference on the wikipedia article on Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world. Seems to have some info that interests us in it. Thiste 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yup I'm aware of those sites (I cheated a bit and pinched one entry from the Africa gay rights site just to put SOMETHING on the Age of consent in Africa page so people would stop deleteing it). The problem is none of those sites are authoritive. We need to go to the actual legislation or peer reviewed texts to get verifiable information. Have a look at the Age of consent in Australia page and see how each entry points to the appropriate article in the legislation. Sites such as austlii.edu.au have authoritive info. Actual academic text books that discuss said legislation would also be good.
- The Interpol site was found to be out of date on a number of matters a while ago (see the talk page for AoC). We can't cite non-authoritive websites. This usually means that if it doesn't end in .edu.* or isn't an official govt website of that country it's not good enough.
- I really do like your map as it covers the States of the US and Australia, so it would be great if we can use it. --Monotonehell 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- LOL just another point to illustrate how web sites are generally not good sources, under Wikipedia's policy, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Also university students are not allowed to use it in their work. --Monotonehell 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- First I want to stress that my map has been put on the age of consent article, but it is NOT my doing. Now onto your post. Well I understand how you find my map interesting with the US states & all, I also understand your wanting to be encyclopedic. And that's the problem actually, because if I refer to the subpages to fill the map it leaves only 8 US states and to add to that, the subpage is even "subject to dispute". Thus all that great work you praise me for would be lost.
- I'd like to find a solution in accordance with your point of view but I guess I'll wait for your exams to be over :)
- I must say tho that IMHO if an age is recognized on at least two of the sources we have, it should be enough for us to trust it. Just my point of view though. I think I'm gonna redo 2 maps maybe (if I have the patience) : one with every source I can find (the most complete map possible), and another one with the most care possible taken (the "only-subpages" one).Thiste 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The N.America page was put on dispute by someone who's never really made a case for dispute, whose dispute was over the naming of the page anyway, and who has not taken the dispute down. So who knows.
- The wanting to be encyclopedic isn't mine, it's a WP policy. The older version of the stateless map did have many more countries filled in, the newer version has them greyed out where they are not verified properly. I'd say that if you want a source that's somewhat reliable, we could go with avert.org. Even though they have had some mistakes all it takes is someone to send them an email with the appropriate legislation and they will fix it. I've actually sent them 3 emails about their chart. I'd say it's fine to leave your map up on the page since someone went ahead and stuck it there already. But it would be great if you would improve on its accuracy (where did you get the info from again?). Also a friend of mine has suggested that you pick some more contrasting colours, I'm unsure if it's just her monitor but she's told me that some of the yellow/green colours are too close in value. --Monotonehell 05:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well my primary source of info was from advert.org actually, mixed with the previous wikipedia map (which info I prefered over advert.org's). So that should suit our needs for the moment. As I said, I was about to remake the map actually, and with a better color palette (it was my first map after all :p). So that I'll do.
- Not this next week I'm afraid though. This time I'm the one not available for the next few days. I'm going on holidays for the week, so I'll only be back after may, 27th :) Thiste 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- PS: You can go check there http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_Expectancy.png , I'll probably use a palette similar to the one on this other map of mine. Looks more professional imho :)
- I haven't compared everything we've learned to avert's data but when I see a discrepency I've been sending them an email, so they might be mostly okay. Have fun on holiday! --Monotonehell 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I put the suggestion down, and then AFTER I had submitted it, only did I get the "probably shouldn't be here" box. I got a phone call, which has taken me until now to sort out, and have come back to it now. I've just moved it into the correct place (or will do once I finish typing here.) Rgds Ade1982 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, like I said (or was trying to say), the box saying "what you are trying to do is probably in the wrong place" didn't appear until after it had been submitted. I've tried two browsers - Mozilla Firefox 2.0 beta, and Mozilla Firefox 1.5.6, running on Windows Vista build 5472 and then on Mandrake 10.1. Same error occurs on both. Ade1982 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Main Page > Discussion > Edit this Page > typed the thing, signed it > Save Page button > Suggestion is committed and the message in red is displayed. Interesting to note, is that even just going onto the discussion page of the main page displays the message.
You can have that pageEdit
Seeing as all of my attempts at improving the AoC page are being reverted, belittled and insulted by you, I have decided to let you have it. Even sourced statements are being deleted or claimed out of context. There is nothing I can do to help the article under these conditions; you may as well lock it and edit it all by yourself.
- Yes well, I've thought long and hard as how to respond to this, but I don't know how to respond to dummy spits other to reitterate that and actions on my part are not motivated by me being on a particular "side" of any debate. But concerned with keeping WP encyclopedic. Part of that is not to present one sided opinion. If you look at my recent edits to that page you will see that I have removed blatant soapboxing from the exact opposite point of view that you seemed to be supporting. You must have noticed that I never deleted any of your edits, when there was a problem I moved the section to the talk page for discussion. I never insulted nor belittled any of your edits. I simply pointed out their problems.
- If being a "leftist" is attempting to present a balanced view without bias then YES I am a lefty. Better that than thinly veiled attempts at pushing an agenda though misrepresenting quotes from newspaper articles. I take comfort that I've been alternately called a leftist and a rightist, I guess that means that I am walking the unbiased line down the middle. Why you've not established an account, or never sign your posts, so you can properly engage in wikipedia is also an annoyance and a mystery. I encourage you to investigate the art of critical thought, your own bias and then register an account and join in with creating an encyclopiedia, instead of pushing your opinion. --Monotonehell 04:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
a to anEdit
Reedy Boy 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, Monotonehell. Thought I'd give you a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your injection of levity into the current Main Page Discussion debate! I was thinking it needed something like that myself. Figma 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- So noted, not sure that I want to sign up to any responsibilty at this point. At the moment WP is something I contribute to in order to clear my head inbetween work and uni. I guess I've been skirting around AoC reform simply because of the main-article template on the AoC article which I've been trying to shape toward GA status. Bit of an uphill battle with all the hysteria surounding the topic as well as the lack of non-POV literature that can be sourced.
And thanks for the homophone correction on my user page. I'm good with grammar but my spelling is lack lustre. ;) --Monotonehell 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you're thanked for any contributions you want to make. Natrually there are no responsibilities, just whatever you want, if anything. I don't think any participants in WP:PAW work mostly in that area, it's too much like work... :/ Herostratus 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm hoping that because people know to go to the bottom of the talk page to leave a message, they'll notice that while they're down there. It's more likely to be noticed than the current block of links near the top of the page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 16:12
- Clearly the solution is to use giant blinking links, and if Mediawiki adds support, a smack upside the head. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 16:28
Main Talk pageEdit
Nice work. Piet 11:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol who'd a thunk rounded corners would cause such a stink? You're quite right, rounded corners are not W3C, are browser specific and should never be used. "They look fine in my browser" is the height of selfishness. I'd say 20% of my development time is devoted to cross browser compatability (which equates to making sure IE doesn't fsck things up). The result is hate non-standard browsers. grrr. --Monotonehell 07:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- What fascinates me most is the widespread belief that whatever works in Firefox is fine (despite the fact that IE still has a majority of the browser market). Many people are either ignorant of IE's shortcomings or believe that IE users deserve to be punished. (This isn't an assumption or exaggeration; people have actually told me that IE users deserve to be punished.)
- In this case, however, it's the Mozilla browsers that contain a terrible implementation of nonstandard code.
- It's amusing to think back to when IE was the new browser with the nonstandard features that didn't work in Netscape. Of course, static backgrounds (the most common example that comes to mind) weren't nearly as objectionable as these blasted rounded corners. —David Levy 11:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this, Monotonehell. I did see that User:DanielCD was working on it, and since I know he's an excellent editor I hoped it would get sorted out. Did it? Herostratus 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Main page article countEdit
. *sigh* the "discussion" has degenerated into an emotional argument again. I fear that the topic of the article count will never see a reasoned discussion. People seem to fear debate. They seem to prefer plebicites, democracies are no way to run a project. I think that perhaps the main page needs to be "run" by a committee with a binding outcome. That way the committee can hear people's opinions, debate amongst itself and come to a conclusion free of all the screaming matches. Politics... bleh --Monotonehell 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Part of me wishes that Jimbo would step in and unilaterally settle this once and for all. —David Levy 04:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Too many people of late are forming ranks and not being open minded about things. I (try to) approach any idea with an open mind, weigh up the concequences and talk about it before firmly coming to a conclusion. Too many of these arguments are turning into "Team politics". This is no way to run an encyclopedia. --Monotonehell 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's quite disheartening. Many people seem more interested in exploiting the system to get what they want than they are in engaging in productive discourse. —David Levy 04:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You may be rightEdit
I don't usually go in for personal attacks, I know it's wrong. But me and other have become entirely exasperated by debating this guy, who means well, but he is just too obscurations to bother responding the same points over and over. I just felt that I needed to make him know that I knew what his plan was and express that I felt that further argument was not going anywhere and that ultimately there would have to be a focused public discussion and a poll. I hope that you agree on this point, I know "polls are evil" and "not a democracy" etc, but this was settled by a poll 5 months ago in which 1000 people voted, and any editions/omissions to/from that settled main page need this. juicifer 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sidebar redesign final vote!Edit
It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself.
You're probably getting this message because the sidebar fairy (JoeSmack for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Lovely. JoeSmack Talk 07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I hear you!Edit
I started a Featured article review for Nepal. You may be interested in commenting. You may also want to look at what is being considered a peer review of the article. --Descendall 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Age of consentEdit
Yes, maybe, but it should be worded something like: "... x and y court ruled ... ... setting an important precedent in Canada" Rather than giving an opinion on the probabilities. Deet 01:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Main Page TalkEdit
Please remember that WP:BEANS isn't policy, only an essay of thought - they weren't exactly telling people intimate secrets or how to crash WP - it was a pretty legit discussion. Plus your reverting was a bit messy, you also removed some content that wasn't part of the discussion you were trying to get rid of. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the AOC in India. I agree that there is no legislation statement made, only Interpol. If I get a verified source from THE government of Inda you must change the graphic. Agreed?
- Please see my responce on the Age of consent discussion page. --Monotonehell 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey David, do you think we'll come to any kind of constructive outcome with regards to ITN Guidelines this time? I instigated it, but don't hold much hope, lol. --Monotonehell 16:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's too soon to judge whether this will lead to clear consensus, a fruitless shouting match, or something in between. Only time will tell. :) —David Levy 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Monotonehell. ITN indeed needs a little fixing. Just wanna leave you a note before I disappear (real life getting in the way again ...) to wish you good luck on this endeavour. And thank you for being funny on Talk:MainPage. May your mousepad stay flat. Happy 2007. Take care. --PFHLai 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right; I'll do that next time. It's just that last time there was a huge penis in an article (the AOTD by the way), no one could find the template it was in. It took 15 minutes to be removed. I thought that was going to happen on the main page too, but it was removed quite quickly. Next time I'll not make too much of a fuss. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I receieved the message as well and I'd like to agree with you and thank you for passing the message on. Mrmaroon25 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Your "don't encourage the vandals" messageEdit
Re: Your "don't encourage the vandals" message
I wasn't all up in arms about it. My primary concern was implementing a feature that users could click to alert an admin. With that feature, instead of "it will be noticed by an admin within minutes" it could be "an admin will be alerted within seconds". Crimson117 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ages of consent in North AmericaEdit
ITN - how about...Edit
- A United States Air Force AC-130 gunship (similar to the one pictured) attacks suspected Al-Qaeda operatives at Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia near the Kenyan border.
?--Monotonehell 05:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking about something along those lines, but it seems like a bit of a stretch (in terms of relevance and linguistic elegance). I don't feel comfortable performing such an edit without clear consensus, but feel free to discuss this on the talk page. —David Levy 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I'm tempted to leave Pelosi's portrait on all year just to annoy the whiners ;) --Monotonehell 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- In all fairness, I'm a Democrat, and even I'm sick of that image. :) —David Levy 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation of inline citations is sufficient, and if that's the way this family of articles is operating, then you can ignore my request for footnotes. I'll allow your revert to stand unchallenged. I guess a rather large list of footnotes would develop by using the referencing system I suggested earlier.
I'm happy to re-assess the article to a B. My original assessment was on the basis of no attempt having been made at a reference system using footnotes, however since you've explained, I've raised the grade. It's possibly even a Good Article, however their standards are high, and using inline references alone may or may not suit their tastes. Nice article by the way; very informative. -- Longhair\talk 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I may have misjudged the article. My apologies for that. Perhaps a link to the consensus mentioned on the talk page is required so that others can verify the prior agreements made. I couldn't locate any archives upon my visit. -- Longhair\talk 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few comments on the Main Page move discussion. Since you appear to be one of the ones most involved in sumarassing, just wanted to let you know that you should feel free to move or remove them as you feel is necessary 22.214.171.124 14:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Main Page, againEdit
While it is good to empirically determine the value of certain essays, this sort of dirties up Wikipedia's second welcoming mat. I hope that it won't be there for long (maximum, half a week to a week?)
Also... I don't see why form should be valued over function in this case, as you seem to have communicated in this edit. Just because something's tricky doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented... if that's what you were getting at (?). Plus, ILIKEIT. GracenotesT § 06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can see what I did at User:Gracenotes/Sandbox; feel free to make adjustments. This works on 800x600 and higher, as well as both Internet Explorer and Firefox (the only two browsers I have on my computer). Better a small box than nothing at all, I guess. GracenotesT § 05:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I read the clause differently. To me, an article that is "historically significant" is one about an event or topic that history will judge to be significant, not one that is about history.
My interpretation of the intent of the clause was to ask us to consider the reader 10 or 20 or 50 years in the future and to try to distinguish between articles that readers will agree were significant from articles that are about transient and ultimately trivial topics.
I agree with your goal that users should add "David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy" to the "David Beckham" article instead of creating a newspaper-like "article". Those topics are much better covered in WikiNews. But some events shouldn't even be in the main article. For example, if the local Hillside Mall hosts a walk-for-breast-cancer, that might make the local news but it's hardly unique and has no lasting social importance as a stand-alone event. Even though it might be theoretically verifiable, it would be inappropriate to add such a mention to the Hillside Mall article.
- I don't. I really think that "historical significance" will be universally understood to be "significant from the perspective of history". I agree that "historically significant" ought to be the same as "encyclopedic" but the very existence of WP:NOT shows that too many people still don't understand what "encyclopedic" means. But maybe we should take the question to the article's Talk page. Let's see how others interpret the phrase. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, which have been clear and well reasoned. For your sustained work in keeping ITN well maintained I'm giving you a barnstar!
|The Original Barnstar|
|For keeping ITN well maintained, and doing so with patience and grace.|
- Oh, also: "They sing choruses in public. That's mad enough, I think." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, problem identified as a WP:AWB stangeness, probably bugfixed now. However I'm avoiding "general fixes" at the moment for other less weird reasons. Rich Farmbrough 12:18 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Amiga / Andy WarholEdit
I was looking at it from the point of view of multimedia is general, not specifically computer-based multimedia. There have been plenty of multimedia theatre and opera performances. I guess it's more the wording, rather than the claim: something like "he was the author of the first computer-based multimedia opera...". Operas that use projections and other media have been around for a while (can't think of an example at the moment though...). In any case, I'm not opposed to reverting it, but maybe something a bit more clear? Freshacconci 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
re PAW user boxEdit
Nah, probably not. Herostratus 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there I've restored some 'off topic' deletions you made. These articles are ones where I maintain quality and have contributed ~80% + of the content. The singers and/or film directors etc. are relevant to the topics in my opinion and make the articles more encyclopaedic. Tony 15:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Tony
Hi: naturally I disagree with your response, but let's put it to the vote. See articles talk pages. Tony 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Tony
The house... votesEdit
I'd use caution when using that analogy in regards to British topics. I'm not flawless on my British English grammar, but when seemingly singular objects refer to multiple subjects, there is a difference between American (The team was) and British English (The team were). But apparently, this isn't an issue in regards to the British House of Commons (see this). -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I don't think the bot was/is offline. It last archived at 19:35, 21 March 2007 (my time) and you archived at 00:13, 22 March 2007. The bot operates on a 24 hour cycle and removes stuff without discussions newer then 3 days. You probably got confused because the cricket thing was sticking around, but this was because people like me were still saying things (somewhat OT). There's no problem tho and it was probably best to get rid of that cricket thing. Just thought I'd let you know. Also, I did move the archived stuff to 94 as I think the way the bot operates is it has a variable telling it what archive it's using. Therefore it would likely still be using 94 and so newer stuff would still be going to 94. The limit before it moves to the next archive is 125k which in retrospect is probably higher then necessary Nil Einne 13:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have to admit I agree that, if your going to create an article, be prepared to bring it up to at least B-class, especially minor current events. That's why I like to pick two or three to focus on, and develop them to high quality articles, rather than racing to create all possible articles. Perhaps a new guidline on this is in order? (Wikipedia:Only start articles you intend to work on or genuinely believe others will?) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Bob Woolmer murderEdit
Well, if you are loosing so much sleep over quality, then why dont you remove the info about his death from the main page,except, say, 3 sentences about known facts. There is already a link at the top of the death-section to the death page.
If you cannot stand the duplication then put the death-info that is on the main page, on the death-page. then delete that death-info from the main page, except a few sentences of concrete facts. the existance of a "poor quality" section on a page doesn't really warrant the removal of another page. My focus is on keeping the death-page upto date and comprehendable. Tri400 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you just added the sprotected2 template to Death of Bob Woolmer. Have you requested protection for the page? Only admins can protect the page; the template only notifies users that it is protected. Leave a note at WP:RFPP. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for closing the merge proposal. I was going to do it, but you got there first. And you'd think we were suggesting deleting all mention of Bob's death the way some people responded (and continue to respond). As you and I and some others have said, we'll revisit in some time. Maybe by then the Death article will need to be kept. I think there'll have to be a lot of new information first, though. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you if it was youEdit
I am not sure whether it was you who removed that strange and totally unsourced claim that a few weeks ago, appeared at the end of the article Ageing, on traditional usages of gold in India, but thank you if you did do that. ACEOREVIVED 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your message of 31 March. Good to see some one both reads Wikipedia messages and tidies up articles! ACEOREVIVED 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I hade some storyline info chopped as obsolete, regarding ship's stabilisation. that was older news that got overran by the facts (aka she sank eventually). Also, how can everybody be out safe and still there are casualties!?.
Then I saw them restored. please accept my request to you to restore the error.(sinking)
Thanks for the clarification of my casualties text! I am not Ph.D in English, but I feel I can still offer, having people like you by my side to fix my errors! Thanks again. Makrisj 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
re: in the newsEdit
Confusing stuff, thanks! I assumed that wikipedia had a similar breaking news thing to wikinews but I couldn't really find it. My bad :) SGGH 11:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's wikiness for you I guess. Cheers for messaging me, see you around! SGGH 11:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
removed this from your user page ---> now in discussionEdit
Dear Mr. Hell,
Please don't delete my link on the Disneyland web page. You say this has nothing to do with Disneyland but it does. You say it is a commercial site and it is but it doesn't sell anything and we are across the street from Disneyland and help a lot of people, whether or not they buy anything.
Besides, I think DISNEYLAND is commercial. So, if you'd like to talk to me about your continued deletion of the information, please call me at 714-239-1340 - my name is Tom. If it's possible to leave the link, I would really appreciate it since we are in the business of supplying a lot of Disneyland information.
I have only found this site in the last month and it seems like a great resource except when people take it upon themselves to continue to undo others information. If it is, indeed, forbidden to have any information about commercial sites or endeavors, there are many that need to be deleted. For example, the Anaheim Convention Center is a site that is commercial, the only way to be listed is as a member and they sell tickets and tours and hotel rooms there.
Please let me know if sites like this will be deleted, as well.
- FYI - Same user went on a blanking jag and was temporarily blocked. His primary account, User: Tourismtommy, has posted a similar query on my talk page and I have responded there. Kuru talk 18:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a good reason why you've completely hidden the archive list on Talk:Main Page. Your edit summary says "future proofing", but I don't understand what that means – it could grow to 200 archives and would still fit comfortably next to an average-sized table of contents for that page. Hiding the archives entirely seems to be to only make navigation more difficult – Gurch 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Dalmation 04:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Re: I thank youEdit
- No problem, though I couldn't quite figure out why he vandalized you since I didn't see where you had reverted any of his edits. - Dan D. Ric 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)