Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, thanks for contributing the U.S. Attack on Afghanistan article. However please keep in mind that we are building an encyclopedia here and much of the detail you introduced is more like news reporting. Another important thing to keep in mind is our strong policy of neutrality. Cheers! --maveric149
Maveric - the detail goes back. Otherwise, to keep this wkipedia neutral, I am going to have to start deleting all the details of the September 11 victims.
Is that NPOV enough?
Those pages are already scheduled for a major overhaul after the anniversary. My main objection was internal imbalance - there is far more info on those two incidents than there is on the entire operation Anaconda. And the material I tried to condense into somewhat encyclopedic prose did (and now does again) read like a news summary. That level of detail is not needed or wanted in encyclopedia articles. Two wrongs do not make a right and any comparison with those events with those of Sept. 11, 20001 are not useful. See What Wikipedia is not number 14. --mav
What "two incidents" do you mean?
Also, an answer to a deficiency of information on Operation Anaconda is surely to expand on that - though details of it remain a bit of a muddle - due, I assume, to "operations secret even in success" and that kind of thing.
The events of Operation Anaconda, the July 1 wedding bombing foulup and other such events are all consequences of the appalling events of September 11, 2001 -which has been covered in great detail indeed in this wikipedia (some of it placed there by me). For instance, how many pages long is that timeline?
If you feel there is too much detail on this event and its aftermath , then well and fine, let's chop it down. But let's keep it balanced and not keep in the US stuff and keep out the non-US stuff.
- Hi Arno, I agree with you that the 9/11 pages need to be cut down severly, and I have discussed this with maveric before. He agreed that we would do the cutting down, but only after the 1 year "anniversary", and would try to make it a real enyclopedia article. We only agreed because to leave it for now because it is one of the most popular Wikipedia pages and some people (mostly Americans, I presume) feel strongly about the page . However, we should try to stick to encyclopedic work for the other topics right away if possible. Jeronimo 00:53 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
Happy birthday!! --AN 11:49 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Hi there. Great stuff on the Romana article. It's when three-line stubs become a full-page article in a matter of hours that wikipedia really seems to be achieving something! :-) -- Tarquin 11:25 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
- What Tarquin said. Glad you accepted my NPOVing (I like Adams and think his Who stuff is good [it's Nation's bits of Destiny that are the problem if you ask me, but this probably isn't the place to debate such things]); I'd never heard the Mary Tamm pregnancy rumour, by the way - do you know enough to write a bio page for her? I'd be interested to read it. --Bth
Yep, you did. Good way of getting a few birthday wishes. Thank you!--AN
Arno, have sent this around. I think Netesq's attitude and method stinks:
I wonder if you have been keeping an eye on the Aria Giovanni talk webpage. The situation there is out of control.
Matters have deteriorated to a highly abusive level over a website link. Of special concern is the general conduct and attitude of someone called NetEsq, who claims in his details to be a lawyer.
He has repeatedly abused anyone who opposed the idea of the website link with such tactics as net misettiquete ( eg the use of the word 'you' in capitals and bold to emphasise shouting), a poor grasp of history, the unrepentant use of such provocative terms as 'Nazi' (which I hope is an example of his poor grasp of history) , out of context quotes and attempted alienation ("only YOU opppose it"). He writes of defending freedom of expression, yet cannot tolerate it from others when they give an opinion he does not like.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his beliefs, it is very advisable to bring this most unruly and arrogant person into line.
Given that your name is on the list of persons who can ban users, I thought it highly advisable to bring this to your attention, before it leads to persons leaving the wikipedia - something likely to stroke Netesq's already aggressive ego.
Yes I have an email address. You will have to log-in and use the "Email this user" link on my user page to use it. --mav
- Better still, is there a list of all Australian state/territory public holidays that we can place here?
Yes. Have you ever heard of Google? http://www.google.com/search?q=australian+public+holidays Don't put it on Australia though, make another page, say Australian public holidays Tim Starling
You might want to look at the bottom on the most active Wikipedians page. I'm sure you would be much higher if your anon edits were counted. --mav
Arno, please see Talk:American Airlines flight 11. --Brion 01:53 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
Im usually suspicious of foreigners complaining about 'yankee spelling' but seeing as its an Aussie article , us 'Yankees' no doubt must defer to the local authority ;] --Sv
Good lord no! Im American - Ive got more reason to be Anti-American than you do!--Sv
Hello. I just noticed your comments on the Village Pump about the desirability of Mary, Queen of Scots as a title, as opposed to Mary I of Scotland, and I can understand that. If you're not convinced by the argument about consistency (see: Wikipedia talk:History standards), you might also like to consider the possibility that "Queen of Scots" is what she was called by the English, not (obviously) by her own people - so I think Scottish people might be a little offended if we didn't use her proper title for the main article. Just an observation - not everything here is done out of sheer perversity. Deb 21:52 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I know that. I wasn't referring to you breaking the link. It didn't happen on that page but on another. Everywhere I'd have a link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland they'd change it to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, except that would link it to a different page; the first link wasn't a mistake or being longwinded, it was deliberate. As I put such a link in there I was trying to send up flares to the guilty party (though in his case you'd need to burn the Amazon rain forest to get through to him) not to do it again. Sorry if I gave you a fright by making you think I was accusing you. JTD 07:27 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)