User talk:Angela/Archive2
 |
Welcome to my talk page. Post new message. Anything you write here may be archived (1,2,3,4,5,6,7), summarised, moved or deleted. The full stop after my name in my signature is a secret link to this page. The page history for this page pre-2004 has been moved. |
Thank You
Thank you for the nominations at Wikisource and Wikiquote. Kalki 19:43, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)
Blocked
Hey Angie! Could you please de-block me? Someone again has accidentally blocked me because I guess many AOL users are vandals or something. Im desperate I cant wait for the next articles I got in mind.
Thanks and God bless you!
Sincerely yours: Antonio dirty temptation Martin
- Antonio, if you're leaving this message, you can't be blocked. :) Anyway, I'd need to know what your IP is to unblock you, which I don't. Also, you're a sysop, so you can unblock yourself! Just go to Special:Ipblocklist and click unblock next to your IP. Hope that helps. Angela. 07:51, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
Dear Angie: Thanks! Now to see if it works
God bless!
Sincerely yours, Antonio bow and kiss Martin
Unlock Scientific Skepticism
I think it's been locked too long, and it's locked with obvious errors, fallacies, and even lies.... - Lord Kenneth 21:08, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Lord Kenneth. It is quite POV now and it needs some additions to make it less POV. Andries 23:50, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
- . . .#4. I think Angela is psychic (which clearly makes me a nutbar pseudo-"scientist" idiot to whom you should not listen :). — No-One Jones (talk) 00:14, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Lord Kenneth. It is quite POV now and it needs some additions to make it less POV. Andries 23:50, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
re: deletion
Thanks. I've removed the links, as you suggested. — No-One Jones (talk) 22:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
New Imperialism
Why won't you protect New Imperialism -- without protection, mediation and discussion will not occur. Why will you not stop the edit war? Lirath Q. Pynnor
You have my permission to protect the page to any user's version, which you so desire. What is important is that the edit war stop, not what page is saved. The page must be protected, and remain so, until the mediation committee has time to help resolve the issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Recipe removal
Thanks for the support regarding moving recipes to wikibooks. Now that the American recipes are out I'll slow down, allowing the discussion to continue, as well as some work I've got to do at the wikibooks cookbook, like recipe naming conventions and moving articles out of the transwiki namespace. Gentgeen 01:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- What you're doing is absolutely right. Don't be put off by James' accusations of vandalism. Angela. 13:41, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
- You might want to get ready for some heat though, I just transwikied the recipe from Christmas pudding. Maybe I should just go to bed and let the hate come in while I sleep :). Gentgeen 07:55, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Not brave, orderly. Australian and Argentine recipes were already over there, British came next on the list. If I'd been brave I'd have moved Christmas pudding and Welsh rabbit at the same time.Gentgeen
Where are you?
Angela, are you around ? ant
Brianism
Replied on my talk page. - UtherSRG 20:47, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Conflicts between users
Conflicts between users too long to edit? Don't worry, come and fight here instead
Reddi's on the move yet again-- he's trying to engage in an edit war with another article, Ekpyrotic. He is a real problem user.... - Lord Kenneth 01:38, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm "on the move yet again"? I'm contributing information, kenny ... sorry you have a problem with me doin that ... but that is not somethin I can help you with ...
- "engage in an edit war with another article"? no ... see Ekpyrotic
- "problem user" IYO ...
- Angela, please review the scientific skepticism article's talk to get a background on why kenny hates me ... and review the points in the Ekpyrotic article ...
- Sincerely, JDR
Skepticism-- you cannot always come to an agreement with trolls.
My criticisms have been ignored. My version is the accurate one. Most of the changes are proposed by Reddi, and if you view his history you'll notice he's not the most educated of people on topics he edits. Mainly, his biases are of certain fringe theories which he favors and the scientific establishment does not. That is why he and his pal Mirv are compelled to attack the page.
The problem is not a disagreement, the problem is of certain users in the disagreement-- ones unable to be reasoned with. - Lord Kenneth 22:03, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
- criticisms have been ignored? No ... I would like to see your points brought out ... IF you acknowledge the opposing views (with the associated qualification of the all the sentences to relate all the information to the reader) ... soften the current version (but keep intact all the various points) ...
- your version is the accurate one? IYO ... I'd be more than willing to have your points implemented ... IF there is an acknowledgement of the other points ... though that doesn't seem likely as your version, to your mind, is the only correct version ...
- Most of the changes are proposed by me? are they? I didn't know that ... and I believe that you have been agreed with by some (I even can see where you are coming from .... I think, though I may be wrong there ... I'll reread it again) ...
- "you view his history you'll notice he's not the most educated of people on topics he edits"? "Why should I refuse a good dinner simply because I don't understand the digestive processes involved". -- Oliver Heaviside ... if you notice, I did most of Einstein's Bio, Nikola Tesla's Bio, and various other "non-fringe" science articles ...
- My biases? YMMV on that ...
- "certain fringe theories"? Call them "fringe" ... or "pathological" ... doesn't mean that the information contained within isn't valid ...
- And, as to your note on my views of the "scientific establishment" ... I like most of the "established" sciences ... sorry to disappoint you ... it's mainly how the established science conducts themselves that I find most disturbing ...
- As to "my pal Mirv"? I don't even know Mirv ... I am not acting in concert with anyone ...
- hmm .... how about you list the exact points that you disagree with on the Sci.Skep talk [put a bullet list] ... and I'd be willing to try the utmost to include them all? Hell, I may advocate your postion if you could acknowledge that there are valid criticisms ... then the article could address your points, my points, and everyone else's points .... If not, the article will be stuck in "edit hell" ...
- What do you think? If not, I could try to summurize the comments that have been present up-to-now and write something ...
- I really would like to reach some form of common ground .... and stop the flame wars ... it's not good for me, nor you, nor the reader, and (most o' all) not for wikipedia ....
- Sincerely, JDR
- I don't understand. Perhaps someone could translate that into English? Angela, can you read that? - Lord Kenneth 00:38, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't really attempted to. It looked like it was more aimed at you than me. Not quite sure why it's on my page at all...
Kylchap
Copied from [[ ]] for your attn:
- Kylchap - needs work [per User:RickK.] - was summarily deleted & recreated in detail from my E2 work. —Morven + Attempt by Morven to skip the undelete process. Eligible for quick redeletion? Does someone want to put it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion? Jerzy
Is it something you feel free to delete, or should i put it onto VfD? TIA --Jerzy 00:33, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)
Ah! No problem; i misunderstood him as saying that he had writ the deleted version, and was defying whoever deleted it by putting back (from another place he had posted it) the deleted text, unchanged. IMO he expressed it misleadingly, and i don't understand why he deleted instead of overwriting, but that's neither here nor there. I'll clean up my mess. Tnx! --Jerzy 00:51, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)
- I didn't do the delete, Infrogmation did. I saw it had been deleted and put another article there. —Morven 00:53, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would you like to delete this redirect: Province of Posen, so I can move Provinz Posen to the English name? [1] -- Nico 01:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC). Thanks! Nico 01:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
VP Header & Spacing
Hi Angela - good work on the Village Pump header msg. Slight glitch though in that it's throwing in a couple of blank lines. I went in and tried to remove any blanks, but this doesn't work. I think it's due to all the language codes at the end of the header. Can these be moved? I don't know what impact that will have so I'll leave it to you, but it would be good to remove the blanks. --HappyDog 04:23, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes - I still see them. That might have been me editing mediawiki to remove the blank lines, but it didn't work. Looking at the html I get the following code between 'For old discussion, see archive' and the TOC (although it only shows as 5 lines on the screen)
- <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <pre> </pre> <p> <p> <p> <p> <pre> </pre> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p>
Any clues? HappyDog
- Fixed - well done! HappyDog
Meta =
Good morning Angela
I very strongly disagree with what you did at meta. So, I reverted your changes. I do not think it is a good idea to make perfectly reasonable discussions, and wikipedia wide discussion disappear to replace them by discussions made by english people on the english wikipedia for the english wikipedia only. I am perfectly aware of why you did this, but unless we 1)declare that any article touched by a banned user at some point in their activity (even before being banned, and even if touched again by non-banned user) should entirely disappear, and that 2) meta is for english people only, this is not gonna happen. And till I am there, it is unlikely to happen :-)
Cheers.
Anthere
Thank you
Hello Angela,
Thanks for the welcome and the suggestions. I've only been signed on here for about 2 weeks - I'd never heard of wikipedia before but I saw something said about it on another discussion board, and it sounded interesting. And interesting it certainly is.
I've had a look through a lot of links in getting started and have now checked out the ones you mentioned. I noticed you did minor editing on a couple of things I've written which is helpful in learning how to format things correctly, so I appreciate that. As a clueless newbie :-) I've been flailing a little bit, but that's fine. I'm willing to learn. If you notice me doing anything inappropriate ... please just let me know.
thanks again.
Wikipedia is fab!
Two minutes after looking up an entry I found something I knew about that Wikipedia didn't. I added it as a new entry, sitting in my office in Australia. Only THREE minutes later, Angela in England edited my entry and improved on it.
This is awesome! Goodie
Move war
If you haven't noticed, our mutual friend is now trying to get in a move war with you... Pakaran. 04:30, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Gdansk/Danzig : m:The Wrong Version
You shouldn't have protected a vandalized version of the Gdansk article. The anonymous user, also known as Gdansk and as Caius2ga, is a known vandal trying to destroy a worked out compromise there. And his edit comments are always misleading. You should rather have blocked him. He was about to be banned some months ago, but left voluntarily. I suggest you unprotect Gdansk in an hour or two, so we can revert to the unvandalized version Nico 06:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There is no need for mediation. He is a vandal, and no one agrees with him. His edits are an unacceptable violation of the talk page. Anyone else would have reverted his edits. If someone write "Muslims are idiots" on the religion page, you don't need mediation. Nico 06:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
While the Gdansk article was certainly having problems before this edit war, I think protecting it on a version that a) doesn't bold the common alternate/former name Danzig; and which b) mentions before Danzig a largely unknown alternative name in a local language/dialect, is a rather bad idea. I haven't checked User "Gdansk's" edits more carefully than this, but if he is indeed caius2ga, he combines the addition of worthwhile material with a complete unwillingness to discuss issues or compromise with others, and a very strong POV. Sigh, I'm not sure what is to be done, but perhaps we could at least protect on a version that bolds Danzig and mentions the Kashubian name somewhere later (at least that mentions it after mentioning Danzig)... john 07:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Whichever version I'd protected would have been the wrong one. I just protected whichever one it was on at the time. It is not supposed to express support for that version. Angela. 07:18, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I know you weren't intending to express support for that version. But the very fact of protection does, essentially, privilege one version. At any rate, this page was protected for weeks before on a bad version. And now, with caius2ga back, it'll probably stay protected again for weeks on this bad version. Which is rather frustrating. As I said, I'm not sure what is to be done, at this point, given the protection procedure, which I rather wish gave more discretion to sysops to use judgment in determining what version to protect. john 07:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Even Wik and Cautious had accepted that Danzig should be bolded. I think the page now can be unprotected, as caius apparently has left (for today, at least). Nico 11:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, the dispute was not at all about whether Danzig should be bolded. I think about everyone had agreed on that until "user:gdansk" came in. If there'd been an edit war over the things we'd actually been arguing about (what the city should be called in the 19th and early 20th centuries, for instance), I wouldn't really care what version it was protected on. But it's grating for a quasi-trollish contributor to come in and get his version protected. Ah well. Let's see if he stays around. john 00:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Re-vegetation succession.
No worry Angel. The editor who added the content, added it both to vegetation succession and ecological succession. Since it was not very...convincing...Lexor moved the content from the ecological succession page to its talk page, then came to me to ask if I could have a look. So I reworked the content (I added little actually, but improved the article a bit with the idea). It is only a couple of days later I discovered the same content has been added to vegetation succession. So, the history of this person edit is well in standing in the ecological article. Hope that is clear :-))) fr0069
Just have to say, I thought your new meta page is hilarious/sad/so true. I've been involved with page protection twice, I think, and I recall regretting it both times. Bravo to you for sticking with it--you're doing good work. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is there a limit on who can vote for or against a page's deletion? -Branddobbe 20:03, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- AWESOME! Thanks! -Branddobbe 20:32, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry
That was clearly a very bad mistake. I could have sworn I saw your name just above. This is particularly poor timing for any such error. I think I'm going to leave for awhile. Sorry, and Goodbye. Sam Spade 23:13, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)