User talk:Jeronimo

Thank you. I will stay, for sure.

Hi, 10x for your welcome

Bogdan Stanciu

_______________

Hi,

thanks for your welcome and suggestions. I changed the picture of Jan Timman to one I took last January in Wijk aan Zee. The previous one indeed came from another website for which I am unsure if there is a copyright.

Henk ten Bos

Hey another sporting wikipedian. Cool. Liked your articles on Nurmi, van Langen et al. Interesting choices, as well.

What, another computer science student! Just kidding. Wanted to say that I like your contributions to Olympic sports articles. Also wanted to apologize for not not welcoming you to the 'pedia sooner (I must have fell asleep at my desk or something when you first popped up on the 'Recent Changes' page). Welcome to wikipedia! --maveric149 (Yes, I am a confessed wikipediholic)

Hello! re: your note on my talk page on Olympic template: have at it! I like the idea of a WikiProject. RjLesch Follow-up: I went ahead and created WikiProject Sports Olympics. - rjl

DEAR Jheijmans:

AS THE AUTHOR OF THE MATERIAL YOU REMOVED FROM THE BASKETBALL ARTICLE, I MUST SAY I THINK THE ARTICLE IS MUCH WEAKER IN ITS CHANGED FORM.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON NPOV, BUT SURELY IT DOESN'T REQUIRE SUCH A BLOODLESS FEEL AS THE ARTICLE NOW HAS IN ITS REVISED FORM.

AS FOR BEING TOO "AMERICAN" IN ITS BIAS, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? THE GAME WAS INVENTED IN AMERICA, AND ITS CULTURE IS LARGELY AMERICAN. IF YOU WANT TO ADD FOREIGN MATERIAL ABOUT BASKETBALL TO THE ARTICLE, FINE. I'M SURE IT WOULD BE A USEFUL ADDITION.

BUT ISN'T IT BETTER TO TREAT BIAS BY ADDING MATERIAL, SO AS TO ROUND OUT THE PICTURE, AND RESPECT THE HARD WORK OF OTHERS?

TO DELETE SO MUCH... I'M NOT AT ALL CONVINCED YOU'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING.

MY APOLOGIES IF THIS OFFENDS YOU. I DON'T MEAN TO HURT YOUR FEELINGS -- JUST TRYING TO CONVEY MINE.

SINCERELY YOURS ANDREW SZANTON

Andrew, I must say that I sincerely doubted when rewriting the article, and I have placed the parts I removed in the Talk page of basketball. The article certainly wasn't bad, but I felt it lacked a little structure, and had some sentences that needed replacing - but I was unable to do so. While the anecdotes about tobacco burns and hatpins are nice, I doubt if they belong to an encyclopedia - if they do, the rest of the article could use some as well, they stand out a little.

I don't know anybody who compares basketball with jazz (except for the Utah team), so it sounded very odd to me.

And some of the US 'biased' (perhaps focus is a better word) parts could be put back in with a little addition. For example: In the US, the game is often called "the city game". This makes it easier for non-Americans to read it.

If you're not convinced about my changes - feel free to change it back ("be bold in updating pages"). Alternatively, we could try to work out something that suits us both, probably giving rise to a better solution.

DEAR Jheijmans:

I'm pleased by your gracious tone and sensible suggestions. I had worked hard on my article and had the usual author's pride. Plus, I'm passionate about basketball. So I got touchy about what you did.

But I recognize this is a collective project so... I have to give up some control over what I write.

The point about basketball being like jazz seems to be right, and is not an original insight of mine. Michael Novak, in his well-regarded book, "The Joy of Sports" makes the point, and many others probably have too.

Let's try to work out something that satisfies us both, okay?

Thanks again for your civil response.

Hello Andrew. An encyclopedia can provide space to both types of articles, so why not have them both? One a factual introduction to the sport, the other a lively description of the culture surrounding US-American basketball.

(I am only asking, because I am too lazy to break up the article myself. ;-))--branko

Different sources give different numbers of participants, see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1896+athens+olympics+245 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1896+athens+olympics+311 I don't understand the discrepancy. The official olympics site gives your figure (245). I'll try and see where the other 66 go... -- GWO

The 311 was the official figure, but counted people who entered multiple events multiple times. 245 would seem write -- GWO

I think the 311 figure is an older one (I've seen it a lot of times), the 245 is (afaik) from Bill Mallon's (excellent) book on the 1896 Olympics (will add that to bibliography soon). I think the 311 figure comes from the fact that there are quite a number of unknown participants (mostly Greek). Mallon's approach to obtain the number is rather 'scientific'. He has extensively checked many resources (mostly contemporary) and discussed the discrepancies between other sources. I would therefore say the 245 number is the most accurate (I believe still 60 of these competitors are actually unknown). The number of nations is also a point of discussion. Many sources list Chile and Bulgaria as participating, but this has shown to be false. Furthermore, we have have a number of 'Greeks' from Cyprus and Smyrna, which were officially part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. Also the lone Egyptian participant has a rather Greek name. Then, two of the Hungarians (which was then actually the Austro-Hungarian empire) are from (present-day) Slovakia and Yugoslavia. But now I'm going into too much details, I'm afraid... jheijmans

I like the Games of the I Olympiad page, and I like the day-by-day addition to the format. The title convention, "Games of the N Olympiad" rather than "[Year] [Summer/Winter] Olympic Games" might be more precise but seems counter-intuitive to me; what are the advantages of this approach?

I've been busy with other projects but have collected some materials on the 1964 Games for entry. RjLesch

Thanks! I used the "Games of the Olympiad" approach, the official name. Otherwise, we would get "Olympic Games", "Olympic Summer Games", "Summer Games", "Summer Olympic Games" or "Summer Olympics": what is the best then? Since this is an encyclopedia, I thought the official name would be the best. I agree that for inviting other editors, this may be less intuitive. jheijmans

Fair enough. I updated the WikiProject Sports Olympics page to reflect this convention; what do you think? RjLesch

On a related topic... I finally got around to answering your question on my user page. Cheers! --maveric149, Thursday, April 25, 2002

Hello Jheijmans -- Concerning your additions of "primary" text pages to the deletion queue:
It might be a better idea to simply remove the primary text from the article and provide a good external link to the primary text yourself and add a one line stub explaining what the primary text is. Chances are good that somebody at some point has bookmarked the wikipedia page with the primary text and one of the most important rules of webpage design is to avoid breaking links (besides, the external links will be useful too). Also, adding so many entries to the deletion queue causes a bit of exhaustion for the sysops that have to review them. Thanks! --maveric149

Yes, actually my votes should designate the actions you write above - I should have put them under rewrite, not delete.

I think in many cases, something like "In the inaugural address of president X many attention was paid to Y" should do, maybe - as you suggest - amended with a link to the full text.

Then again, I think these (mostly subpages) should be deleted - though your link argument is a good one. Pages like "Constitution of Canada" don't provide any information at all currently - unless you want to read all of it, which you probably didn't, since you came to an encyclopedia. Replacing it merely by an external link will make "Wikipedia a link collection", so there should be some structural information there. I'll look at the problem in detail later, maybe next week. Thanks for the note, jheijmans

Good point. It wouldn't look very good to have a one line stub and a one line link. In those cases we can just redirect the sugpage to the main page and list the link in that page's external link section. --maveric149

Hum. Any agreed upon format for the country pages really couldn't be made into any type of policy, per se. However through the process of working on one good example, making this obvious to the community, getting feedback and help from interested parties and integrating the best ideas would in fact be creating an established framework for how the country pages should be formatted. This couldn't be enforced the way policy is, but by peer pressure and editing boldly whenever someone oblivious to the framework does something outside the scope of it. But even after we all feel that the Netherlands article is a damn near perfect example of a great framework we still will probably modify the general format as we go on -- integrating even better ideas. This really is inevitable anyway. It would probably be a good idea to start a countries WikiProject as soon as the development phase of the Netherlands article is complete. --maveric149

Ah yes, the WikiProjects. That was my first thought, but I'm not sure of its status. Maybe there should be some links then to the WikiProject page somewhere, such that (new) users can read about them, can add to them, and least get an idea of what is desired - they can then decide for themselves if they want to obey it. For the countries, I guess there's a lot of work still to be done, but for the chemical elements, isn't that one "finished" already? Or is that only the side-table? jheijmans

You will have to talk to Manning about the status of the Wiki Project idea - I just suggested it because it is a logical place to post an uber-framework for article classes. It might be a good idea to have a link to the WikiProject page from wikipedia:Help -- but I want to see what Manning has to say first (He's the one who developed the idea). As for the elements articles: Well, that has been on the back burner for some time now (I got totaly carried away with the Beryllium article and got burnt out -- 100 edits!). Truth is, I'm still not totally happy with the order of the headings and still have some minor issues with the table, but I am close to working these out. In fact I am almost done with Magnesium (new version is at Magnesium/Temp). I've also pasted a template for the elements articles at Periodic table/Temp (which needs to be updated to reflect changes I've made to the new Magnesium article). I'm a pragmatic perfectionist so I probably won't get around to creating WikiProject Chemistry (elements) until I have perfected the format (which hopefully will be soon). The wiki awaits... --maveric149

Interesting ideas for the elements template. As it is, there is a history and uses section in the template that should say something about the discorery of the element and derivation of the name (I will make sure to look for and add this info). I didn't know Discovery of the chemical elements article existed. Thanx for telling me about it. --maveric149

That's pretty weird - you are mentioned in the History of that article. Anmesia? ;-) BTW, the half-life times of ⁴¹Ca differ between the text and table (106 y - 103 y)

Thanks again for finding another bug in the table -- I'm sure there are more (especially with my cgs to SI conversions). --maveric149, Friday, June 21, 2002

The (city, state/country) naming debate is going on right now on the wikipedia mailing list. The emerging consensus is that US cities should be in the [[city, state]] format and non-US cities should be in the form of [[city, nation]] (with the caveat that other nations may also need to be in a US-format if there is extensive internal ambiguity with city names for those nations). One list member is just acting on the emerging consensus a bit early (which I am not certain will actually become an official naming convention yet). I added some thoughts along these lines over at talk:Kiev that you may find informative. Cheers! --maveric149

A mailinglist, eh? Never knew about that. I've just subscribed, suppose I'll join the debate (if existing) on the topic as soon as I've read the current opinions. jheijmans

Hillsborough disaster, your comment that the "list of casualties seems not very necessary" is true, but no more so than the September 11th lists. And I don't see you suggesting they are deleted!

Hi anonymous - as a matter of fact, I have proposed to do so. jheijmans, Thursday, June 27, 2002

While the lists are not valuable per se they are harmless, surely both can stay. The issue isn't space and if it will annony more that it will satisfy by removing them let them stay. Anonymous 28/6

RE Van. The entry was moved because Lake Van indicated that Van was a city (then by extension the region around the city would have the same name). If Van was in fact only a city in ancient times then the [City, Nation] format does not apply (I need to mention that in on the naming conventions page...). However, if it currently still is a city and the region around it is named for it then the [City, Nation] format is valid. We can deal with disambiguation later. --mav

I see, that seems reasonable. The regions and cities with the same name may be a problem anyway; I've disambiguated this already for some Dutch provinces and cities with the same name, and that is cumbersome. For many other countries, the regions have the names of cities (such as in Spain, Italy); articles on their regions may be interesting, but usually the city will be what is asked for. Maybe I should fix that for Utrecht and Groningen as well... Jheijmans 05:01 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

J, Thanks for the yowsah! on annotating lists. Basically, when I see a list with entries I know something about, I just dive in and salt it with a few one-liners in the hopes that it will inspire others. The List of novelists really took off after I did a few. I hope you'll join in on this effort. It's easy and fun and benefits the reader. Ortolan88 10:58 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks for setting things straight on Süskind. He was the only one among the German writers that I was having trouble getting right. If you could look at the March 26 article. He shows up there as an actor, but I have no way of knowing if that is true. Eclecticology 21:08 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

No problem, just checked his book I have of him - it was easy :-) Though there seems to be a lot of confusion about his name; even the Germans seem to spel him as Süskind and Süßkind, not even counting the ASCII-sation of his name, using "ue" or "ss". His works have been played on stage and in movies, but I have no idea whether he's an actor; maybe a cameo appearance? Jeronimo

I just saw your comment on my talk page: I have been trying to gain support for allowing longtime trusted members of our community like you the ability to do semi-dangerous stuff like move pages and edit protected pages without having to also deal with the baggage and responsibility of deleting pages, banning IPs, constantly deal with policy discussion or having to choose which pages to protect or unprotect. If you like this idea then please register your support on the wikipedia mailing list and/or on sourceforge. --mav 14:46 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)

Hmmm, dunno. I kinda like it that an actual person still has to decided if somebody gets the rights. Especially fi the policy is explicitly mentioned, it is easy to abuse it - even though you can't really delete pages, it's easy to make a mess around here, after pressing Save article 30 times.

I'd prefer "limited" sysop-status better. But that's just me. Jeronimo

Er, I'm Cornish and I have big problems with your redirection, well-intentioned though it may be. user:sjc

Double er. I thought we were using "England". That's were most of the moves have already been made.... --mav

Triple er. Why make exceptions for England? And why isn't this on the naming conventions page, then? Jeronimo 00:53 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

No major exceptions -- its just traditional to differentiate between England and Scotland (sometimes Wales) as if they were separate countries. You have a good point about the conventions they should be updated to have an explicit statement about the nation of United Kingdom. I will think about this some more to see if it makes more sense to have "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom". --mav

Quadruple er. Cornwall might be in the United Kingdom: it definitely is not in England. Never has been, never will be. Legally, politically, otherwise. It is a duchy, has been since the 9th century. user:sjc

If its not in England, well then it is not in England. --mav

This is one of the reasons I would be against using England in the city, country format. Spanish people will start to use Andalusia, Catalonia, etc., giving similar conflicts with Basque, and there's probably more such situations. Please, just use the country name...which is definitely the UK, as far as I'm concerned. Jeronimo

You are probably right. However that means that we have to move all the UK articles instead of just half of them (many have already been moved). --mav

That's fine with, since most of the city articles have to be moved anyway. Jeronimo

We should, as you have, stick with the conventional short form of country names. Just so you know, I am seriously considering moving Canada to the [City, Province] naming format after discovering that the Canadians are only marginally more imaginative at city naming as Americans are (well, at least for Richmond). But I am still waiting to be convinced by Eclecticology that moving the whole nation to that format wouldn't be better than just resolving individual naming conflicts on a case-by-case basis (as will have to be done with the two Frankfurts of Germany). --mav

Now this is where it gets interesting. If we are reflecting political reality are we dealing with Queen Victoria of England or Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom? user:sjc

I made that comment, you should have place a response on my talk page. With that said; The issue you talk about is being debated by the resident historians please ask them at wikipedia:History standards. --mav

Thanks for bringing order to Europe. Now, would you please bring peace to the Middle East :-( --Ed Poor

Do you mean the article there? Should be easy to do along the same lines. As for the real peace, that will be rather difficult; it's even difficult on the Wikipedia...but we can always try. Jeronimo

RE your comment on my talk page: Hm.. What do you think? The reason I changed my mind was two fold; 1) the HTML vs Wiki discussion on the mailing list solidified some of my views and 2) there seems to remarkably little copyediting of the element articles I have changed over/expanded. I have a suspicion that the reason why is because having all those HTML tags flying around adds so much visual noise with the table already that many, if not most people hit the back arrow when they see still more noise in the body of the text. Now, contrary to popular belief I am not perfect ;) and I do know that some of the text and wording in those entries needs some help. And yet few have jumped-in to copyedit.

Even though I really do not like the extra whitespace inserted with the wiki headings I have to admit that the wiki code for the page is much easier on the eyes now and the text is nicely organized and inviting. The table is another matter... All us table coders should be persistant about advocating for a wiki table syntax. But anyway, I've got to go. I defer the decision on what to do with the county tables to you: is a slightly more beautiful result more important than encouraging editing? --mav

Well, I was already against the "unnecessary" use of HTML in the headings; the tables are fine, since there's no other way, but there's a way to add headers and we should stick to it. In the way we did it now, we force a specific way of displaying it, no matter the "skin" you're using. The wiki syntax simply defines there IS a header, and it can be rendered according to the style of the "skin". So if you don't like these headings, it'd be better to go and make a new stylesheet. In that way, it is still visible that a header is a header.

I'm not sure I'd like a Wiki-table syntax, unless it would really be easier than the HTML syntax, which is rather unlikely, since tables in Mark-up languages are usually a p-i-t-a. But I'll see what comes up. If there is one, I'll certainly use it for the above mentioned reasons.

As for the editing, yeah, that's a shame. I still think much of the new US article is pretty lame, but nobody has really touched it so far. But I think that is true for more articles that seem (in some way or another) "complete", so may not have that much to do with the syntax of the article. But I don't think we shouldn't edit articles because otherwise nobody would edit...;-) Jeronimo 00:27 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

I notice you moved Irag/Government to Government of Iraq. I thought the wikiproject specs said it should be at politics of Iraq? Did I misunderstand? (I'm moving pages now too, slowly, and don't want to move them to the wrong place.) cheers, --KQ

Ehm, not sure what it should be. The page on which the voting took place definitely says "Government of X", but it doesn't appear as such in the WikiProject Countries. Jeronimo 15:37 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Oh. Um ... ok. All's well that ends well, and if people find the article, I'd say it ended well. --KQ

It should probably be under "Politics" and I moved Government of France to Politics of France. The factbook article contains info on more than just the government per se. -Scipius

The photos you recently uploaded (such as Linford Christie, et al.) has no text on their description pages. Please at least make a note there of where they cam from so we can be reasonably sure they don't have copyright problems. --LDC

Oh, I did put a reference at the page at which I included them. But I'll have a look.

Hey, Jeronimo (hmm, I think I can guess what the "j" in jheijmans stands for ;)), as you've seen I've begun helping out in transferring the country pages to the new template and I'd like to ask you what your source is for the coats of arms? Is there a P.D. source we all can use or do you make them yourself? Also, how long do you suppose we should keep the new pages in the /Temp section? -Scipius

Hi Scipius (after which one did you name yourself?), thanks for the help in applying the new template! I just take the coats-of-arms from different websites. They're mostly scans, and I don't think these can be copyrighted (they might be if they were drawn). It's maybe not completely legal, but I think it should stand.

As for the temp pages, I keep them as long as I (or others) work on applying the template. That means for me that all (or at least most) of the defined sections have some content that makes sense, and that the table with facts is filled. Moreover, the subpages should be renamed (you should leave that to me (or another sysop); with my recently acquired sysop-powers, moving is much easier for me). But don't keep them in temp status for too long; better put them back then with gaps left in. It's really up to you, actually. Jeronimo 08:18 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

It's not directly named after either, but rather a sort of latinisation of my last name ;). Anyway, I should have perhaps read this a little sooner, since I already moved the Zuiderzeeworks over manually. Could you perhaps change the :talk page over, so it can be preserved? How does one go about acquiring these magical sysop-powers anyway ;) -Scipius

As you suggested I filed a bug report on the table in the China/temp article (after I couldn't figure out what was wrong). Lee rejected the bug and give me grief about filing the report. Then he fixed it so it did work as you see it now. The thing is, the table was your reponsibility. So what ever Lee did to change it and make it work is what you need to do if you are going to use tables. Fred Bauder

Fred, thank you for pointing this out. I just checked the other pages where the table is used, and they are indeed incorrect (though the display fine in my browser). I will correct them asap. Jeronimo

Jeronimo, I'm assuming you may have the original coats of arms left (should there have been any conversion). Could you change the coats of arms to 125px, to fit in with the flags? Thanks. -Scipius

Well, I don't, as a matter of fact, but I can still try to refind them... Jeronimo

Hello Jeroen, I see you have been busy uploading maps and flags in JPEG format. What is the reason you chose this format over PNG?--branko

I've been uploading some of the images, though most of the work is done by User:Scipius. But we're both using the CIA World Factbook as the source, and that one uses JPEGs. Converting from that to PNG is pretty useless, IMO. Jeronimo

Well, conversion to PNG makes the images significantly smaller and since a lot of people are still using analog modems to surf the net, I feel it does make a difference.

I converted your map of the Dutch Antilles yesterday: the original was about 70 kB, the exact PNG copy about 40 kB and the indexed (64 colours) version was 9 kB. That's a difference of having to wait 20 seconds on a slow connection or having to wait 3 seconds on that same connection, for the image alone.--branko

I see, but maybe you should also point that out at Wikipedia:Image use policy, since they say: "Never convert a JPEG original to PNG; if JPEG is all you have, go ahead and use it." - J.

I have thought about doing that, and will do it, when I have the time and know how to word what I want to say.--branko.

Are you sure you have enough to do (wink)? --Ed Poor

One can never has too much work left to do at the Wikipedia (c: Jeronimo

Hope I haven't messed up your plans/layout too much on Olympic medalists in gymnastics. Now, a question: Why did NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab have a photo of Valeri Borzov? -- GWO

Messed up? It's even more motivating to have somebody else contribute to the same articles. Also my earlier remark: if I wouldn't like other people editing my stuff, I'd have put them on my own website instead of here. As for the Borzov picture, I have no idea why it was there, but I found it there, and the site's disclaimer said no copyrights. Jeronimo

Before you go too crazy with the Apollo links, you might want to check out talk:Apollo. --mav

Hum. I just had an idea on how to naturally disambiguate the planets from the Roman gods --- why not use the Greek names for the gods? For example Mars (god) would be at Ares and the planet would be at [[Mars]] with a disambiguation block on top. Then neither will have to be parenthetically disambiguated. Besides most of what makes the gods gods came to the Romans via the Greeks. --mav 00:30 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

Not a bad idea, it has come up with me in the past as well. There are some gods which have the same names in both Greek and Latin (like Apollo), but it would work I guess. A lot of moons would also be automatically disambiguated (though there's a lot of Greek names there as well). BTW, ome of the Roman gods did however exist before Greek influence, but they changed very much to become almost the same as their Greek counterparts. Maybe we should first make list of all the pages that have this problem to see what the results would be? Jeronimo

Sounds good to me. I won't be able to get to this until the weekend though. --mav

I may get round to it before the weekend (or at least start it). I'll do it here, or at some subpage of my userpage - I'll let you know where. Jeronimo

A search for "Arts and Crafts Movement" on Google returns 17,000 hits. It was a movement of producing handcrafted work and was relatively important. User:Fredbauder

You shouldn't delete stubs. --The Cunctator

I usually don't delete stubs. I just deleted some entries that merely said "author of some standard". Following that link (only from the standard pages themselves) will give you zero information. Therefore, it did not even qualify as a stub, let alone an article. Feel free to put them back as you see fit, but I'll no doubt delete them if I see them again. Jeronimo

Just a note: When you paste in the content from a Temp page you should probably note just who contributed it developuing the new version. Otherwise the contributions of the people who worked on the new version will be deleted along with the deletion of the Temp page. --mav

I'll try to keep that in mind - most of the time it's just me anyway, but not always. Jeronimo

Hey, I notice you're moving various pages into the Wikipedia: namespace. Just thought I'd warn you that the talk pages aren't being likewise moved into Wikipedia talk: -- this may be a minor bug in the page move function. It is possible to manually move them for the time being. --Brion 07:41 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

I've looked at the source code for the page move function, and the comments say: "Move talk page if (1) the checkbox says to, (2) the source and target namespaces are identical, (3) the namespaces are not themselves talk namespaces, and of course (4) it exists." Number 2 there seems to be the culprit; I'll ask Lee if there's a good reason for that (in which case the description in the form should be updated to explain this) or if it's fair to allow cross-namespace talk moving (in which case it should be done). --Brion

You just obliterated Carlos Montoya which was a 9/11 tribute page. Please don't do this again until we decide as a community what to do with these non-articles. --mav

I'm sorry, but I wasn't deleting 9/11 tribute pages on purpose. I am just running through the short articles list and checking entries. As there seemed to be agreement that sub-stubs should be deleted (Flagstaff, Arizona), I thought these ones should go as well. I always put the entire contents in the summary box, in case I accidentally delete something which shouldn't be deleted - which might be the case here. Jeronimo

Fair enough. But do be careful. :) --mav

I look at "what links here' when I come across a page that may be a tribute page. If I see that one of the linked pages is a 9/11 page, then I leave the tribute page alone. --mav

I should do that too, I agree, but I've also encountered (not today) pages with similar contents that had nothing to do with 9/11. In my "cleaning frenzy", I just forget to check. Jeronimo

I put Carlos Montoya and Levy Quinn back. --Brion 07:16 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

Hi - I see you moved some subpages from Ernest Hemingway (for example, Ernest Hemingway/Young and Innocent was moved to Young and Innocent). I understand the desire to get rid of subpages, but I don't see how the new titles are any more appropriate - they appear to be the titles of subsections of a longer text, and not, for example, book titles. Apart from anything else, it's a problem because Young and Innocent is the name of an Alfred Hitchcock]] film that probably wouldn't need to be disambiguated if it wasn't for this. And of course, it's better to have articles under a title that bears at least some relation to the article text. I am going to move them all back to the main Hemingway page and hope that they make sense there, if you think it's OK, and if you don't do it yourself. --Camembert

Oh, I didn't notice these weren't his stories, being in a hurry to "un-subpage" them. It appears you are right, and they belong in eithe rthe main article or some separate article. Jeronimo

Regarding your comment on User Talk:JeLuF: I thaugt Votes for deletion wouldn't be used any longer because the "vote for this page"-buttons aren't available any longer since the use of the phase III-Software. -- JeLuF

That's right, the vote function no longer works; we now add the votes manually, because we are in need of such functionality. Jeronimo

The image you uploaded to Aruba, File:Arubacoatofarms.jpg, seems to be missing. It's showing as being in the database on the image description page, but links to it are broken and it won't display on a page by itself. --KQ

I remember deleting it and uploading another, but I think I gave it the same name. I still have it on another PC, so I could re-upload it, I guess. Jeronimo

Please read m:Dealing with September 11 pages on how to deal with Sept. 11 victim tributes. In brief, the tributes should be placed in the talk section, not moved to meta. Meta's not the right place for that. --The Cunctator

I so no reason to keep articles in Wikipedia with no content (the tributes). Putting them in talk is a bad solution, as well, that's not what talk pages are for. Better is to have a separate part of the web for them. The only suitable and available place in Wikipedia is meta, so that's where I put them.

BTW, the page you quote doesn't tell anything about what to do with 911 articles. Jeronimo

"In short, if a victim's entry has what looks like a tribute instead of an actual entry, move the tribute to the talk page for that victim. You can use the "move this page" function to keep the history."

Yeah, that's what you added to the discussion, which for the rest contains people saying stuff like that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Talk should be about the article, and tribute isn't talk about the article. It's personal opinions, and Wikipedia is not for personal opinions.Jeronimo

September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Slogans and terms and September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Opportunists
- Unless there are objections, I will move these to meta, as was already done with the personal experiences. Opportunists doesn't explain anything and simply gives a full-text external source. Media Slogans is a useless collection of what tv stations used to indicate the events. Jeronimo
- I object. Both are valid topics; if you don't like the current content, then edit them. Slogans and terms is hardly useless; it's a important barometer of how this event was portrayed and defined. The historical importance of September 11 was shaped by how it existed as an international real-time media event. The Cunctator
  - If I'd try to edit them, you'd revert anything, so that's no option here. If you want the slogans page to be useful, then it should explain something rather than dump a shitload of terms. I agree that many pages in Wikipedia do this, so that's not really an excuse to delete it; however, I feel it can never become a legitimate article - it at most deserves a few sentences on another page. As for the other page, there is really no content there. Only a external source is given; that is not what wikipedia is for, and it should be deleted. There might be an article about opportunism, but this isn't the one. Jeronimo

Where'd you get the idea I'd revert anything? That's certainly not the case. If you don't think the pages are good enough, edit away. Just don't delete. --The Cunctator

Hi. I saw you've moved all the "X basic topics" pages to the Wikipedia name space. Have you made a "top-level" page with links to them all? If not, do you have any ideas for a name for such a page? -- Tarquin 09:00 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Tarquin, this list was already moved to the right namespace before: Wikipedia:The most basic encyclopedia article topics. Note that some of the links there have been redirect to the actual article about that topic, rather than to a list. Anyway, most of these lists only contain a back reference to that main page and nothing more. Jeronimo

aha! thanks! I'd completely forgotten that top list existed. -- Tarquin

I'm not sure what happened, dude, but the entry for Amazon.com no longer works!

O really? It works just fine with me. Jeronimo

Not a big fan of the September 11 pages, are you? You gotta understand, I take it pretty personally. But even without that, there are reasons for taking more measured action than deletion/removal to meta, namely that these are these are among the most popular pages on the site.

The In Memoriam page is a problem, yes, but your edit is worse.

Let's both assume that we have to come up with a solution that will make everyone happy (not just you and me, but as many people as possible), and not waste time with an edit war. --The Cunctator

I agree that an edit war is useless - I don't even have the time for that - but I think it's pretty clear that some of the 9/11 pages simply do not belong in an encyclopedia. If it hadn't happened in the US, such articles would have been long removed. Jeronimo

See my response: User talk:Ram-Man

On United States Libertarian Party

Please give me some feedback on the goal of re-working external links to internal ones. I'm familiar with the idea to internally link something that may become an article in the future, that sounds OK, and I understand why you changed the links. But, if you can't add copyrighted material, and no one has taken the time to write information about a specific person in the Wikipedia, what is wrong with linking to information about that person off-site until information can be Wikified? Especially, in this case, when the information is maintained as part of the history of the political party in question? Personally, I don't think everything can be added to the Wikipedia, will be added (information is almost infinite) and that some external linking until we can get a larger portion of everything Wikified might be better than no information at all. Thanks. Dobbs 17:07 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

Dobbs, the common way to add external links is to put them at the end of an article, or, in some cases, in the article, if you are referring to a specific publication, for example. IN the case of the US Libertarian Party - IIRC - all persons were linked to externally. If you'd want to link to them in that article, you should place them at the bottom. However, I felt that these links were not really about the libertarian party, rather about the persons. So these links should be at the articles about those people - when they exist. If you think, however, that the article is better with these external links, just put them back, but preferably at the bottom. Jeronimo

Hi, just a late follow up on the Videos of bin Laden pages. I've added a bit more commentry to the talk pages following the removal of the transcripts. -- Alex

I try to list pages I've taken off of the Votes for deletion page in the summary. There's no really good mechanism, but I'm not going to leave them on the page if they don't belong there. --The Cunctator

Are you an admin? Can you please temporarily suspend the IP address of the person who is consistantly attempting to link bestiality with homosexuality? The person remains anonymous/unregistered and has been warned in various ways that this is unacceptable, expressing an offensive Non-NPOV. Thank you for your help. -EB-

EB, I'm indeed an admin. I'll check on the actions of this person. I don't know if banning is necessary - I'd rather not use that power if not needed. Jeronimo

I agree that banning is a last resort, but I also am personally offended by this persons desperate need to belittle the importance of a "famous gay people" entry and compare it with a "famous bestialitists" entry. (I looked it up, it's a real word! <G>) Please do what you feel is necessary, and I will continue to eliminate any references of comparison between the two. Tidings, -EB-

Speaking of not using power if not needed . . . How about we all just give the famous Canadian thing a rest. My attempts to dialogue with DW seem to encourage him to rave. So, why not just let him "own" the page for the next couple of days? See what he can do with it if we leave him alone. Maybe he'll re-organize it so that the Truly Famous are at the top and mere actors and *ahem* local musicians are hidden farther down. --Ed Poor

No, I think the issue itself (not especially concerning Canadians) is important. There are several such lists around, and it should be decided what to do with them. Apart from DW's childish acts, there are serious contributions from the others, notably Axel Boldt. I hope we can reach some sort of agreement eventually. Jeronimo

Mr, Jheijmans, I was wondering who I could get to kill a few dozen articles - I looked at the deleted pages page, and can see youre the man for the job.. -Stevertigo