User talk:Hadal/Archive1
Hello Hadal, a very warm welcome to Wikipedia! If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes (~~~~~). If you have any other questions about the project, check out Wikipedia:Help, add a question to the Village pump, or leave a message on my Talk page. Enjoy, -- Viajero 09:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you can offer some insights at Talk:Gemstone#Number of stones, a question asked long ago and had but one response. Or you can directly incorporate the info into the article and just say "See article". Which is a better way, I think. Be bold! --Menchi (Talk)â 13:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you, Hadal, for a great job on the iris. Some gemmology : ) irismeister 21:48, 2003 Dec 14 (UTC)
Zoisite is great! --Menchi (Talk)â 14:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nice work on Serpentine! Great picture too. WormRunner 08:00, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Well done :-) - Mark 08:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks guys! You've turned me a rather compromising shade of cerise. ;) Hadal 08:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Did some reading, and stumbled upon crystal_habit. What struck me was that there are at least two notable terms missing, namely massive and nodular. Whilst I threw in nodular, I don't know enough to add massive. And, more pointedly, I'm sure that there are others I'm missing (My knowledge of minerology starts with a catalogue, and ends with paying for it). So, I thought I'd point it out to you, see if there was anything else you spotted.
Also, I can recall reading something on here describing a mineral as "massive", although blowed if I can find it. Struck me that the word massive probably aught to link to crystal_habit, else it's meaning might not get across properly to the average reader. Syntax 05:27, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
User:Optim's flowers
[edit]Hi! I had no idea about their IDs and I want to learn their official names! Thank you very much! I will add the IDs you suggested on the image description pages. Again thank you! May you have Peace Profound Optim 12:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Landmark Education
[edit]Sorry to step into the middle of the Landmark Education article ... I didn't look for its history when I saw it, just reflexively got rid of the glop. Now that it's a real article again, I understand why I was baffled by its Web site. - DavidWBrooks 20:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Red Alder
[edit]Great picture of an alder grove. I am always fascinated to see what people do with articles I have worked on. WormRunner 17:04, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I was going to use the US FWS one myself, so yours should be just as good. Thanks. Big Iron 18:00 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Request for Comment
[edit]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 19:53, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
User:Scorpion: Dear Hadal, I happened to get a message from you about how I was vandalizing certain articles. Can you tell me which ones you were referring to because I am certain that I have not vandalized any.
Thanks!
Worms
[edit]Bravo on Pompeii worm! :) jengod 21:11, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Seconded - brilliant article. Question: is it the only representative in its family so far? If so we should make the family name point at this article too (thus saving one red link). seglea 00:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- thanks for your reply on my talk page. I think if there are two genera in the family it's worth having a separate page for the family and each genus - that's what we've generally done in other groups, anyway. And I think that arrangement is easier for the reader who doesn't know the group at all and is trying to understand the arrangement. The family page might well start stubby, but they have a way of growing. seglea 04:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
stereographic projection
[edit]Hi. Thanks for your help with stereographic projection; it looks good. Michael Hardy 21:15, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Fish
[edit]Excellent fish articles! Re-inspires me to make mine more interesting... :-) Cetomimiformes is a a bit of a problem taxonomically, since it's not linked from Actinopterygii - most likely because Nelson calls it a superfamily Cetomimoidea of Stephanoberyciformes. Simplest thing is probably to link Cetomimiformes from the Actinopterygii article, make Cetomimoidea a redir and link via that from the Stephanoberyciformes article when it gets written. Aren't taxa fun? Stan 01:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, FishBase is going to be 10 years newer than Nelson, so it will (hopefully :-) ) reflect a newer consensus. Ironically, the common names are more stable than the scientific ones - whalefish is always going to refer to the same set of types, no matter where they are reclassified. Stan 06:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Suwannee River
[edit]So, uh, the Suwannee doesn't pass through or particularly near to Gainesville - where did you get the image from? (BTW, I usually paste a URL into the image desc page, just in case I or somebody else needs to go back to it) Stan 05:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- No prob, I said "oh cool, Hadal turned up a pic!", but the Gainesville ref was unexpected - as a true Wikipediholic :-) I went back to atlas to doublecheck that I hadn't simply forgotten to mention it as one of the towns along the river... Stan 05:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, thanks for formatting that maidenhair pic. I was unfamiliar with the image syntax in Wikipedia and found that html markup didn't work for images! jaknouse 04:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Primates
[edit]Thanks for your work, even though you are spoiling some of my fun. *grins* Now I might have to actually write some articles instead of just adding to the ones that exist. *laughs* You going to join the Project? - UtherSRG 18:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Herculaneum formatting
[edit]Just what I was hoping for! Excellent job for Herculaneum! Wetman 22:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Paul Vogel rants
[edit]STOP mis-directing this NPOV article:
[removed copy/paste of "white separatism" article; I don't want this on my talk page.]
Thanks! :D - [ Comment by known troublemaker 24.45.99.191 ]
- Enough already. Hadal 16:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Exactly!!!
You are the real "trouble-makers" that are "mis-directing" a NPOV article on "white separatism" to a non-NPOV article on "white supremacy".
Good grief, indeed!
Quit mis-directing and reverting this NPOV article:
[Again, I don't need a copy of this drivel on my talk page.]
Thanks!
- Obviously Wikipedia is not an ideal soapbox for you. Have you considered a different venue? Hadal 16:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, "drivel" is only anything that you don't POV approve of, isn't it?
The Wiki Encyclopedia will end up being nothing but POV Marxist-PC drivel, with such editors like you and your POV ilk editing it!!!
- I'm trying to uphold Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, actually. Maybe you should peruse this policy, as it is evident that you have yet to do so. Hadal 21:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, you are NOT, actually, and NOT according to this definition of the NPOV policy:
"What is the neutral point of view?
What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood.
There are many other possible valid understandings of what "unbiased," "neutral," etc. mean. The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.
First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.
A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.
Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.
Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
Bias per se need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere."
- Thanks for copy/pasting what I've already read. I can answer you by spewing it right back at you:
You may have READ IT, but, YOU DON'T FOLLOW IT! I WALK the TALK, YOU DON'T!
- Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
- Bolding mine. Your view is of the minority. It does not deserve its own singe paragraph, entirely quoted article. That last bolded point is of particular concern here. You're trying to present your own point of view as the truth. Surely you see this? Hadal 03:58, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your opponent's advantage, Hadal, is that he doesn't suppose the pretense of impartiality. I think it's fair to say the NPOV article is inaptly named, as it does take a stance. It makes a clear decision as to what and what does not constitute an impartial article. It privileges the majority; it makes the assumption that a whole can be represented most accurately by reflecting the numerical proportion of its viewpoints. This 'numerical equality' is what it defines as "the shape of the argument".
While some may call the NPOV a Democratic solution, and others may call it a tyranny of the majority, it is definitely a bias. As such, I believe the NPOV should be renamed WPOV, or, Wikipedian Point of View. It would mean that its enforcers would be obliged to defend it as an opinion, rather than under the 'given-truth' banner of impartiality. It's far too easy to avoid discussion of the specific rules that govern the NPOV/WPOV when refuting its authority as nature. I think it is far more useful to weigh the benefits of the specific rules that constitute the article.
Hopefully then, we'd get away from this inane argument that seems to be descending into infinite regression.
Methylsoy 08:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Nomination
[edit]I've nominated you for adminship. If you accept, please reply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Maximus Rex 03:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Paul Vogel rant, redux
[edit]On the contrary, mine is the NPOV verses only your own non-NPOV, as can be seen quite clearly below:
"White Separatism" is quite distinct from "White Supremacy":
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
One entry found for separatism.
Main Entry: sep·a·rat·ism Pronunciation: 'se-p(&-)r&-"ti-z&m Function: noun
- a belief in, movement for, or state of separation (as schism, secession, or segregation)
Get the Top 10 Search Results for "separatism"
For More Information on "separatism" go to Britannica.com
or to http://www.natall.com or to http://www.natvan.com
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
2 entries found for supremacy. To select an entry, click on it.
supremacy
white supremacy
Main Entry: white supremacy Function: noun
- a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over the black race or non-whites and the correlative necessity for the subordination of blacks or non-whites to whites in all relationships
Get the Top 10 Search Results for "white+supremacy"
For More Information on "white+supremacy" go to Britannica.com
Notice that there is no entry in the dictionary for "Jewish Supremacism", even though the Jews are the only people to ever claim to be "GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE" solely and above all other people on earth. Isn't that fact really quite illuminating and very interesting, indeed!
- Look, I've tried to point out your error, and I've unfortunately failed to make you see it. You'll notice white separatist is now a fair and balanced article; much superior to the unattributed quote you tried to pass off as an NPOV article. All views are expressed, and none are left as the final word on the subject.
Yes, for the most part, but, not RECENTLY though!
- Now, will you stop pasting that quote all over the place under inappropriate titles like "Separatists"? Thanks. -- Hadal 21:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Only where the article is "appropriately linked", and no more and no less. QUIT WHINING! Thanks! :D
Wallace Pratt
[edit]thanks for help on Wallace Pratt H2O 21:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sysop Rights
[edit]You are now an Administrator. Please use your sysop rights wisely. --Uncle Ed 15:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Elephantine
[edit]Thanks for the kind words about the photo on Elephantine. You inspired me to upload a larger version of it – better colours, and takes proper advantage of the thumbnail feature. Cheers, –Hajor 05:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my double redirect -- wasn't paying close enough attention! Nice work. :-) Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sofrry - I spotted that you deleted Cotton candy at the same time as I blanked and redirected it to candy. You were faster on the draw!Mark Richards 04:54, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism by 203.109.249.138
[edit]Hi. I would like to tell you that more people have been using the IP address 203.109.249.138 - and none of these people are Danutz from the Romanian Wikipedia. I am a major contributor to the Romanian Wikipedia and also do some work with Romania-related articles at en:wiki. Due to new dynamic IP system of our ISP, I sometimes get this IP address when I don't log on. However, I have checked the list of contributions on this IP address and have found that another user has been vandalising pages. What I would like to tell you is that it has been neither me (Rronline) not Danutz from the Romanian Wikipedia who has done this. From now on, I will log in when I make contributions, however, just to let you know that many users could have been using this IP and I did not do any vandalism, it was another user with the same IP address. Thanks, Rronline 06:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
JimD
[edit](Response to User_talk:JimD): Wow, I didn't even know about the User_talk feature. Thank you for the warm and personal welcome, it was a pleasant surprise.
I also hope to be around for awhile, I enjoy doing this while watching TV. Rest of my response is on User:JimD. (BTW: I don't know if the conventions on the User_talk pages is top or bottom posting; I'm guessing it's largely irrelevant if you're using the diffs).
JimD 10:14, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'd gone to the wrong link and never noticed. Good thing you caught it! —Morven 07:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to compliment your good work monitoring the Recent changes. Keep up the good work. Maximus Rex, 09:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Canada
[edit]I THINK I fixed it. Like I said, the vandalism history got confusing. :) RickK | Talk 03:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with eating her out. Moncrief 09:55, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not sure what "RC" stands for. Can you remind me? Moncrief 16:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Here's my opinion then. You're an extremely rude person. Have a nice day :D (posted by 172.148.215.243)
Thank you very much for reverting the anonymous edit to my user page - I didn't even notice it. I really appreciate it. Rei
Thanks for help against Rishartha/Aenea666. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 07:28, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
- No, thank YOU; and about your nomination, I'm not afraid to stand up for the large chunk of Wikipedians who are a little controversial. We spice this place up, eh? =) --Merovingian ↕ Talk 07:39, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
---
Out of curiousity, why are you blocking the various Risharta entities for only 24 hours? It seems clear that he or she is intent only on causing disruption here. Just wondering if there's a reason you don't block he/she for longer. Thanks. Moncrief 08:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I did not intend to Vandalise
[edit]I thank you for your concern of wikipedia but i did not mean to vandalise Donard Park i mearly meant to highlight the problem in the area and the dangers of it to tourists at night. I repeatedly tryed to enter it in because i think it is a valid problem people should wake up to not lock away and try to forget about. 217.33.82.4 13:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How do you do? I'm User:195.144.131.5. I'm Japanese and I can't speak English well. So please explain what you mean in easy English. Thank you. ja:利用者:K.M.
That edit is not mine. Someone else uses this IP address. Thank you. ja:利用者:K.M.
Staryu and Starmie
[edit]Out of curiosity, why weren't Staryu and Starmie candidates for speedy deletion? I'm not asking you to delete them, since I've listed the text from the second versions of both of them on Wikipedia:Still more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and I'm not sure if deleting would violate GFDL, but why weren't they candidates? That way, I'll know what was flawed with my reasoning... - Bulbaboy 07:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Reply:
- They are valid subjects, and I do believe we should have articles on individual Pokémon. Only problem is, the attack list was highly inaccurate, and incomplete; it listed several attacks that I'm pretty sure were either TCG attacks or attacks from the anime, despite the fact that it's probably not a good idea to do so without *specifically* mentioning that's what they are. Just look at them now... I suspected this was the problem - a sysop who doesn't play Pokémon (though it's not your fault, of course), since it's basically Pokégibberish. Though, I think I won't list them on VfD, since they can still serve as an example of *why* it's a good idea to make sure huge lists have *blue*, not red, links, and I might give them actual content soon. That's not to say that others can't list them on VfD, of course... - Bulbaboy 08:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, don't worry about it. You didn't know; it's no biggie. And there IS a reason I started WikiProject Pokédex, to make sure that there's little or no gibberish (especially good-looking gibberish, as in this case). Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, I'd actually looked there but it didn't look like what I wanted... I'll be sure to use it in the future, although I hope I don't have to. That's actually why I posted the original message, was to find out what went wrong, and how I could prevent it in the future.
- Nice to meet you too. - Bulbaboy 20:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting the image size on Origins of the American Civil War. It's been getting pretty hard to work with the images lately. 172 12:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks -- a quick note of gratitude for your support on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Your vote is greatly appreciated! –Hajor
Thanks for catching that taxobox paste error in mummichog. *blush* :) -- Hadal 18:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure I was simply faster than you. The image you added is nice, and I'm changing the order Cyprinodontiformes to use it. -- Josh
Woah!
[edit]I was browsing Wikipedia and I saw I got a message about a "test" (um, vandalism) - but I hadn't! It seems somebody else in my school is "testing" (um, vandalising) Wikipedia... so sad, and I hope the IP won't get blocked. User:r3m0t not logged in 212.135.1.50 10:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) r3m0t 10:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Spider monkey
[edit]Yay! :) Let me know when you've completed your edits and I'll have a whack at it. *grins* - UtherSRG 19:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Photogrammetry
[edit]The original material has not been released under the GNU FDL. Go ahead and remove the article and I will rewrite it. --Smf1272 21:41, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Jón Páll
[edit]Hello, I was also patrolling RC when I noticed that you deleted Jón Páll. Why? He's a very famous Icelandic strong man, and I think that the newbie who wrote the article probably would have more to say about him. I'm gonna undelete. --Alex S 22:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)