User talk:Siafu/archive2

_

Re: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 9#Television stations with slashes

... Right after the one for "...zing!". Sorry if that came off as unpleasant in any way, it just seemed that there wasn't a good response to be made to the question (i.e. one that wouldn't ruin the whole thing). siafu 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. Clean talk page. Must dirty. Anyway, no, not unpleastant. I just did a double take on your comment and genuinely had no idea how it should be taken. Am thankful I didn't dive straight into righteous educator mode, though of course, that would have been much funnier. --zippedmartin 01:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Truscott

Hi,

I know stub-sorting is monotonous, but you had this fellow pegged as a chess-player, when he was, in fact, a master of bridge. I have restubbed him as bio-US, since we don't seem to have a bridge stub. Thanks. Xoloz 04:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Manley-Reeve...

is now a redlink. I figure I have no conflict of interest in closing a unanimous debate. I was reluctant to protect the article during an AfD in case someone should come along and want to re-write it as often happens. I've added the now-deleted article to my watchlist and will speedy it if it resurfaces. Could you add it to yours too, and poke me if I miss it. -Splash^talk 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. siafu 00:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in music category rename

Hi I have changed the proposed title of the rename to Category:Jewish classical musicians with the agreement of User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (who first proposed the rename) as this fits the people who I have placed in the category so far. The category will then be moved as a sub category of the existing categories Category:Jewish_musicians or Category:Jewish_music. I intend to make other categories for the other genres i.e. Jewish pop musicians, Jewish jazz musicians etc. I hope this is OK and doesn't affect your vote Arnie587 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd sig

Could you please examine the sig in the Olav Reiersøl section of my talk page? The history indicates another user, but the sig directs here. -Splash^talk 11:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only theory I could come up with is that this user, who doesn't have a blurb from the welcoming committee on his/her talk page I noticed, doesn't understand how to write a sig (i.e., nobody explained the ~~~~ method) and just copied the one above without changing everything? Either way, I see you've left a message on his/her talk page, so I'm just going to leave it at that. Weird, though. siafu 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

renamingCategory:Ontario writers to Category:Writers of Ontario

why would you want rename this cat when all similar cats for people from/of states and provinces are named as the latter as the former was?? if you check Category:Writers by state and all similar cats such as Category:Ontario actors, Category:Quebec sportspeople for occupation or occupation field by name for any state or provincial you ll find them named thus. moreover, in what way does the new name adds anything specifics or remove any ambiguity semantically. -Mayumashu 14:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following you. If you're saying that categories should follow existing precedent and be named "X writers" or "X actors" instead of "Writers of X" or "Actors of X", then I find the reasoning rather weak; just because it was done this way before and in other places does not a priori make it the best way to do it. This particular difference is not about ambiguity, but grammar, or at least, making it sound less ham-fisted. "England writers", for example, is very obviously ungrammatical, but would follow from this pattern. siafu 17:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but in fact it is perfectly grammatical (as is 'England writers') - nouns commonly act as adjectives. and therefore all similar cats for states, provinces, counties, and places within countries have been acceptingly named thus, whereas for the countries, 'pure adjectives' say have been choosen in most cases (exceptions including 'Northern Ireland actors' and 'sportspeople of Serbia and Montenegro') - this has become the accepted convention, like it or not. but that it is grammatical makes it the tidiest of ways to express that the person in question is of the place in question, thereby making it the best choice. 'Ontarian writers' is more restrictive in its connoting that the individual is native Ontarian whereas 'Ontario writers' or indeed 'Writers of Ontario' does not suggest any distinction between nativeness and mere residency, flexibility which is more suitable for a sub-cat (I mean the importance here is neither mere Ontario nativeness nor residency but association of say writers to Ontario). -Mayumashu 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither the accepted convention (not that this would make it more or less acceptable, as convention is quite changeable), nor is it grammatical, despite your insistence. I challenge you to find a speaker who prefers (grammatically) "Canada people" to "Canadians", "People from Canada", or even "People who live in Canada". You can tell me this all day as you please, but the form your advocating is not in common use as a productive form, given that it's only really used in occasional cases (particularly with "United States"). "Like it or not." Regardless, it aslo happens to be quite ham-fisted in sound, which is just as important as the above. It seems that you also approve of "Writers of Ontario", which would be the form I prefer anyway (and have said so), so why is it so important to you that we agree on what is, therefore, a side issue? siafu 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one of those "occasional" or less common cases being with provinces or states - i agree that 'Canada people' sounds odd. as for convention, you can change it, but what is the need to do so with the a prior established one here (in the form of several hundred cats) to whose naming convention tens of users have aquiesced. i would be in favour of changing it if i shared your view on the inappropriateness of the grammar of 'Ontario writers', which again i don t. at any rate, i don t think either of us is near persuading the other and it is as you suggest rather petty. thanks for responding to my query and best regards, -Mayumashu 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago L

The stuff on the talk page assumes that we don't want historical stuff in the template. But historical stuff makes it better. WP:IAR. --SPUI (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you have still not read the talk page. siafu 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that those two interurbans used the L - they relate more to the L than the commuter rail lines. --SPUI (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the template page. Not sure why SPUI is so adamant about the point without anything to say in the talk pages. Tedernst 08:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being placed on the talk pages of all members of Association of Members advocates, both as a general invitation and as a reminder that using the /Workshop page may be useful in advocacy. Fred Bauder 19:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category vote request

Hi, thanks for supporting me on the eccentric category. I would really appreciate your comment or vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_American_actors. There is a real problem with this category and similar ones as mixing ethnicity-nationality-profession in categories is in my opinion extremely bad for the category structure. The main reason for this is many people are being added to these xxx American categories for having one grandparent of that ethnicity, therefore they can be in four xxx American categories. If we allow the ethnicity-nationality-profession mix in categories, for example, for someone who has grandparents of four different ethnicities and two professions i.e. actor and director, they could end up in four xxx American actor categories and four xxx American director categories which in my opinion would make Wikipedia look ridiculous. In my opinion this category should be merged with Category:American actors. Thanks Arniep 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and you're on the chicago committee

Please consult a map before you make bold assumptions. Research: community area map. #3 is Uptown, #6 is Lake View.

Above unsigned by Jcrocker. Presumably this is in reference to something? siafu 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact it is. Please consult a map before you make bold assumptions. Research: community area map. #3 is Uptown, #6 is Lake View. Try not to confuse the two. I know it is hard for a suburbanite to notice the difference, but there most certainly is. East of Clark Street, Lake View is south of IRVING PARK ROAD. J. Crocker

Amazing. You leave an unsigned comment on my talk page ranting about the difference between Uptown and Lakeview for reasons that remain completely obscure, decide that I'm a suburbanite, and have the audacity to lecture me aboutt making "bold assumptions"? Impressive hutzpah. I'm guessing that this must be in reference to a comment or edit somewhere about Lakeview or Uptown, but since I haven't made any edits to any related articles in several months to my memory, you'll have to be a bit more specific. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish (aside, apparently, from starting a fight with a stranger?), but in the future it might do to review wikipedia:civility before harassing your fellow wikipedians. siafu 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temuga

Yeah, but the article mentioned his name as Temuge earlier, so I thought a uniform spelling of his name would be better. Olorin28 12:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Werd. siafu 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune & brown dwarves

Hi - I was wondering why you removed the comment from Neptune with the note that it was false. Doesn't matter, as it was only an internal comment line, but as far as I know, brown dwarfs are not expected to be much larger (in volume) than Jupiter, even if much more massive. kwami 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. It didn't specify radius/volume, and usually when discussing "size" of stellar objects its in terms of mass - e.g., brown dwarfs are generally between 15 and 90 Jupiter masses (not similar), which is why I took it to be false. siafu 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An Shihkao

The information I wrote on An Shihkao (including the name transliteration) is how it appears on the reference given. I only paraphrased to avoid copyright problems. You are certainly free to add referenced material to the article as I did, of course.--Zereshk 22:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 18

You said you would change your vote if I populated the categories with 5 people each. After I did exactly that you withdrew your vote instead of changing it. --Vizcarra 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was a change. If they had been populated before, I wouldn't have voted on it at all. siafu 00:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --Vizcarra 00:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

You might want to check out these two edits to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 9. It looks like someone might be faking votes from you. - dcljr (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed one. - dcljr (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did. Got it now. siafu 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Thanks for your vote in the ArbCom elections. I see that I have confused you with my "reluctance to stand". I wanted to keep to 250 words in the opening statement so couldn't elaborate, but I'm happy to do so here. The reluctance was, as I said, because ArbCom is likely to be an arduous duty and will take away from the time I'm able to spend writing articles. It isn't because I am in any way equivocal about wanting to serve on ArbCom. I enjoy the practice of weighing the evidence and trying to reach consensus, and feel that serving on ArbCom I would be making a very positive contribution to Wikipedia. I hope this solves your confusion - but if you want to discuss it, please send me a message. David | Talk 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated deleted cat

Noting your last Delete vote, have you seen Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_12#Category:Films_notable_for_historical_inaccuracy? Please consider voting Speedy delete. Thanks.--Mais oui! 03:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming for Category:United States Students' Unions

Hi. As an editor who participated in the discussion regarding renaming Category:United States Students' Unions, I am writing you to let you know that while there was consensus to rename the category there was no clear consensus for the final name. If you would like to revisit the discussion on Category talk:United States Students' Unions I am willing to consider an agreement there and rename the category. I won't be monitoring your talk page so if you have to reply to me directly please do so on my talk page. Thanks! --Syrthiss 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Gangsters category

The Black Gangsters category was put up for deletion again; I believe unfairly since no note of the previous discussion was given. Finding that you voted before, and believing you made a well-reasoned argument, I ask that you vote again here. [1] --Alsayid 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional octopi and squids

Your comments are requested at Category talk:Fictional octopi and squids regarding whether it would be best to move this to Category:Fictional octopuses and squids or Category:Fictional cephalopods. (I'm telling you this because you voted on the category's cfd.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing redirects

Hi there, Variable. Please see Talk:Atmospheric reentry#Disambiguation and bypassing redirects. Thanks, David Iberri (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Drugs article improvement

Hey there. Just letting you know that the War on Drugs article has been nominated for improvement. Perhaps you may want to add your supporting vote or a comment on the process. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europa (moon)

Sorry about that. I grabbed all 3 of the recent IP edits and checked the difference, but when I rolled it back I forgot that there were two different IPs there. tv316 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan

What are you doing with the Genghis Khan article? Don't make bold assumption without sources and don't revert stuff if you feel it's nonsensical.

This can be addressed at Talk:Genghis Khan. siafu 06:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which section?

At the bottom. siafu 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that sometimes uncivilized editors are hard to deal with, but they can only be shut up with cold and hard facts. Let us continue to try to bring Genghis Khan to feature-article status. It definitely deserves being a feature article Olorin28 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthia

Why are people trying to change Parthia to Parthia Empire now?Zmmz 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the user in question has yet to offer any explanation, despite multiple comments left on his talk page, and an RFC that was filed on the subject (you can find the result of that on Talk:Parthia under "Page Move"). siafu 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you settled that question quite a while ago when you involved everyone in the discussion page? Good job though, because I saw someone even inserted Ashkanian in there.Zmmz 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]