This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why do you want full protection on the Monarch Butterfly?
I'm just a little curious. You marked that you wanted full protection for a dispute, but the last vandalism was back in Oct 2009. Indef semi protection seems excessive to you, but it seems that you now want to kick it up a notch to full protection? Thanks for your time. Banaticus (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Shit, I think that was a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Non-free content criteria
Please read and understand the non-free content criteria before readding the non-free iPhone image. Especially #1 & #8. --hydrox (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Users can't be expected to know what a smartphone is unless they can see an image of an actual smartphone in the article. Unless a switched on Android phone would be a free image, then the iPhone switched on is appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've gone with the US army one, as its public domain. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:My Talk Page
Please let me remind you that I am not a new editor to Wikipedia. If you had taken the extra time to look through the entire paragraph, you would have seen that there were two references present. The content of that paragraph is obtained from those two references only. I had decided that I would complete referencing at a later time. But it seems that you were too fast, and have marked up unreferenced places in the article.
In any event, the referencing has been done. Please review through the changes at your leisure and cross-reference if necessary, before you again post on my talk page.
Automated warnings are an easy and quick way of getting the point across. No insult was intended, but I suppose they are excessively simplistic for a non-new user, and thus I apologise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I do know about the automated bots informing about "WP errors", and like you, I find them simplistic and of little help. However, being an experienced user, I thought you would go across the article more carefully. Anyways, I took no offence, and I see no reason why you apologised. Just clearing the air.
I am considering turning our discussion at WP:PP into a proper RfC. What do you think? It seems like the current discussion is attracting polarised contributions and it would benefit from a bit of fresh air.
Also, I think the case of Anti-Christian violence in India is quite important and relevant, and I would like to refer to it in the future. However, if my understanding is right it is going to vanish into the oblivion soon and it will be difficult to refer to it. Do you have any concerns were I to take a "please do not modify", collapsed copy of it in our WP:PP discussion? Thanks. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The permanent link is here. I have to say that Courcelles is clearly really upset about this issue, and he is generally a good admin so I don't want to criticise him too much. See this discussion on this talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"I don't want to criticise him too much" ...nor am I asking that of you! I did not mean an RfC about Courcelles or about that particular article. I mean opening this whole, general "Sockpupetting and protection" debate to a proper RfC.
Thanks for the permalink, didn't think about that. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem in wikipedia is there is a big mismatch in the understanding of the events between different editors from other countries . When the issues are not common between states and territories its hard to explain the need for semi protection of Community pages. im not sure why pages cant be automatically semi protected from IP edits.Rajkumarthtalk—Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
High speed 2
Re: your recent edits:
A primary source for what a green party spokesman has said is not required [1] - and there is no reason I can see not to take the source given as reliable. - Whether or not such content (ie the views of every pressure group) is relavent is another question
Describing the Taxpayers Alliance as a right right pressure group, is on the wrong side of neutral. If you think it is, I would recommend adding that info the the article on the group first, not here..
I think my revert may have undone some unrelated work - but I have tried to reinsert the references and links.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved to the High Speed 2 talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
hang on - I think I've got it mixed up who did what - possibly you need to ignore the first point sorry.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've replied on the High Speed 2 talk page as other people may want to weigh in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the RfC
I was actually going to ask you or someone else to start it, since I had no experience with RfC so far. GreyHoodTalk 17:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
whoah buddy
Need to slow down on ITN proposals and start dialogue with the regulars rather than keep posting community RFC and such. I think many observations you have and are trying to fix are valid. I think some of this stuff should be discussed a little more before RFCs are begun. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
holy crap, just saw the WP:MAINPAGE talk discussion, I see why you posted it though i still think some discusion could prevent some of the RFC train wreck I see coming. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything else to do, and Greyhood's proposal is sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed this whole thing is a mess. Either we lower our standards and get worthless garbage or We raise our standards and post less. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Given in 2009 there were almost enough posts, garbage is more than a little hyperbolic... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
On 8 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Seiji Maehara, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hi,
Are there any reasons that changes are reverted?
The earlier changes made by user Vice regent are in bad taste, furthermore he has made changes while realigning the article, including mention of court judgments etc.
Please revert changes made by me so as to correct the situation. Changes such as those done by user Vice regent, are somehow not less than abuse of internet and free community in the name of openness.
I reverted your changes because the comments you removed were sourced to a bunch of extremely reliable sources such as the Economist and Reuters. Your first edit looks more legitimate, and I'm going to rework the changes into the article. But you shouldn't be surprised if you remove sourced content from the Economist and Reuters that your changes get reverted - I don't always have the time to check every revision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Lets see the kind of language the reference article has:
Narendra Modi is a disgrace...
scheming Muslims in their midst..
It was organised by supporters of Mr Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) (no proofs given) after 58 Hindu activists were killed in a fire on a train for which, on scant evidence, Muslims were blamed... (again wrong, it was pre planned)
in a brave investigation into the pogrom, an Indian magazine, Tehelka, published transcripts...
So this report cites another report also from a website well known never to investigate one political party(congress) and always willing to bravely investigate others(congress' competition) which makes the article untrustworthy for an open source website like wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.213 (talk • contribs) 14:10 9 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because the Economist doesn't generally bother to dress things up with polite language and tells them how they are. Given the Economist is clearly a reliable source of the highest order I'm not interested in discussing this matter further. If you wish take it to WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Your actions at my talk page
Hi, Eraserhead1. May I please ask you to review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and to stay off my talk page once and for all? Thanks. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You were edit warring so you are going to get templated - as its vastly easier and gets the point across, life's too short otherwise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
On 10 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2011 Yunnan earthquake, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Sorry my earlier response was a bit snappish. I am under a lot of stress these days. Yes, I think the idea is a good one. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
COMPLAIN is being launched against your rude behavior
Hello. You have a new message at Tariq hilal's talk page.
Though your reply was not very encouraging as you clearly ignored my request but of course you are not at fault. The general perception via media propaganda is stronger than just a few words of a distant Pakistani who is unknown to you. However, now i along with my team are initiating a project on collecting and projecting real image of Pakistan. The brief discussion with you had leaded me into it. Initiating a project on "Real Pakistan". FYI only. Tariq hilal (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Tariq hilal
Please clarify
whatever you meant here. I am reviewing it now and plan to post it shortly.--Chaser (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant that the article didn't quite look updated enough - no worries its been posted now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank You
Thanks for sticking up for me while I was blocked and proving to others that I never edit warred. Passionless-Talk 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry - I see you're already there :-) Chzz ► 10:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Rejection of recent edit
Dear Eraserhead1
My edit was not a simple deletion. I deleted the statement of Pallone. I am not sure how statement of an individual is RS (especially one who bears no official significance to the related topic). I kept the one that is cited as the house action. Also, i changed the wording to 'claim' to be neutral. Please let me know why you think this was not accepted. 98.225.193.150 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You deleted some other stuff as well from the CIA and UN. I have removed some of the content on Pallone's resolution and the stuff from Oregon as that looked to be undue weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but can you tell me which other pieces I deleted? I did move some to shape it better, but did not delete anything else. Can you please look at it again and point me to it? Thanks. 98.225.193.150 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case, I think your new edits look better than mine :-), so thanks.98.225.193.150 (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what you changed, I'm talking about the bottom bits :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
ah ok.. sorry about the confusion. But i did not delete that. i simply moved it. I thought you said I deleted the CIA and UN things... but i did not... i changed the order...in any case.. its good now 98.225.193.150 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood, but I guess its settled now :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
At this point its too old I'm afraid :(. The oldest current entry is dated the 17th March. I think there was a lot of bad luck as it got ignored for a while. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On 19 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Warren Christopher, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
On 20 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2011 Six Nations Championship, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
I noticed you reverted all the IP edits on this article concerning the lead and it has been done again and the lead has vertually gone. Please could you revert all of the IP edits and maybe consider blocking that IP ot putting the page up for page protection, cheers, –LiamTaylor– 12:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
ITN/C reversion
You know full well that a 1 word 'support' vote is completely irrelevant. If that nominations bombs, as I expect it will, I hope you will not be so quick next time to second guess my judgement or my attempts to enforce the clearly stated instructions and keep the nominations page to some sort of ordered purpose. I've posted further in the oppose you've now made necessary by the reversal, so you can reply there or here as you wish, if you disagree with my logic. MickMacNee (talk)
I think your logic is fine, but I don't think its was appropriate to remove the nomination as it had already been commented upon by another user. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A one word vote is not a comment. To illustrate the parallel, if someone nominated an article for Afd for completely invalid reasons, and a user had already given a one word delete vote, it would not stop anyone being well within their rights to close the Afd and speedily keep the article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
On 24 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article José Sócrates, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
José Sócrates/Portuguese legislative election, 2011
No issue here but FYI the markets being up is not unexpected because of the bailout it is BECAUSE of the bailout expectation. (see the QE2's and other euro bailouts) more money flowing into the country, more liquid, etc
although how they seem to think the bailout is MORE likely im even more perplexed. he was shot down because he wanted the measures.Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Because balancing the budget makes a bailout less likely I think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Financial centre
ok...but can Toronto be included somewhere prominently on the page? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.68.11 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, add it somewhere further down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure. In the article I'd go for the former, its prettier, and more informative. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 Libyan uprising
regarding your suggestion to discuss: maybe you want to have a look first at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda.2C_LIFG_and_mercenaries and Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda_and_Nato_are_co-beligrents.3F.21, were we discussed for endless times with the IPs their wish to add al-Qaeda. If you have a look, you will see that besides the IPs nobody of the editors supports this POV the IP wishes to add; and no matter how you argue, the IP does not debate and just says it is right; even though even the source says nothing of the like. (the source says that some men out of a group of 25 that went to Iraq to fight there, are now fighting with the rebels in Libya; and these men maybe have some links to al-Qaeda) and because of that the IP wishes to add al-Qaeda as co-belligerent. The whole day I and various editors have removed this claim, as the consensus on the talk page is NOT to add it. However the guy behind the IP just comes back under different IP and adds it again. So, if you want to discuss with him more - please do so! we others are all exasperated and just revert his re-adding and re-adding and re-adding and... noclador (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
just as I was writing to you more editors told the IP it is wrong: [2][3]. and full protection is a HORRIBLE idea, as this is one of the most edited articles currently on wikipedia! noclador (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want the article fully protected you shouldn't have been edit warring with the IP editors - while the consensus on the talk page probably is more towards your position doesn't really look that obvious, and I'm sure some sort of reasonable compromise could be reached. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
??? compromise??? no consensuses? have you looked at the IPs? just as an example the last five that are in favor of adding the al-Qaeda piece:
90.128.116.236 - DE-TELE2-NET3
83.189.90.131 - DE-TELE2-NET2
213.101.230.37 - DE-TELE2
83.189.94.84 - DE-TELE2-NET2
83.181.93.81 - DE-TELE2-NET2
and so on and on; the guy just switches IP every 20 min or so, to make it look like there is a debate! while actually it is just him vs. everybody else. and if you read the article in question [4] it nowhere says al-Qaeda supports the rebels. Or can you find that line in there somewhere?? noclador (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There looks to be a lot of shouting on the talk page and not a great deal of productive discussion. I suggest you come to some kind of compromise on the talk page. I have made some compromise suggestions that can be worked with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
no can do; we do not compromise with OR, fringe theories and misquoting of sources. noclador (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
after all, we strive to be an encyclopedic work and not- "put in whatever you want, if you just switch often enough IPs" blog. noclador (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Its not a fringe theory when its being stated by the Daily Telegraph. It may be a little grey, but there is enough in the Telegraph article for some kind of inclusion. I think you spend less time arguing with me and the protecting admins talk pages and more time coming to some kind on compromise on the article's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
you can find a compromise with him. We argued for two days with the guy and 0 results. find a result I am fed up with this discussion since a long time. Butyou can be sure that whatever you put in the article, other editors by the dozen will remove it again. then you have an edit war without end, thanks to given space to a guy, who has shown himself to be nothing but a POV pusher over the last 2 days. as said, you can now work with him; I have better things to do. noclador (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
stop including errors, when you have no clue: read!noclador (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
We've discussed the matter at length on the talk page, in a discussion which you refused to partake in. If you were really interested in the matter you should have got involved in the original discussion as I strongly encouraged you to do at the time. At this point drop the stick. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
and read Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#sloppy sourcing on the talk page before you revert; as I have stated there why this line is wrong! Maybe you want to read the telegraph piece again before you put the "at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections" line back in, as it is not supported by source. "and some fighters out of a group of 25 that went to Iraq are on the front line today" is the line that is supported by the article. The rest "at least" "a few dozens" "have al-Qaeda connections" are all not supported by the source. Or can you point that line out to me in the source? noclador (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You have already been given a good faith and solid opportunity to discuss this issue on the article's talk page, and you chose not to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
re this - yeah I know, I wanted to hit the "rollback" but hit "rollback vandalism" instead. My bad - I wanted to leave an comment to you to look at the talk page. so; definitely my bad in this case! Sorry. noclador (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Polental
Hiya,
I was about to try my first warning attempt (not sure how to use these gadgets without somehow setting the computer on fire) on Polental for vandalism. with regard to the baby photo. I saw you warned him and the other fellow so you covered that. It is very odd though, he has a habit of blanking his talk page. If you check his history for the page you'll see he got two warnings before and blanked them and he also blanked it two times I asked him a question. Some of his edits are helpful, others not so much. I don't know what to make of him tbph. Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the blanking, that's why I went straight to a "level 3" warning. The warnings are all given on WP:UTM if you want to use them manually. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah thanks, these are useful. I'll see if I can memorise a few of the more frequently used ones. I don't suppose there's a template for when an IP user doesn't like the fact you're Jewish eh? I got one of those but I'm taking an idrc approach with regard to it (as A, I actually don't care, B, annoyance is weakness). Thanks again! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 00:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Question re civility
Eraserhead, I am writing because of curiosity arising from a recent discussion you were involved in about a user commenting 'fuck you' in the edit summary of one of her posts. My interest is philosophical, not directed at resolving or seeking intervention in any specific situation.
I am personally neither part of an excessively genteel social group, nor one where expletives as every second word are common. I nevertheless find that 'fuck you' is a reasonably common exclamation, particularly when faced with acts of perceived discourtesy. Examples that come to mind include a car running over a puddle of water that splashes you on the foot-path, a person who bumps into you pretty hard in the street, a person who applies an epithet to you that you think you don't deserve, a rejoinder to an action you might think as equivalent to the exclamation, a casual rebuke for somone you think has been a smart-arse, a response to a friend or family member using the last of the cereal/bread/cheese/coffee/milk, etc.
Much of that usage is of course related to tone and facial expression. All of that is necessarily lost online, but the gravity or the context of the circumstance isn't.
My question to you is, reading WP:CIVIL, actions aren't exempt from the code, but don't seem to attract its censure as often as words. In your opinion, is this related to individual interpretation of the code or just the specificity of the language used in the code? Would 'go to hell' be interpreted as equivalent to 'fuck you' (meaning that definition is or isn't derived from specific words being judged by the code)?
Like I said, it's an area of curiosity, if only because I've seen people use 'fuck you' elsehere at WP where no one has commented, and where someone has commented but not complained, and where someone has expressed strong objections and complained. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
While in some situations you might use 'fuck you' it wasn't as if Catherine used it immediately after the incident occurred, there was a good pause before it was made. While you might use the term fuck you on the street you would be showing appropriate body language. The reason I was taking it seriously is because the admin involved was clearly upset, and because the lack of civility on Wikipedia has been called out in the media. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'm not challenging the specific incident or discussion. I was just curious about your views on the code 'cos you seemed a little more even-tempered about than some others. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't take it as a challenge :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look tomorrow evening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've ha a quick look and both sides look reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
re ITN
I was apparently in a bad mood today (see my comment toward Eugen as well) and I took it out on ITN, and I apologize for my overly harsh comments. --Golbez (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but, what is the "Status quo"? Please see my comment. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Replied at length there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
T1ke's article
I am not sure anyone actually bothered to put that article the guy posted originally through Google Translate, otherwise they would have seen how much more ludicrous his claims were. Here is the GT link: [5]. It is some nutty opinion piece. I am reading about a fellow who claims Atlantis is in Ireland, so my Kookdar is on high alert, and well... I think we're gettin close to a red alert here. Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieSay Shalom! 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Pending Changes
Don't have the time to write the meaningful note that you deserve ... but thank you, thank you, thank you for showing good sense and common courtesy on that RFC. Great stuff and something wiki needs more of. TheGrappler (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean I put my comment in the wrong section? I'll fix it now.--The Masterof Mayhem 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Tagging confusion
Hi and very good day,
Could you kindly guide me to tag all my uploaded images. though i had provided the required links and all this images are free to copy and does not require any special lisence to copy the image.
Please guide me as i am bit counfused in tagging the images.
I've replied on your talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion
I advice that your userpage semi-protection be removed at your request to an administrator.I saw the history of your User page and I dont think that semi-protection should have been put at first place itself as there was only little instances of vandalism in your userpage.
Happy years of editing!
Suri 100 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. However I'm sorry but there is no legitimate reason why any non-autoconfirmed editor would edit my userpage and there has been vandalism in the past. I do leave my talk page entirely open so that IP editors can comment here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Pending changes
I have questioned your comment on section replacing semi-protection with pending changes 1 protection under project page of community discussion on pending changes protection. 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC).The link can be found here. [[6]] Suri 100 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
js question
You're in the js-5 category—do you think you could take a look at this and see if there's a better way to do what's being discussed via jQuery? Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
GA WMATA
I just saw that you have started a review of the WMATA article and I appreciate your taking the time. I will start to research the suggestions that you have made, and in the meantime, any further feedback that you have vis a vis what should be covered in the daughter articles would be appreciated. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
WMATA is ready for final review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look over the easter weekend, its looking good though - unless there's a big issue with the sourcing it will almost certainly pass. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
WMF
Eraserhead1: Thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia and for reviewing my article. However, I believe there is a danger that when a "big lie" is repeated enough times, people begin to accept it as the truth. This is a noted propaganda technique during World War II and the Cold War. In my case, the big lie is that I somehow "outed" LauraHale or tried to interfer with her employment and academic career. The fact is that I was dealing with a nominator on what was her first GA nomination. I explained that once we finalized the text, I would clear it for close paraphrasing and outlined how I would do it and suggested asking for a "sampling" of pages for any sources that were not available to me online. Concerns about close paraphrasing had already been discussed on the article talk page before the review, and I found examples in the description of the player positions. This was distorted into "Racepacket acccued me of plagiarism," which I never did. LauraHale's name and university affiliate have been openly disclosed on her talk page, so her "employer" has always been clear. However, to confuse the matter, Hawkeye7 and LauraHale made statements about her being commissioned to do work for the Wikimedia Foundation and LauraHale claimed that she checked with her "supervisor" who said that close paraphrasing or borrowing verbatim text is permissible (which is not the WMF policy.) I decided to track down that "supervisor" and to curb the repeated, and unjustfied attacks that "Racepacket accused me of plagiarism," so I went to the WMF website and was directed to a form which it turns out left a message on a "meta" talk page. I learned that LauraHale had incorrectly offered a "supervisor's" advice about WMF policy, but rather she was relaying what someone at her University had advised her regarding paraphrasing. (I have not pursued that matter in any way at her University.) I also learned that she does not have a grant from WMF nor is a WMF employee, fellow or grantee. That inquiry has been repeatedly been misstated as "Racepacket has contacted my employer." When I asked her for clarification she admitted that the WMF is not her employer.
An very important principle is at stake here: the WMF has an open door policy, and indeed a whistleblower protection policy. Anyone who feels that there is misconduct or a concern is encourage to raise it in a responsible way on WMF's forums. Indeed, it happens everyday. As an active volunteer and financial contributor, I have a right to inquire or comment on-wiki about the roles, policy and conduct of WMF and its employees, so long as it is truthful and responsible. Every WMF employee knows that he or she is accountable to the Wikipedia community, and that is rarely a problem. For WMF employees, Wikipedia is their real life. The dividing line is between WMF forums and "in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation" not real life vs. non-real life. Otherwise, if an WMF employee messed up, the stakeholders would not be allowed to question it. If you disagree, please let me know because I respect your opinion. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, and I understand why you've been against including the Netball issues. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Tibet
Please discuss on talk page of Tibet before making changes. Protection already requested.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion section as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewing
I'd be the last one qualified for proposing policies as I have very little interest in the bureaucratic processes of Wikipedia. I have only decided to join in on the PC debate because I really really oppose the idea of PC invading the entirety of Wikipedia like it has for other-language projects. That's the reason why the whole business of the trial agreement being reneged upon seems like an alarming precedent to me. If ever en.wiki gets placed under global flagged revisions, I would be one of those who would leave. Also as an IRC helper, I'm one of those who have actually dealt with new users in real-time, often helping them without prejudice as to the notability of their articles. An experience very different from vandal-fighters I would imagine.
I originally did not care at all if the trial remained in place as the guidelines are discussed and cemented, but seeing how the trial going on is really affecting the perception of the entire thing, I believe the only way to go forward is for the pro-PC side to concede to a halting. As for the rest, I am mostly ignorant of the way you reviewers/antivandals work and the things you handle day-to-day. So I'm no help (except for arguing, LOL), sorry.
Anyway some random thoughts/ideas, how about a second review? Once a reviewer accepts or rejects an edit, how about adding it to a second list where another reviewer can check the actions done by the previous reviewer? Not perfect given that the number of reviewers is still very small, but making a second opinion compulsory might be the only way to stop the fact that PC encourages unilateral decisions. This would of course, limit the number of articles on PC at all times, something I think is necessary anyway (considering the main problem for de.wiki is the flagged revisions backlog).
Also PC, while more open than Semiprot, is seen as 'less restrictive' than protecting and may result in admins applying it more liberally than they should. PC is touted as 'good', protection as 'bad'. Truth is, they are both actually bad in terms of encouraging new users. The temporary guidelines of the trial made that clear, but I think implementation was actually different.
In short, imo, PC should become something like a shared watchlist over a small number of articles temporarily while they were under PC. It should be seen as guiding, not guarding.
Anyway, bedtime, heh. Please take the above as individual opinion, discard if you disagree, it's your proposal after all. There were a lot of suggestions in the previous RfC overseen by Beeblebrox (see PC discussion archives if you haven't yet), you might get a better idea of what other people think might be best regarding how reviews are handled. Cheers. --Obsidi♠nSoul 13:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm a little disappointed that you won't help write some guidelines, but its still definitely interesting to hear your POV, making sure it isn't applied too liberally is going to be part of my proposal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
New proposal
Hi Eraserhead - Although I understand your reasons for laying this out rapid style I think the way forward is going to take a slower detailed development sorting through the main issues as mentioned one by one. Any discussion to implement pending will take another thirty day RFC and I think there are a fair few hurdles to resolve before we get to something that the community could support. If as looks likely the RFC will support removal of pending protection from all article and they will all be moved to semi protection, we should imo allow the dust created from that action to settle and then start to lay out any supportable conditions for future usage. A sort of, stand back and see what happens situation and then, regroup and make our case for usage. Its just a guess but I am thinking a month or two in the future which will also allow us to see what happens to some of the articles after pending is removed from them. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Trains
The print article in the Japan Times said 250. Perhaps it was corrected in the Post's online edition after it was released to the wire services. If it says something different now, then the new number should be used, as the one I posted apparently is wrong. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
re. Thailand.
You recently took down some useful information from a book I cited. You could check the book if you'd like, but I assure you it is accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloyou226 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm a little new to Wikipedia. Could you help me find a more relevant place to put this useful information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloyou226 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Possibly on the articles of the individuals who you claim are homosexuals, if they have a personal life section or similar. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
At this point, the lesser known kings I am referring to do not have their own Wikipedia pages. Could there possibly be a new sub-section we could make on this topic under "Thailand"? Helloyou226 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well start some :). I think being a Thai king is notable enough for inclusion on WIkipedia. I don't think any content on the Kings sexuality would be appropriate on Thailand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The personal preferences of Thai kings, and indeed kings in general, has had a large effect on the decisions made by rulers of Thailand, as demonstrated in the book I cited.Helloyou226 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Not to the required extent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Re FLAC
I responded to your post. I won't ask you to change your vote, but I just wanted you to know that you're asking for something that's impossible. The long and short of it is that we can't use MP3 because the format is still proprietary. The WMF won't allow us to do something like that, no matter how much everyone that works with sounds wants it. I think there are only about five years left on the proprietary protection on MP3, but we have to wait.
Sorry, believe me, I am, Sven ManguardWha? 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well then they should pay the licence fees. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
List of places known as the capital of the world
Thanks for your input to this article, I've been working on it a lot over the last few days adding references and generally trying to clean it up. Please jump in and edit, that's why I linked to it on a few pages tonight. Zarcadia (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If you consider yourself an uninvolved admin when it comes to abortion related articles, I'd like to draw your attention to two move discussions Talk:Pro-life#Move.3F and Talk:Abortion-rights_movement#move_2011. I'd like for you to comment on two things. Do you think Anthony Appleyard was an uninvolved admin in the matter? And do you agree with the closures (that one discussion had a clear consensus and was within policy, while the other had no clear consensus)? I am looking for review of these admin actions by an uninvolved admin (and sure, give me a slap on the wrist for wheel warring or whatever, I'm not above scrutiny by any means).-Andrew c[talk] 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to ignore this. I've seen your comments on the talk page and don't consider you uninvolved at all. Cheers. -Andrew c[talk] 00:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
And you are not an admin. Double whammy. I thought the page was move protected so... that's what I get when I assume. -Andrew c[talk] 00:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You were bold and then were reverted. That's how it goes sometimes. To be honest given it was move protected being bold on Pro-life wasn't appropriate really. If there were any issues with the closure of abortion rights movement they should have been bought up a month ago when the discussion was closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerns were voiced at the time, but no formal appeal or admin review was sought given another move request was opened at pro-life, and assuming the same outcome of move would be reached, parity would at least be established again. However, given the closure, "no consensus" was reached at pro-life, and parity was not established again, making the situation more critical, IMO. However, pro-life closure was reopened. However, I feel objectively it is a no-consensus situation, so I don't see parity being established again through that means, unless we get a rouge admin to disregard vote counting, and weigh the arguments behind the votes... -Andrew c[talk] 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Given he wasn't WP:INVOLVED in the move request for pro-choice other than making a comment after the rest of the discussion has finished I don't think your concerns are enough for me to accept that your unilateral move was the best cause of action. You are entitled to be bold, and generally its a good thing, but you also have to accept that it's perfectly reasonable when you get reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
iPad 2, round 2
A few months ago we agreed to let iPad 2 incubate. It hasn't gone anywhere, so I'm thinking about reviving the deletion/merge discussion in a week or so, but I thought I'd consult with you first. I'd like to hear any thoughts you have on the article or discussion. Cheers, HereToHelp(talk to me) 20:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I've had a read through the article, my initial thoughts were to let sleeping dogs lie and not worry about it.
However given the articles length there is a surprising lack of content. The only thing that seems to be covered better than it is in iPad is the accessories, which I've spun off into iPad accessories as most of them (other than Smart cover) work for both generations.
There are possibly a few more details that can be copied across to iPad, but other than that I'd suggest deletion/merge, it isn't useful to readers/editors to have an article that is essentially just a fork of iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I personally feel that we don't need to cover every cable Apple sells, but at least the accessories are now their own issue that can be dealt with separately at a later date. I'll look into merging iPad 2. Thanks, HereToHelp(talk to me) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The content on the accessories is written now, and doesn't do any harm. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
liberation is correct
according to the chinese communist history, the official title of the chinese civil war is peole's liberation war (conflict, campaign depends on the translation). thus calling pla's entrance into tibet as part of its liberation campaign is correct according to the title of the chinese civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern2western (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but for the same reason we don't say Tibet was invaded by the PLA we can't say that either - we have to be neutral. And removing some of these details is good anyhow, there's too much in the lead about the PLA entering Tibet as it is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Tibet lede
Incidentally, I disagree with your edit summary, "Undid revision 427395993 by Greg Pandatshang (talk) there are lots of changes here, make it clear which you dispute.". For one thing, Eastern2western made a series of edits with very limited or no edit summaries, which you did not revert; I wish you would extend me the same courtesy of not reverting my edit on the basis of the lack of description. For another thing, I did mention one problem with his version of the lead, the reference to "indigenous Bons", which is gibberish, and yet you went ahead and reverted back that sentence along with everything else. It's embarrassing that Wikipedia has had this sort of silliness in the first paragraph of an important article for the past several days.
However, for the sake of enhancing the wiki process, I will describe my complaints on the talk page—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Eastern2Western made his changes slowly, and when they made a huge bunch of changes all at once they were reverted too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth I've changed indigenous Böns to indigenous Tibetans as you are right, the former didn't make much sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Rajiv Gandhi
Could you take another look at your revert on Rajiv Gandhi? While the latter 2 edits didn't include a clear edit summary, they first did. After looking more closely at what was removed, I'm inclined to think the IP was correct, in that the info was either not directly related to Rajiv Gandhi, or was undue. In any event, I'm fairly certain the edit wasn't vandalism, even if it was wrong. It may be that the issue needs to be discussed on the article's talk apge. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it again you have a point. I only checked the final edit, I've asked the IP to discuss it on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Kunming–Singapore Railway
On 7 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kunming–Singapore Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kunming–Singapore Railway will be 3,900 km (2,400 mi) long when completed? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
My comment was relevant as a response to the votes both for and against (but indicating that they would not vote for such a thing in the future), and it was relevant to set the context for this particular issue of voting up or down on seeing legalization of civil unions in Brazil for anyone who might arrive at that discussion and either hold the same opinions as those three or be influenced by them.
As to your comments at my page personally, I don't suppose you meant it as naïvely as it came off, as if the fact that Queen Victoria is the reason for these laws throughout Africa, South America, and the Middle and Far East is relevant or mitigatory to the people there today either in the halls of "justice" or in the bowels of jail. And I don't suppose you meant it as condescendingly as it came off, that you presume to tell me that gay rights have advanced, as if I wouldn't know this was true in a great many places. ("Generally worldwide" is a relative thing, considering the move to codify even more stringent laws against gay relationships in recent years. It's well and good if you're fortunate enough not to live there and ethnocentric enough not to care about those who do.) That doesn't change my point, if you actually had a moment to contemplate it in the split second that you hatted my comment, that these advances we're familiar with came, broadly speaking, in the most progressive 30 countries in the world, but that at this point, what advances there are or are yet to be will be in more and more conservative and culturally homophobic countries. And my point that during the very same 20 years that these countries were changing their civic forms to explicitly include gays in the freedoms and rights their founding documents already established for all citizens, that these other countries, Queen Victoria far from their minds, were actually altering their constitutions to deny gays these freedoms and rights. Considering how lightly you skimmed my post I doubt you'll be interested in LGBT rights by country or territory, but I present it anyway.
But I didn't write that to have a personal conversation about gay rights and the lack thereof, I wrote it so both those who have already voted and those who may yet read the votes might read it and reflect on whether my points about this issue, which they and you didn't seem to comprehend or think relevant, may have any bearing on their vote. Abrazame (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Your original comment went off topic significantly, I think your second comment was much better focused :).
I do have to disagree with your argument about lack of progress, in the past 10 years a lot of countries in Europe have legalised gay marriage, and in South America lots of countries are moving towards gay marriage, with two countries now making it legal. Even the US has made quite a few steps in that direction. And over in Asia India (home to over 1 billion people) has got rid of its ban on gay male sex.
Compared to those gains, that a small number of countries have moved backwards is insignificant. Additionally while a number of countries haven't lost their Victorian legislation, they haven't generally made it stricter either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Omer123hussain
In re: [7] - You're welcome to comment on my review of this editor's block, or even to disagree. But you cannot remove unblock requests from the talk page of a blocked user while they remain blocked. The fact that it is not actually your talk page is unusual, to be sure - but the rule stands. Once they are unblocked, if they wish to clean the talk page, no problem - but the reviewed block requests need to remain for other admins to read, if and when the user goes to post another unblock request of their own. Please do not revert again on this issue. Thanks. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
As I'm not the user in question and you declined the unblock request on a technicality the harm from reverting your edit seems really rather limited. I've discussed the matter further on your talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've asked the editor for more information - but, honestly, the checkuser data seems pretty damning (from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain). In most cases I see, another checkuser would stop by and say "Yup, confirmed" and that would be that - so having an additional checkuser would be of limited use. Rather, if there's something that might mitigate the results - university LAN or some such - maybe he can make a case for unblocking, if restricted to one account, 1RR, or some such. Note also that we can't unblock while we wait for a checkuser; blocking doesn't prevent further review. Hope this helps. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have an issue with the block per-say just the duration. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Eight-thousander
G'day Eraserhead1,
Please check the impact of your actions before implementing them. Your revert on Eight-thousander did mess up the list of all people who successfully climbed the 14 main summits. The Turkish name recently added should not appear in that list and has the same references as the Abele Blanc entry. My suspicion is that the Turkish name is a "personal" addition of some weird soul [i.e. 86.33.132.107] trying to achieve fame. Qwrk (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI; The highest scoring Turkish national is Tunç Findik who has summited 5 peaks over 8000m, the last one being Makalu on 2010.05.26 Qwrk (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Possibly it would have been good if you had used an edit summary :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries mate, these things happen when one is in a rush. Qwrk (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Shovon76's talk page. Message added 07:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Shovon76's talk page. Message added 07:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In reply to your posting on this user's talk page; I am not a checkuser, but jpgordon is, and he has stated that checkuser reveals 4 alternative accounts, none of which have been declared. (I agree that Omer123hussain123 has not been used disruptively.) Obviously I have absolutely no problem with your defending this user, and I personally have no axe to grind and feel that I am neutral in the debate. I suggest you take up the question with jpgordon.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no issue that that there are 4 "sock" accounts, but out of those two haven't been used disruptively (as there is also User:Googly1236 who has only edited in their own userspace).
With the remaining two accounts then there are some issues, but however clever checkuser is you cannot prove that it isn't two different people using the same machine, which the guy already admitted - and in fact has now apologised for. India isn't a rich country and at his college the computing resources could be really very limited - or they could have a collection of identical machines which would be very difficult to tell apart if they share a public IP address (which is how you generally do things when the number of IP addresses is limited as it is in Asia). I have no idea frankly.
Then the issue becomes the terms of the block compared to User:BabbaQ, who used his alternate accounts to votestack on WP:ITNC which I've seen with my own eyes, and that is clearly very serious. Even if we assume bad faith on the other two accounts that Omer123hussian is accused of using it is very difficult to accept that his "crime" was significantly worse than User:BabbaQ's to the extent that an indefinite block is acceptable in the former case, but not in the latter. The reason I'm defending Omer is that he's made some good contributions and isn't being treated fairly compared to the other guy I bought up.
Reducing the block to a reasonable duration that's comparable to User:BabbaQ's would be a satisfactory solution as far as I'm concerned. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I am not going to modify a checkuser block, and I think that very few if any admins will. Talk to jpgordon. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
E-head, your frustration is showing. That is not conducive to getting anything accomplished on such a sensitive subject. Please strive to demonstrate that you recognize that all parties--regardless of their outlook--are acting in good faith. Try to understand their position instead of proving to them why they are wrong. Don't challenge, consult. Please. HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Merger of pro-life and abortion rights
In making this comment, User:Collect was entirely correct. Closure by an involved person in a discussion is simply not wise (to put it mildly), unless perhaps unanimity can be shown to undeniably exist, which was not the case here.
At the same time, I agree with User:Eraserhead1's point that a discussion taking place in multiple places is not productive (again, that's putting it mildly).
There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of this merger issue. They need to be brought to bear in one venue. I ask that we do it here. We need to keep it calm, cool, and we need to realize that, with the clear voices of concern regarding the merger, that at this time, WP:BOLD is no longer sufficient grounds for conducting the move. We need to seek consensus, and that consensus must be found in the eyes of a non-involved administrator. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove good faith comments as you did here. Especially as they're addressing your unwise close. --NeilNtalk to me 11:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The location of the discussion has been mentioned at length. His comment has also been reinstated in the correct venue, at this point it's disruptive. The close was done as the only way to discuss the matter productively. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean christ going to the Administrators noticeboard to close a duplicate discussion is ridiculous. And without doing so we don't have a chance of achieving anything which is clearly detrimental to the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that two editors told you that your close was improper and Collect disagrees as to your definition of the proper venue, it wass highly unwise to delete his/her comments as "disruptive". --NeilNtalk to me 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, that was wrong of me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Oprah Blurb
My thanks for your suggestion and my apology for the snappy retort. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want to keep the iPad 2 content on the iPad article?
Could you please explain why you don't want the iPad 2 content removed from the iPad article? Note that if I don't get a response within 24 hours I will re-remove the iPad 2 content as there is no need to keep it there when a separate article already exists for it. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Because the iPad article isn't just about the first generation iPad - it is about the range as a whole - just like iPhone so some content on the iPad 2 is needed.
Additionally I haven't re-added all the content you removed as you will see if you look at the diff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yeah, but there's no way there's consensus to remove the article. Hey, at least the content isn't duplicated now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This is for Eraserhead1, in recongition of all the fine work he does around ITN and his constant efforts to improve and streamline its processes, including the invention of the "[Ready]" tag and {{ITN candidate}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and I should have said so before :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Dalai Lama
Re your edit summary here, according to our article on the Central Tibetan Administration the Dalai Lama's official designation is head of state. See also [8]. I don't mind your edit, but I thought I'd mention it, just out of interest. --JN466 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been a little involved in some of the other articles on Tibet, and that isn't strictly true. To be honest about the topic we have to recognise that the CTA doesn't control any territory and like the Tibetan government from 1912 to 1951 it isn't recognised by any other internationally recognised country as the legitimate government of Tibet.
I suppose you could argue that not calling him a politician is POV pushing the other way, maybe the original wording was OK here.
I've changed it to call him a spiritual leader which is unambiguous and a very powerful point - getting a religious leader from another religion to offer condolences is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Now my second change has been reverted :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The joys of the wiki. :) But I think it's okay as it stands. The other editor's issue was probably with the plural -- we lack sources referring to other such leaders. Best, --JN466 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
High-Speed Rail in India...
Then how come the article for High-speed rail in India is allowed to exist as it is, which clearly should not have included the Bhopal Shatabdi express, etc? Clearly it's cultural imprerialism to define high-speed in a western way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.185.149 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well to be honest those services should probably only be included in express trains in India, but as Wikipedia is a collaborative and large project internal consistencies are inevitable. Additionally its hardly a western only definition to say that only trains running faster than 200km/h count as high-speed rail. The Chinese only count services at faster than 200km/h as high speed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
that page clearly has the concensus of editors from india. Why shouldn't their deifnition be respected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.185.149 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Because then you'd have inconsistency within a single page. And you can't compare the systems in different countries on the same page without comparing like-with-like. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have gone a head and removed the part having to do with Duronto and Shabadti express from the Indian HSR article, since they clearly do not meet the international definition, since they are covered under other articles.. I have left the parts about true HSR proposals intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.185.149 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You are beginning to get disruptive with your constant refusal to get the point. It's been all explained in great detail on talk. If university = madrasah, as you claim, I wonder why you have never bothered to include European universities among the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation. Isn't this a double standard? Gun Powder Ma (talk)
Because reliable sources call Fez the world's oldest university. Its all been explained on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No, they it isn't, many users have explained it to you in great detail and with patience. So again, if university = madrasah, then madrasah = university and you'd have to add European universities to the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation. But you've never done so yet. Why? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Because Fez is called the oldest university in the world by multiple reliable sources, whereas no reliable sources call the University of Oxford or Cambridge a Madrasah. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
But doesn't that ring extremely odd to you, that a madrasah can be a university, but a university cannot be a madrasah? No, don't hide behind the superficial wording of the sources, please give me your view as an adult capable of idependent and logic thinking. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No because a University means a centre of higher learning, whereas a Madrasah is just an Islamic school at any level. They have different meanings. Even so given that the Madrasah list only has two entries it should probably be merged with the main Universities list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So you think if the List of oldest mosques in service has only two entries, it should be merged with the list of the oldest churches in service? Interesting viewpoint. And you are right, every university is a centre of higher learning, but not every centre of higher learning is/was a university, just like although every black is a human, not every human is black. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That comparison isn't remotely legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Great argument, you feel cornered? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I don't think comparing places of higher learning with religious buildings is legitimate - there are vastly more religious buildings, and they have a more clearly defined separation based on religion. That doesn't apply to Universities when the term is used to apply worldwide in the present day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't think of that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Lists of universities
I suggest you to see the articles about Technical University of Lisbon and New University of Lisbon; although formally established in 1930 and 1973, they track their origins to independent schools established earlier. In Portugal, at last, these were the so called "old universities", established before the boom of the universities in the 1980's. And it makes no sense at all to remove the entries of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Bosnia and Herzegovina and so on, since they were in the section "Oldest universities by country or region after 1500 in continuous operation"; if a country doesn't have an earlier one, would you just erase it? So we should also delete the entries for all African and Caribbean countries that achieved independence in the second half of the twentieth century, since only then they get their unis (Jamaica, Suriname, Grenada, Dominica, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde...) 84.90.67.30 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair point, but why do we need to list the 5 newest Universities in Lisbon? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
ITN
I've been busy. Check the discussion on ITN. DS (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I'd just start adding content and see how it goes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Eurabia
Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Talk:Eurabia. Message added 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've taken a look, and I'm not sure what would be good to comment - I'll take another look tomorrow. Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
On 6 June 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, which you created and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
It was discussed on talk, and I think somewhere on a noticeboard (although I can't find it right now); and the consensus is Sea of Japan is an international article. Since it refers to an international body of water owned by no one, which, as one person pointed out, has more Russian coastline than Korean, it can't be considered a Japan/Korean article. While it was raised pretty recently, you'll need to get consensus on talk that this isn't an international article to make the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough it looks more controversial than I thought. I'll take a look through the archives and see whether I can find the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You have new messagesHello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
I generally agree with hatting unproductive discussion at ITN, but your doing so when the content you hatted included opinions against your own already-professed opinion at the Le Mans nomination was highly inappropriate, and you should recognise that rather than try to defend it as you did to David Levy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Did I now convince you or just wear you out? What do you think about the criterion?
70.137.161.53 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm personally convinced, I don't think I can come up with an argument to legitimately oppose your position. That's why I think it would come up again and again if we didn't allow it into the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
2011 China Flooding
Hello,
I thought I'd let you know that I've updated the 2011 China floods article - and I was thinking about adding it to the sidebar for ongoing events - disasters section. But I don't know where to nominate it for that - is it at ITN ? or do I just go ahead and add it ? Could you have a quick look, see whether you think it's acceptable to do that - I'm not sure I have the boldness to stick it on the front page of wikipedia when I've done most of the editing of the article and I feel like a relative newb to wikipedia.
Thanks for your time EdwardLane (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the current events. I've re-nominated it for ITN, it looks more than good enough now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Karan
Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
May I know the reason, you do not want detaisl of Swami Ayyappan and Ina to be updated for Karan's career? It is his career only, right, So why you are removing those information ? please tell me..
Which article are you talking about? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Finnish parliamentary election 2011, give your thoughts
Hi! I quickly browsed through election articles' talk pages and I randomly selected you to participate in a discussion. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the talk page of the article Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. To the point: I re-wrote the first sentence of the article, because I thought it was somewhat poor English. Afterwards, my edits have been reverted, on (IMO) dubious grounds... I'd like to hear your opinion! :) Regards. -- Frous (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Thanks. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
Hello. You have a new message at Tariq hilal's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at Tariq hilal's talk page. Thank you.
