Logo votes and firemen

Dear Angela: Hey, thanks for all the support, babes! People like me need all the support in the world. Anyways, yeah maybe Ill do a page at meta, just to my vote counts. I dont collaborate much there so, but just for that.

One question. It says there that youre a member of the fire department..are you a firewoman?

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Unvirginal Martin

Well, I'm definitely not a fireman! Angela 02:24, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The politically correct term is "fire fighter". ;-) -- Cyan 02:41, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What if I don't want to be politically correct? Angela

Misquotes

LOL. I think the juxtaposition of the two quotes is funny. Go ahead and use it. :) RickK 02:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. Angela

Hi, Angela!!!

Hi, Angela!!! Michael Reiter here! Just writing to say Hello, I will come back and write some more when time and space permits... Michael Reiter jmr

Hello! That's nice. :) Angela

Nuisances

I have explained moving that vanity contributor from "Vandalism in progress" to Problem users. -- Cyan 03:05, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

911

Hello! I don't really have particular articles in mind. There are too many stubs about the topic, I simply want to make a protest and that's all. -wshun 03:21, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Angela. Thanks for your note about the MetaWiki vote. Also thanks for your welcome when I first arrived. Appreciate it. DJ Clayworth 13:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

RFC's

I see you've been hard at work! I left a question for you on Talk:Request for comment. If you're sick of fiddling with the page, I'll do the upgrades, but since you seem to be operating on it, I figured I'd check in with you first. Noel 15:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Changing VfD copyvio notice

Angela, I saw your note on Wikipedia talk:Cleanup and noticed that the notice that is suggested on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/copyvio still suggests replacing the article with a stub. No one appears to be objecting to the policy about deleting the page first do you think that there is enough "consensus" (whatever that means) to go ahead and change the suggested notice? Alex756 17:44, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sigismund Birthdates

The edit described as

M 17:42, 19 Aug 2003 . . Angela (add dates and links)

seems to be the one that added a line beginning

Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (August 1 1367 -

to the article

Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor

but the next line, before and since, ends

was born in 1368 in Nuremberg

My (8th ed,c. 1977) MW Colleg. Dict. gives "1368-1437 [and HRE] 1411-37"

Perhaps your re-checking the source you relied on is an easier next step than either further independent research or alerting readers to doubt abt the birthdate.

Tnx for yr note on user talk:Jerzy And glad you didn't really fix it to 1938, which was a bad enuf year already. [smile] --Jerzy 21:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

RK

RK likes this quote by the Seer of Lublin, a famed Hasidic rabbi, who wisely observed, "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous". I would add, worst of all is a righteous person who doesn't know he's wicked. -- Cyan 00:43, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Gdansk

Hi, Angela. All I can see happening on Talk:Gdansk is 12.243.94.55 removing comments, not adding one of her own. I certainly don't intend to remove any explanation: if I have, I can't find it, and if you can find it, please do add it back! -- Someone else 02:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's good to have someone checking up, anyway! -- Someone else 02:24, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi, there are some other Roman pages that have the same problem as Titus...off the top of my head, Seneca the Younger and Martial redirect to their full names (which no one ever uses, normally). With those, you just delete the redirect, and then move the page, right? It isn't possible to move a page if there is already a redirect there? Adam Bishop 03:39, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sysophood

Actually, the first time I've really cared about being a sysop was with Titus. There's so much content to create that I focus there, but sure, sysophood is fine with me. Stan 13:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Möller's law

I expected when I wrote the article that it would be deleted shortly, no offense taken. :) --Dante Alighieri 23:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Deletion fog

I wrote "Deletion fog" to note a comment about the deletion log, and I apologize if I did it inappropriately. I aimed to do it in a way so as to get the sysops to notice, and thus delete it. That succeeded. Rickyrab 02:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) take care, Rickyrab 02:46, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Links to headers

Huh? I thought you said links to subsections didn't work? Try looking at Ramses, and clicking on the "New Kingdom" link, which I put in some weeks ago; it worked for me then, and still works now. Noel 16:47, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dunnnh! Finally my brain turned on, or something. ("Thank you, your grace. I've been trying to make that clear to his lordshop for some time now." One of my favourite lines... :-) I guess I was confused because a Redirect contained a link; I kept thinking that you meant subections worked in []'s (i.e. full URL's) but not in [[]]'s. Noel 17:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lol. Glad to have helped. Angela

Library of Sir Thomas Browne

Hi Angela!

Thanks for posting me the 'how to stay cool' advive ! Yes i need to take a page out of the above comment by Dante 23:59. Because i do not as yet understand editorial policy or decisions whether all are truly objective or subjective, it get's a bit frustrating. When i first started I had a VfD for pasting my essay onto wiki before editing, fair enough protection from copyright infringement and plagarism; do you recommend i leave the page in its present state and work on something else ? I really though i was offering something original and linkable. I tucked it away with Libraries now. So sorry for the bother but the 'elemental beast that is wiki , capricious and forgiving and appearing a draconian at times (according Cimron) is a hard creature to come to terms with. I need to know more about objectives, long-term plans, ownership of something if I am really to commit myself to writing for 'pedia. O well worse things happen at sea, at least by the talk it seemed to arouse some controversy, debate never being a bad thing. I just wish the person who propses a VfD would either contact the offender or perhaps remain anonymous, anything to avoid volatile insults in a virtual reality community. Hope i have not blotted eschutcheon too badly. Please let me know what is happening about this page . Norwikian 17:44, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for misrepresenting you on problem users. Martin

Fulbright

Hi Angela, I just finished a new article, J. William Fulbright, which I think might be a possible candidate for the main page. I know, I can add it myself, but that seems a little tacky... However, if you think I am being too coy... Anyway, have a look, debug if needed, and maybe... BTW, image doesn't display yet; a temp. www/en2 problem I think (I already asked Haephestos about it.) -- Viajero 20:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

J. William Fulbright's the most common moniker; Google bears it out. - Hephaestos 20:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Angela 20:54, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hephaestos is Michael?

Angela, are you sure this isn't Michael? Rickyrab 20:52, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Who? Hephaestos? You? Either way; fairly sure but I've been wrong before. Angela

Yes, I'm sure - my bad Rickyrab 20:55, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You're sure what? Why are you pasting this junk on my page? Angela

Yes, I'm sure that Hephaestos is NOT Michael! Rickyrab 21:00, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) The junk was there because it was a list of Michael's known aliases.

I'm sure Hephaestos will pleased to know that. He would be pretty amazing if he was - managing to revert his own edits seconds after making them on a regular basis. Angela

I confused Hephaestos with Michael when I half-remembered both and their duels. LOL... Oopsie Rickyrab 21:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Michael has had a number of aliases that are named after Hephaestos. This may explain the above confusion. Arno 04:52, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

tadity, datidy, tydata (crickets)

This is a cricket right ?

It is! Angela

Merging

Re Blue Plaque. The existing article appeared more complete, what was there to merge? An URL maybe. TwoOneTwo

Maybe a bit more than that. Never mind. Just ignore me. Angela

berlios-down >;-)

No big deal, I just found it amusing that as I was trying to reach Berlios to fetch something I had been working on during wikidowns, it refused connection repeatedly. Seems Berlios is down, muwhahhhaahahaaa. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Signing

Thanks for the info re datestamping. Trying it out here :)

Pakaran 22:34, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nice flowers. Very soothing. 戴&#30505sv 01:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: Sept 27 VfD

Hi Angela, I just posted this of VfD also, but here's what I was asking for: Delete all five of the pages below because they are only redirects to Horace Donisthorpe. I don't believe that any of these are necesary. For example if you search Google for "the Books of Horace Donisthorpe", the only result is this very page. If you search for John Donisthorpe, none of the Google hits is relevant. So, anyway, I was saying to delete these 5 pages:

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен из Детройте 01:17, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: help

Thanks, the articles are very useful. Alun Ephraim

Conspiracy theory

Hi 2toise, just to let you know, I moved your comment on Conspiracy theory to the talk page, which you can find at Talk:Conspiracy theory. Angela 19:18, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC) Sorry, I'm not sure I understand, where did you move it to? Did I put it somewhere I should not have? 2toise 19:29, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oops - did I write it on the main page rather than the talk page? That probably means it's time to go to bed! I was trying to get a feel for whether there was concensus before I waded into an edit war - thanks for the help, 2toise 19:38, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Transcendentalism

I am curious to know how quoting Kant himself on "Transcendental Idealism" from a freely distributed e-text of the Critique of Pure Reason counts as "copyright violation." Also, curious to know how it counts as "nonsense" (unless you subjectively believe everything Kant wrote was nonsense?). Malenor

Thanks

I don't know if I'm doing this right, so if I'm not please tell me. Anyway. Thanks for the comment, and thanks for putting in the century links. Imagine my shock to look at the Recent Updates to see that someone else had edited Vista, California shortly after I did! Anyway, thanks. -Eric (with a C)

Hi! (from an Italian Wikipedian)

Hello Angela. I'm sorry for my very bad English. I'd like to thank for the message (1th October). I'm an Italian Wikipedian by a few weeks and I'm very glad of this experience. Good luck! Twice25

TOC=

Hi Angela ! could you please point me in the right direction to place contents boxes on Norwich and Browne pages. Homer Simpson checking out. Norwikian 19:44, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC) Thank U . Please don't set that cricket onto me !!Norwikian 20:07, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I won't! Angela 20:09, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Don't wanna be a sysop

OK, but if you ever have time :XX 戴&#30505sv BTW-- list tech problems with the wikiware for ar on "tech problems..." - and WP:CU needs some standard reformatting. The time should be hour only, and I agree and disagree with the copyvio stuff.

Being a deletionist

What'f I have? Wots it tooye? 戴&#30505sv

Didnt mean to get carried away-- saw plenty of thumbs down votes, pages can be restored easy now with the toplink. So... I might have caught the m:occasional overefficiency disease.

need to run-- tie up some of me loose ends dear? Thanks.戴&#30505sv

Huh? They had more than 80% votes against. Its reasonable that the trend would continue. The notion that pages stay on for 7 days is obsolete. We should keep a record, but not interfere in the efficient running of the site. HFAW, BTW. 戴&#30505sv

Thanks again -- I got a bit carried away-- but I also got a better sense of how the whole process works-- Ive never been one of those people to sit by VFD-- I would like to discuss with you a change to WP:VFD to reduce the time necessary to delete a page to a vote level-- some of these get seven votes in a day-- seven negative votes in a row, would require at least 8 affirmative votes to keep it, eh? So there needs to be some math, and some reasonable interpretation of a trend going. So, considering that the cleanup page will take a huge load off of VFD-- we can perhaps maintain the length of voting on VFD items, but will have to set some limits. Seven thumbs down by most standards is consensus. Im sure someone else will disagree, but we do have some leeway I think to delete pages after enough comment (maybe a 2 day grace pd.) because they can easily be recovered, as long as there's a link to. Some limits of comment on VFD may be necessary too. I will be out for a week starting Thursday, so I wont start anything new now-- just some inpoot. 戴&#30505sv

Votes for undeletion

I still vote to delete the Bush page if the Clinton page has been restored than that should be deleted as well Smith03 22:01, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Copyvio boilerplate

Re copyvio boilerplate: I don't intend to unrevert; I didn't know there was discussion and consensus on it. But the thing is awful; I don't know how much everybody else's copy buffer holds but mine holds only one thing at a time. Even the old way I had to have three windows open, one for the article, one for the place where it was taken from, and one for the VfD page; having to add that extra stuff that 99 times out of a hundred isn't even going to be used is just too much. I won't be tagging copyvios any more until this is more streamlined, and I doubt I'm alone. (Hope this doesn't sound harsh, I'm really not steamed about it or anything.) - Hephaestos 04:36, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That makes more sense then thanks, I'll use the Cleanup page from now on. (But I don't really see the problem with copyvios in the history, there must be thousands scattered over the Wikipedia already, and since the search engines don't pick that up I don't see how it would be a problem.) - Hephaestos 04:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Devlist

Don't feel guilty, you did your job. You were meant to contact a developer, which you did. Erik and I both did the same thing when we arrived on the scene -- we said "nothing I can do", posted a brief comment, and left. I was getting complacent -- usually when anything happens at this time of the day, Brion is on to it immediately, and he contacts Jason and they sort out the problem between them. But this time, Brion wasn't around. It was only after a couple of hours with no word from Brion that I started to wonder what was going on. I should have only waited 15 minutes. -- Tim Starling 07:29, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Angela, thanks for supporting my adminship request! :) Arwel 09:37, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pump message

Answer at User talk:Maveric149#Cache refreshing. --mav

Offensive

Offensive terms per nationality is it proper english, or would you have a better title ? Or do I go on reverting that article till someone take "pity" and offer me a better title ? Please Angela Anthère

Disambiguation

Foo! Any TLA is going to have more than one expansion! I was just trying to get ahead of the game and avoid having to fix all the links to LSI when someone added another expansion. If I'd known you were going to apply that rule, I'd have dug up some more instances on the spot and added them. I have done so now. Noel 23:12, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should create a disambiguation page for every TLA, even if there's nothing at all in them, just so that we have a complete set. However, I do think it's good to avoid work down the line, when 50 articles have been linked to "xxx", and we then discover we need to turn "xxx" into a disambiguation page. Having done quite a few of those now, as I'm sure you know it's no fun, and it just seemed so much easier (given how widespread TLA's are in the world, and therefore the likelihood of a later collision) to take one simple extra step now to avoid the chance of that extra work later.

I don't know if anyone is likely to link to LSI when meaning Latent Semantic Indexing, but I can point to actual cases of people who meant Movimiento Social Italiano (which I would consider equally obscure) linking to MSI, so your hypothetical may not be as unlikely as you think. Noel 00:00, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Okay.. sorry. I'll do it from now on. Evil saltine 00:23, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personal attacks at VfD

I apologize for not being more careful in my edits on the VfD page today. I was not attacking you personally. I was trying to make what you posted easier to follow. I failed in my attempt. And I apologize. Kingturtle 00:26, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Main page

Hello, Angela, I suppose that you after 7 minutes of my post on the Talk Page corrected the Arabic Link. Thanks, the main page now work well. Possible solutions:

Write:
Arabic Text Backwards without using the code for bidirectional text (I suppose that exists, but I'm not sure)
Use the arabic Tranliteration

Elnoyola 00:56, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I realized I made a mistake in writeing some text here, it caused a proble with my browser with reverted some text (i.e. instead of Wikipedia it was read aidepikiW) This lasted a few minutes, though, sorry if someone was affected by that post, fixed it. I hope nobody saw it.

Elnoyola 00:56, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bedrich Hrozny

Dear Angela,

The Bedrich Hrozny is not in Hungarian, I believe it is in Czech. We, the Hungarian editors cannot do anything about it, but welcome your concern and thank you for reporting it — but I'd suggest warning those at cs.wikipedia.org. -- Ralesk 01:06, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is done OK. But is necesary correct my terrible English.

Miroslav MALOVEC

Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark

I moved "Frederik André Henrik Christian" (I think) back to Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. It's where he's likely to be looked up, and it's also probably where it belongs as per wikipedia naming conventions. No offense meant! -- Someone else 03:33, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I concur entirely with your review of the "conventions" page. Actually, some sleepless night I may avail myself of its soporific value<G>. - Someone else 04:08, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Multiple usernames

Spoilsport. -- Cyan 19:42, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's all part of the fun of having an "alter ego" in the article namespace. One time, someone left me a message on Talk:Cyan instead of User talk:Cyan. (Redirecting to Cyan was supposed to be a subtle hint for those who didn't realize it was a joke; redirecting to User:Cyan just spills the beans.) -- Cyan 19:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there some way of finding out if someone is using two or more usernames G-Man 20:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stub boilerplate

Thanks for adding the line to my stub article. I'll do that myself in future. User:MrJones 12-10-2003 21:07 (UTC)

Eager Beaver

Look again at the deletion log entry with my name on it. -- Cyan 00:46, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He has a floating IP, so it's just as well that the thing stay protected until Eager Beaver is deleted. -- Cyan 02:00, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Copyvio

Angela, why are things copied from http://www.conigliofamily.com not copyvios? RickK 02:35, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nicknames of George Bush

Thanks for your reply at the pump. I understand the Bush list situation now, I mistakenly thought it had been resolved. It looks as though the community is close to keeping the Bush list after having deleted the Clinton list. I find that inexplicable, very disturbing...and sad. If it turns out that way, I have some thinking to do.Ark30inf 21:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The state of Wikipedia

<rant> How can I not. I came here very open about my own personal POV as a conservative on my user page in the spirit of openness. I vowed not to allow that personal POV to get in the way. I defended the community against the antics of JoeM and BuddhaInside who were essentially trolling to try and prove hypocrisy and liberal POV here. Rather than engage in an edit war I went in and inserted Wesley Clark's own view of the Kosovo incident in an effort to calm a draft-Clark supporter who was erasing the incident even though I can't stand Clark. I voted to delete the obnoxious Hillary list because it is ridiculous. I inserted critical statements about the Republican governor of my home state, a governor I have voted for multiple times. I wrote neutral articles about a reconstruction governor of my state Isaac Murphy. I wrote fair articles about 100 years of Democratic governors of my state. I rewrote the article about gay poet James Merrill so that it would not pass its VfD vote and be deleted. I have supported the homosexual list and fought the heterosexual list and the white people list. I supported LittleDan in his Non-liberals are stupid antic. I went in and rewrote the homophobic hate speech article to de-emphasize the overemphasized derogatory term that was causing such a fuss. I did all that because I promised to be neutral.

This week I tried to take out some POV comparisons inside the J. William Fulbright article that were basically making a critical analysis of George Bush's foreign policy in the guise of a biography of J. William Fulbright. I tried to neutralize the text not be critical of the particular administration of the moment while still keeping a generic criticism of American interventionism in general. What did I get? I got someone accusing me of being partisan for wanting neutral text and only one liberal defender chiming in to defend my neutral edit. I tried wikilove, I compromised, I tried to make suggestions, I explained why my text was less POV. But I didn't win because I decided to just let it stay rather than engage in an edit war.

What do I see now? This community willing to be blatantly hypocritical in deleting the partisan list of Hillary nicknames and keeping the partisan list of Bush nicknames. Will they feel the same when the first neo-Confederate arrives with the long list of anti-Lincoln nicknames? The list of derogatory Sun Myung Moon nicknames? The list of Joe Lieberman nicknames could get ugly. If I tried to put those nicknames in the article I would be booted out here but lists are ok. But the precedent is set with George Bush to keep all those (except Hillary so far). I feel pretty bad telling JoeM that he was wrong about this community and wrong to make silly tit-for-tat lists.

So how do I not judge this project now? I can do a few things, I can continue to do my little thing and try to be neutral and nice and watch Talk:J. William Fulbright happen a thousand times. Or I can change my utopian concept of NPOV to match what I see and instead of being neutral, be POV in a fair and balanced tit-for-tat way (add an Lincoln nickname list, put a little Bill Clinton analysis inside a George Washington article, etc.). Or I can say, thank you, it was fun, good luck, but its not what I thought it was.

I will not do the tit-for-tat game playing idea and I don't like looking the other way on obvious POV just so I can get a reputation as the resident wimpy little conservative doormat, so what else am I to do except take my last suggestion?</rant> User:Ark30inf 23:18, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All right, I was preparing an opus for the mailing list. But I will chill. I'm not angry just sort of sad. Ed Poor's vote just sort of tipped me over the edge.

I've sat here tonight watching someone adding homosexual murderers to the homosexual list. My interest is Arkansas and his is homosexual murderers and derogatory terms for people. He isn't violating the rules of NPOV, but he is attacking the spirit. To me, NPOV is not dueling partisans, its people leaving partisanship at the door. I am glad you caught the ballot stuffing, I am not completely stupid and saw it also. Ark30inf 01:06, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Listing of pseudonyms

I was totally just about to do that. -- Cyan 00:56, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Deletion of Bush nicknames

Angela,

a couple of comments on your deletion of the List of nicknames for George W. Bush page.

I do not think that we have any policy that determines a percentage of votes necessary for deletion. If such a policy has been formed recently, let me know. Otherwise I will assume that our policy still stands that a "rough consensus" has to be achieved. What this usually means is that a couple of objectors can be ignored, especially when they are not regular users of the site or primary authors of the article. But if regulars strongly oppose deletion, this needs to be debated further, and it is quite possible that deletion cannot take place. I do not know if this was the case re: the Bush nicknames, but I don't think saying that "2/3" voted for deletion is proper justification under our present policy.
When you delete a contentious page, please do not delete its talk page. Long debates about deleted pages, except for the obvious cases, should remain accessible to everyone as a matter of public record. We can collect these on Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and refer to them when similar cases arise.

I'm not sure if the Bush nickname list should be undeleted (it did not provide many references for the nicknames, so I'm not too heartbroken about it), but please do keep in mind that, while "Votes for deletion" has votes in the title, it is not a formal vote but an attempt to reach consensus, especially among regular contributors to the site.—Eloquence 17:33, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Who banned Anthere?

Indeed, it was Jimbo not Ed. Thanks for telling me. I knew about the comment on User:Mediator, and I still think a log may have prevented the situation, because I think Jimbo would have been more likely to read a log than User:Mediator. As it was, he assumed it was Martin who unbanned the account. -- Tim Starling 07:08, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

The fact Martin would have unbanned the account is no more motive to admit the unblocking than the fact I did. There was all the explanations for the unblocking on the page. The reason given for initially blocking the user is that it was held by a banned user. When I unblocked the account, I was not a banned user, so I had the right to edit; I also did it in good faith, and did not breach any rules, since the account was not held by a banned user any more. But it is obvious that very very very few people admit I was acting in good faith. Anthère 10:49, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I thank you Angel for unblocking me, so that I can clean up my page. I hope Jimbo will not frown at this :-) He is the one deciding the block, and usually he has the final word. Anthère 10:49, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

BBC Whatever

Hi Angela. I wasn't actually voting on "BBC ONE", though it's true I do think this all-capitalised style is a bit of an affectation. It's just a style thing the BBC have currently got, and I have no doubt that sometime within the next 10 years they'll rebrand their channels again to a more sensible BBC One or BBC 1. To my mind the numeric form of channel name seems more natural, but that's probably because I can remember when they first started having two channels, and they've used a digit for all except the last few years! :) I think if we were having a vote on channel names I'd settle for BBC One or BBC 1, but ONE makes no sense as it doesn't represent an acronym. Regards, -- Arwel 00:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Selected articles for the main page

Thanks for the quick reply on the issues around the main page. I'll look at the links you suggested and get back to you then. Pakaran 01:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Current events

Oh - and are events listed on current events automagically added, or do you just check and add them every now and then, or what? thats a bit unclear... Pakaran 01:49, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Strange maths stuff

Hello. You are mistaken in saying the concept of a hereditarily finite set makes no sense. (But perhaps it could be more clearly explained.) Michael Hardy 05:02, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Recent Deaths

Sorry to keep on about the main page - recent deaths - but there doesn't seem to be a consistent policy or a workable mechanism for this. I still think that Eugene Istomin deserves to be up there - but time is moving on, so in a few days he won't. Who reviews this sort of thing? David Martland 09:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the info on the main page - hopefully someone might notice - the recent deaths hasn't been updated for days. David Martland 19:47, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fav quotes

I meant that like "a bad day and YET ANOTHER thing goes wrong. Sorry--twas underappropriate. 戴&#30505sv 15:54, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting you. Angela

Good work

good work. I enjoy.
yours, god bless america.

Who are you? Angela

Confusion over University of Bristol

What's wrong with saying "public school"? America has public schools too - why would it be confusing to use the term. "Non-state schools" sounds clumsy and PC. CGS 12:52, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC).

List of websites

Good job! Lirath Q. Pynnor

Zionism

Angela: I'm not sure I really understand the difference, but I don't really mind what "space" it is in so long as people can see it. What would you suggest? Adam 15:21, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Naval Tactics / 2Toise

Oops - sorry. Will put it right.2toise 16:41, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) Hang on - did you already fix it? Thanks! 2toise

Non-existant pages and watchlists...

You can as far as I'm aware - go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Angela/test&action=watch
to do it... Evercat

Odd. Works for me - though it only shows up once the page exists. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't appear on the watchlist... Evercat 17:48, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heh. When you go to a non-existant page in non-edit mode, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/moo it should give you the option to watch it, at least in standard skin... Evercat 17:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of Baby Names

Thank you for redirecting the list of baby names. It was a brilliant tactical move. --Two Halves not on a pogo stick, unicycle or any other form of transport.

ISBNs

Thanks for your replay on Frankin's book I was trying to be funny, but thanks anyway and thanks for the good work you do around hereSmith03 01:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is about 2 am over in England ? get some sleep:)Smith03 01:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Paul Levesque

Hrmm. I wouldn't call reverting vandalism "editing". :-) Evercat 17:49, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Space cakes

First, I was all for the deletion. Second, it made me hungry for Space cakes. Lastly, I am compiling a list of possible Baby names, including 'Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark' and 'Space cakes.' Paul Klenk

Image deletion

Oh yeah. Well, I now have the handy link for later on my talk page, eh? :-) Stan 02:25, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

MediaWiki and meta

Answer on my talk page. --mav 05:54, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Norway

I should have removed it myself from the disputes page. I have been away for a few days and simply forgot. -- Gustavf 06:53, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Missing photos

Hi Angela. You say "no photos have been deleted" as "software issues mean that no-one can delete images at the moment". Well then, where are they? Chris K is right that Andie MacDowell's wasn't good; it was some kind of screencap or whatever it's called used by me precisely to avoid the copyright problems Chris K seems to have now. Jacqueline Bisset's wasn't so bad I think. In any case, they were colour rather than B/W.

This is really no major issue, but if you take the trouble to write to me, which I appreciate, I'd also take the chance to learn a bit more about the mysterious goings-on inside Wikipedia. All the best, --KF 19:46, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These are of course not the photos I meant as they have (only recently) been uploaded under the same file name as mine by Chris K, not by me. As I said before, mine were colour photos. But please leave it at that, it isn't important, and thanks again. --KF 20:11, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The more misspelled links, the merrier

Thank you, now you mention it, it makes sense. Still, the policy on vfd seemed to be 'the more misspelled links, the merrier', so, I guess there's no great harm in it. Will not do it again...2toise 09:12, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Refactoring

refactor fair use section - if you want to have a go at each other - do it elsewhere please

Thanks! That's much better. Daniel Quinlan 09:07, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

History merging

Hi Angela, I think you can help me. I want (on fr:) to merge two history, I know there is a page about it here on en: but I can't find it. Can you redirect me to this page? Thanks. -- Looxix 21:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be carefull. -- Looxix

Simple, Simpler, Simplest

Thanks Angel !

Say...I understand quite little (if not none) what 142 is trying to suggest. What is that 3 forks idea ??? Anthère

I remember that at some point, on fr, someone suggested that for every "a bit complicated" article, there were 2 parts in an article, a clearly separated top with a very easy to understand definition (or introduction) to the topic. Then a line, and below a very fleshy complete article (complete, so with a new introduction fitting the complete article. Noone seems to really disagree with the idea.

Another proposition (which was an approach for NPOV actually) was that on most controversial topics, there be a sort of central and easy to understand at many levels of understanding from where several articles, each presenting a point of view, would branch. I know that severak people are interested by this notion of pov branching from a main article, these pov being very clearly identified as such.

That was just a thought. A topping in very very simple english might make sense, on top of a simple article. But at the maximum. Three is horribly confusing. Do you think we could agree on this ? A top in very simple, then an article in simple. I must say I am not seeing well myself the level of english that must be respected. And still find confusing not to see very well who that wikipedia is adressing too. If it is for kids, it must be easy to read and very simple in content. If it is for adults, the content of some articles is not far from being insulting toward our intellectual abilities. I am still wondering...

LOL, be tough Angela. Do not ask Brion again wild deletions of the whole project. He even did not answer my question about blocking myself :-( But I talked with someone yesterday, it gave me strength. Will figure what to do.

R.K. Narayan

Regarding the pages and redirects- R.K.Narayan to R K Narayan to R.K. Narayan, won't there be a "direct redirect" (oxymoron?:-))from link 1 to link 3? Right now it goes from link 1 only to link 2. KRS 13:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. KRS 17:49, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not a problem user

Hello, can you please remove me from the Wikipedia:Problem users page. I was added by the problem user I was reporting. I removed myself, then I was re-added. Maybe you could move the whole discussion to the talk page of Heimatvertriebene. Maximus Rex 04:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

ETS and naming conventions for exams

GRE vs. Graduate Record Examination
I'm under the impression that Wikipedia encourages people to use full names rather than abbreviations in article names, but I am not sure of that. The page GRE does also exist, it just redirects to Graduate Record Examination, and so does Graduate Readiness Exam because I got it wrong myself to start off! Maybe we should should get some more input from other people. Unfortunately, I already moved TOEFL to Test Of English as a Foreign Language before you and I started this conversation, but it too has a redirect now. Also, the SAT pages are kinda inconsistent with the naming format they take, so we can't really model after those. If you want to move it back to GRE or TOEFL, feel free, I'm not attached to either format. I think it's an issue of consistency (throughout the Wikipedia) vs. ease of use.

--zandperl 04:26, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

responding to comments on User talk:zandperl
From what I've seen, either common usage. or acronyms could apply here. Also, what about ETS, Educational Testing Service? Meanwhile, I've put comments on the talk pages of GRE, TOEFL, and Educational Testing Service asking for feedback. My confusion about SAT was actually why there were separate pages for SAT college entrance test and Scholastic Aptitude Test. It's not worth an edit war over this, so unless we get a bunch of comment back otherwise, I'll go with what you say.
--zandperl 04:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am definitely not NPOV

<chuckles> ditto that. bitter grad student here, and you?
I'm gonna leave the pages alone for a while too. We can get back to them later, maybe someone else will have put in more info.
--zandperl 05:04, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Panoptic one

Re vandalism, sorry. Thanks for your vigilance o panoptic one. Adam 04:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A related question: Why are User's homepages not automatically protected and password-accesible, or at least protected on request? No-one has any business editing another User's homepage. Adam 04:40, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Goodbye

I tried, but this just isn't going to work out for me. I was hoping for a more cooperative atmosphere. Thank you for your assistance and support, you have been great. Ark30inf 04:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of agendas here when there should only be one. I'm not cut out for the encyclopedia wars. Its been a terrific experience, but one that becomes draining after a while when you're really not here to fight battles. Ark30inf 04:50, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nitpicking pedantry

Why is Jiang's version more sensible than mine? I have seen many articles formatted both ways. Furthermore I have seen many articles full of illiterate nonsense that no-one seems to care about, yet I am constantly subjected to this kind of nitpicking competitive pedantry by Jiang and Wik (in particular). Adam 06:02, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Firby

Angela, I decided to reformat the text with a link. please see the copyright violation page under deletion. this is for Firby Cemetery

delete the cemetery page. i made it as a vanity page.

Birmingham is NOT in Warwickshire

I am using terms agreed in a compromise with Morwen (see my and Morwen's talk pages for the discussion). It is both correct and accepted. I repeat the fact that this has been agreed in the past with other people who questioned it. If you want to argue the toss again about it, then I'm happy to do so; however, if you revert, you'll be removing correct information and replacing it with incorrect information, so I request that you don't. 80.255 00:23, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Birmingham is not "in" the historic county of Warwickshire, any more than it is in Pangea. Andy Mabbett.

So you keep saying, but simply to keep saying it doesn't make it true! This is not the place to discuss this matter, although you refuse to discuss it on your talk page, and until it can be discussed sensibly, there is no solution.

My apologies to Angela for putting this comment here - unfortunately User:Pigsonthewing won't let me put it anywhere else. 80.255 01:28, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A lie Andy Mabbett 19:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angela. Last night's kerfuffle over Warwickshire prompted me to take a look at some of the Welsh counties, and I'm horrified to see that the ones I've looked at describe the pre 1974 counties rather than the post 1996 ones of the same name... Sigh. -- Arwel 11:02, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I'll be on-line for a while, & some interactive discussion would help me. (I am unsure whether to treat a probable copyvio simply as that, or request response to it as at least a bad user, as it may be a clear-cut and prosecutable fraud as well.) --Jerzy 02:17, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

AIM would be good, but (tho i don't mind breaking thru my pseudonym individually to you) i don't want to edit my AIM screenname onto Wiki. Do you mind editing yours in? Or, if you can access my EMail from my WP registration (same problem to post) would you rather EMail the screenname, or converse by EMail? Or should i EMail you as yr page instructs? --Jerzy 02:32, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

No, not w/o my figuring out how to register with them; i see those IDs don't cross over. Let's discuss that option shortly, but abt to EMail you per yr user-page. --Jerzy 02:42, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

" ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<angelaatwikipedia@yah00.co.uk>
    (reason: 550 relaying to <angelaatwikipedia@yah00.co.uk>
prohibited by administrator)"

I didn't think i should convert the AT to a 2nd @; did i do something else stupid?

If i should get onto your IM, which is less burdensome to register for? --Jerzy 02:58, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

AHa, i'll bet you've got mail. Jerzy

Sleeeeep

should not you be in bed Angel ? I corrected your page. No big deal you know :)

On recent departures...

Angela, on Smith03's talk page you said that regarding the lists of nicknames of GWB and HRC, "both were deleted." However, User:Wiwaxia essentially incorporated the entire GWB list of nicknames straight into George W. Bush. That greatly upset ark30inf (see Talk:George W. Bush), and I have to agree with him that the GWB article is basically a joke in regards to neutrality at this point. I think that whole "Public Image and Personality" section could and should be condensed to two or three paragraphs, but there's just too much muck to wade through. So, anyway, this was just one thing, but I'll bet it was a contributing factor in their decisions to leave. -- Minesweeper 05:49, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

Angela, I saw your discussion with minesweeper. You said but I think they are generalising what Wiwaxia does too much and taking it as a reflection of the whole community which I don't think it is.

You are misunderstanding why I left. I did not leave because of what some people do. I left because of what many people do not do. I took it upon myself, as a conservative, to stand up to JoeM. I could do that without charges of partisanship, whereas a liberal could not. I thought it a duty to add Wesley Clark's defense of himself to his article even though I do not like the man. I thought it my duty to add the common liberal criticisms of my conservative governor who I have voted for twice. I thought it my duty to fight against the anti-homosexual slogan "AKFD" even though I am about as far from a homosexual activist as you can get. I thought it my duty to get rid of the list of derogatory nicknames of Hillary Clinton even though I have probably used several of them at one time. But the nicknames of George Bush still sit in his article even though they were voted for deletion. Not ONE liberal has stood up to get those out of there. It is left to Smith03 and myself to argue about them. I don't know about Smith03, but I feel uncomfortable removing liberal POV from the George Bush article, it should be liberals writing for the enemy and demanding NPOV of their liberal brethren just as I did of JoeM. Writing for the enemy does not seem to have a high priority, policing you own POV does not have as high a priority as policing the other guy's POV does, there is no demand from the community for this type of writing for the enemy behavior. The strategy seems to be to let the partisans fight it out and put offsetting crap into articles rather than demanding NPOV.

I have read thousands of American Civil War books, Civil War letters, the official records, journals, and newspapers of the time. I know a great deal about many of the complexities of the war and the run up to the war. I know about the differences between the upper South and lower South, the differences in the Southern views as the war progressed, the differences in Northern views as the war progressed, the reasons why Kansas became such a focal point, etc., etc. I recently suggested on the talk page that the article was currently simplistic and "lowest common denominator as to the causes of the war and contained none of these complexities. I was immediately set upon as a potential southern revisionist/slavery defender. I only commented on the talk page...imagine if I had actually edited the article. Can anyone look at my contributions on Isaac Murphy, United States Colored Troops, and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and think that I am not serious and am some sort of revisionist anti-yankee bastard? Please. The fact is, that I would never be able to edit the American Civil War article without a huge fight despite my knowledge of the subject. My neutrality is automatically suspect because I am a Southerner. The fact is, I should not be responsible for that. Some Yankee should be writing for the enemy to make damn sure that the Southern view is presented correctly and I should be writing a fair piece about the abolitionist point of view.

And finally, you remember, I mentioned J. William Fulbright. In that article criticism of Bush and the current war in Iraq was inserted in the Fulbright article despite the fact that Fulbright was talking about the Vietnam war and was dead before the Bush administration ever came to power. Suppose you had an article about a critic of Richard Nixon and inserted a comparison of Bill Clinton's actions with those of Nixon's into the article? Would it belong there? No and I would revert it despite the fact I might say it on my own time. But no liberal except DanKeshet (thanks Dan) tried to police that POV and it remains there. I expected the community to reject it, not just me and Smith03. It was not my place to police the liberal POV since I am not a liberal. It was my place to police the conservative JoeM's of the world. It was uncomfortable for me to have to police liberal POV, it opened me to charges of partisanship, I was much more comfortable policing people with my own views and defending NPOV against them.

You have the "anal sex" thing in the Santorum article. That piece of obscure bilge from a minor 'zine' is up for VfD. Somebody tried to move it INTO the Santorum article itself, and then move it into the "word coinage" article. Sheesh. Who had to fight that? Smith03 did. He did not want to see it snuck off into those articles to avoid the VfD vote like the Bush nicknames did. But it should not have been the conservative Smith03 that had to do that.

I hope that clears up what I was disappointed about. It was not the trolls. Writing for the enemy should be demanded by the community, policing your own POV against fellow partisans should be demanded by the community. I don't think it really is. This is the last I will say on the issue of my leaving. I have no interest in arguing with anyone on this and I could be wrong. But its the perception I have of the community and why I have left. Thanks again. --Ark30inf

Favour to ask

Hi Angela, could you revert Margaux Hemingway to my last edit and protect the page? User User:Nydigovoth is being a PIA. [1] says it all. Thanks, -- Viajero 23:02, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

ah, I just noticed that User:Daniel Quinlan stepped in to help out. Hopefully the page protect won't be needed after all. -- Viajero 23:11, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Village pump

Ok, thanks for setting me straight. I may have been over-paranoid but I see a lot of deleting comments for no reason. -- Pakaran 02:23, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Datchet

Thanks for the help on Datchet -- I wrote "town" first, but then my source focused entirely on the transfer of a "manor" through various royal figure's possessions, so I decided it must be a house or castle or palace or widget or knick-knack, so I used the word the page used to describe it. Anyway, thanks. Tuf-Kat 02:47, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

VfD mistake

Thanks for the note, I've fixed my vote and deleted your comment. --AaronSw 04:59, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Poznan & Teschen

User:RickK, User:Wik and others are currently in the state of an edit war. The issue is listed on Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles#dispute over German-Polish relations in border areas. I am in favor of asking for protection of the affected pages – lasting untill the combatants have been able to agree on a compromize. According to my judgement, the last versions by User:cc might be a good choise to protect. I base this on that user's degree of seriousness and maturity (although I personally might have some relevant disagreements with User:cc).
--Ruhrjung 06:34, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Technical problems?

Hi Angela - I've been editing the page for Suleiman the Magnificent, and there is something odd going on. Linking forward to his successor, Selim II, and then back to Selim's predecessor goes back to a seemingly different page (apparently at .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_I) . However, when this page is opened for editing, it turns out to have the expected content after all - but it is not displayed as such! Something for the technical people, perhaps? David Martland 06:51, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks - your refreshing the cache seems to have done the trick. Is this something that anyone can do, or is it only people with admin privileges, such as yourself? If the latter, is it best to just wait a while - problems will fix themselves, or to contact one of you - e.g mav, brion etc? If the latter, who is best placed? Maybe there could be a refresh request page - I haven't checked to see if there is one! David Martland 10:04, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Windsor

Finding dictionaries with pronunciations for placenames/familynames it not so easy, but

The American Heritage Dictionary thinks it is pronounced 'Winzer'
as does Behind the Name
and a rhyming dictionary rhymes it with inzer.

I was unable to find any links claiming these are wrong.

Morwen 09:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But surely if we are being really picky we might say win-d-zor - but mostly I think we do actually say 'winzer' (or even 'winza') as suggested - though Brits might put the accent slightly differently from others? On balance I think that the American HD is more or less right! David Martland 10:10, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My 'winzer' was attempting to represent SAMPA /wInZ@/ - and is i think the same as your 'win-za'. I dare say this is how the Queen pronounces it. ;) (I noticed her pronounce 'Enhance' with a northern A once!) The d is not important (although I rarely hear it spoken), but the main points were to establish that it is not /waIn/, and not /O:/ - ie not "wined-sore". Morwen 16:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nydigovoth/Aplank (now Alexandros)

Hi again, Thanks for helping out. Perhaps the two aren't the same person yet they seem to working together hand in glove. For one thing, why on earth would Nydigovoth have been lurking on the Wikipedia IRC in the first place if he was not already involved in the project? Second, for a newbie who started editing early yesterday evening, Nydigovoth knows all the ropes. He immediately started making lots of edits, vocally defended them, and within an hour nominated someone for sysop! My suspicions remain. Also, as a point of etiquette, is there a convention w.r.t removing text from public (ie, non-User:) Talk pages? Nydigovoth removed my suggestion the two were the same and Alexandros's refutation that they were not from Wikipedia:Problem users. See: [2]. I've restored the text. All the best... -- Viajero 10:06, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi once more, I never know whether to answer on my own page or here. Do you watch other people's User pages when you leave a message? Anway, I just left a note on Alexandros's page apologizing for thinking he was Nydigovoth. It was late last night and I got irritated by Nydigovoth's stupid antics at Margaux Hemingway. I have sysop powers now and I could have just as easily protected the page myself, but I had reverted his changes a few times and I was leery about being reproached for misusing privileges, especially as he seemed to know his way around. I don't know, seemed like a grey area. What would you have done?

You are right though: just a troll. How much time I wasted on this... Now on to more interesting things. Bye for now, Viajero 21:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

WikiLists

Hi Angela! Thanks for the support! This list mania is really starting to anoy me... Village Pump it shall be, thaks for the tip. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 13:23, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good morning! I followed your suggestion and added a proposal to Village Pump. I also created Wikipedia:Wikitrivia discussion for debate. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 07:37, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you ! Papotine 15:10, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Hi Angela, I've called a vote on Talk:Mother Teresa to clarify once and for all what people think about the current article and what he should do about it. Please express your opinion. lol FearÉIREANN 23:04, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Counties

Hi Angela. Thanks for moving the stuff from the Vandalism page to 80.255's talk page. I don't know where else you could have moved it -- there are so many counties to consider! I have to say I really don't like the way this 'historic county' business is putting misleading info on many of the county pages, on the other hand I can see how someone with a bee in their bonnet can argue as 80.255 has, even though it's totally irrelevant to how most people refer to counties today, so I'm loath to declare him a problem user. As far as I'm concerned, Warrington is in Cheshire and the fact that it used to be in Lancashire is of little interest! I don't really want to start editing counties if it's going to set off lots of edit wars, OTOH if each article has to be nearly doubled in size to fully describe both the historical and current counties of the same name that's going to be a hell of a job... -- Arwel 00:09, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)