User talk:Cecropia/Archive 5

July 2004

NB Questions

Its all a little confusing about several things, its very hard do things effective, but I feel talking in this form makes it that much more difficult. Do any of the folks that do things for the site have an Instant Messenger service I could talk with on?

I suggest you post exactly that question to Wikipedia:Village Pump. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you reset the picture from its original source? http://www.geocities.com/pokemontours/Hoenn/people/Advance.jpg I'm too green to correct it unfortunately

Recent elections

Hi GBWR, Since I live here in Kowboy Kountry, I'd be very interested to hear your take on recent elections in Europe and Canada. From my perspective, voters seem unusually interested in turning out (or at least lowering support for) their current governments. Why? I don't see any obvious pattern (such as support/opposition to US). Can you shed some light on this?

We haven't communicated much lately, but if you have any current questions for me, I'll be happy to take a stab at them. Cheers! -- the semi-evil Cecropia | Talk 14:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You still have a long unanswered message from me on your talk page, remains actual. Regarding the elections, the relationship with the US is no primary reason for voting in other countries. Might change if Bush chooses to invade another country or if he invents some new "anti-dumping" tariffs. Even in Spain, where more than 80% of the population were furious about Aznar's blind support for the US war in Iraq people seemed to stick with him, probably mostly due to economic reasons. Sadly Aznar had to commit another outrageous error in lying about the Madrid attack in order to open people's eyes again. The Brits seem to have a better memory, and with Blair as the prime ally of Bush the war is more in the focus. Plus, Blair had a lot of opponents in to the war in his own party and people feel betrayed by hypocrisy like the Hutton report. But I guess other topics play a bigger role, e.g. Blair's ruling that students have to pay higher fees. Berlusconi seems in better control of his men. In Germany people are dissatisfied with economic problems and many of the traditional social democrat voters are depressed about the governments insight that reforms are needed. In Eastern Europe people just did not seem to care about the European elections. Maybe they did not know well how much power the European Parliament has. Or they thought that the candidates were equally bad. You should not overestimate the significance of that election since many people just do not care. In Canada the ruling liberal party recently had a funding scandal in Quebec, such things are always really bad for elections. It also needed a funding scandal to finally get rid of Helmut Kohl although people knew he had lied to them about the eastern economy which he forecasted to become "flourishing countrysides". People just tend to expect that the German economy has to be great as usual although we are the only country where a western economy united with a devastated communist economy. Just imagine Florida merged with Cuba... As you know I like discussing but I think we should not abuse wikipedia sites for it. Get-back-world-respect 17:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sysop Election

Hello! Just a quick note to thank you for promoting me, following the Sysop vote. A quick look at the reading list tells me that I've got my work cut out now! I'll take my time to learn the ropes, and will act cautiously in the meantime. Again, thank you for promoting me. David Cannon 09:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, mi esprimu mian koran dankon pro via vocxdono kaj viaj vortoj min subteni (Let me express heartfelt thanks for your vote in my favour and for your words of support). You can guess what language that is:-) Now, that wasn't so scary, was it? <GRIN> David Cannon 09:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some answers to your questions at Requests for Adminship Cutler 14:26, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Fear not, I was still watching the situation. EddEdmondson 06:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• A special thanks to you, for coming back from your objections and all. And I see you were the one who finalised the deal. спасибо. Hope we get along in the future! blankfaze | •• | •• 15:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for your recent support for me as sysop. I think that I'll take some time playing myself in before I go mad! Cutler 12:37, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Consensus for nominations

Is there a way to know (roughly) what constitutes consensus? In my own example, there were 11 votes for, 6 votes against, and 5 neutral votes. I was under the mistaken impression that a sold majority was enough. The meaning of consensus is not given on WP:RFA, and one could easily get the impression that in a vote, only a majority is required. Quadell (talk) 13:18, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC) (P.S. Thank you for your kind words.)

Separately, Cecropia said: "Quadell, I have heard from Jimbo on this matter. He is mostly supportive and I want to restore your nomination for the amount of time since the original critical posting (about 3 days). Is this all right with you? Or, if you prefer, I could post it as a new nomination (7 days, votes wiped)."

Wow. I'm honored. I don't feel bold enough to venture an opinion on the best way to proceed, but I'll happily accept whatevery action you wish to take. Quadell (talk) 16:29, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

See my userpage.

Thanks. Neutrality 03:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bah

When I saw that you had edited that, I thought to myself "Old Man Cecropia likes the hip new music of today's youth?". Surprised, I couldn't think of a good edit summary. Honestly, though, can I ask how you found that article? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Hi there, yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Checking his contribution list tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Would you help me taking care of the trouble here as well? Get-back-world-respect 12:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images on Childlover

Do we really need these images on the article? They are both offensive (to me, anyway) and almost as redundant as the image on sexual harassment. - Mark 14:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no magazine covers on homosexuality. In fact, I see no images there at all. Why is this different? - Mark 14:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From my contribution the current IRC discussion on these images: I guess when it all boils down, my main objection to the images is their tastelessness/tackiness. A topic that should be handled extremely delicately in the encyclopedia seems for all intents and purposes to have become the latest crusade for excessive NPOV to the point where it has become a POV trumpet for pedophiles. Which worries me a lot. - Mark 15:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. Well you know where I stand on this, anyway. I just wish there were more emphasis in these articles on child sex abuse as a crime, and less emphasis on the misunderstood-childlovers-deserve-love attitude. Please don't take this opinion of mine personally, by the way. - Mark 15:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those tricky mice!

Cecropia, I had to LOL when you wrote about needing a source for the POV that cats kill mice (since the mice might just be playing dead :-) --Uncle Ed 15:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Montt "protected"

Why did you lock up the article on Rios Montt from changes when it is obvious to anyone who looks upon it with a balanced eye that it is HEAVILY slanted against Montt (and rightists in general) and needs changing to bring it to a place where it can legitimately be termed NPOV ?

I thought the Wikipedia was supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, a balanced collection of facts and figures on important persons, events, and objects, NOT somebody's personal polemics. So why are you letting 172 lock up the piece in an attempt to make the article inform to his particular bias.

Please unlock the article so we can hash it out and attempt to restore some credibility to the wiki piece on Montt by restoring some BALANCE.

ANTI-COMMUNIST.

(Above attributed to 209.214.44.157 and not signed.)

I direct you, anon, to m:The wrong version. -- Grunt (talk) 03:12, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

I didn't post anything prior to this comment. The anonymous user 209.214.44.157 did so. -- Grunt (talk) 03:31, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Response to anon who asked why page was protected:

I am not an editor on this page and have no opinion on which is the correct version. I protected the page after I picked up the request from Recent Changes and saw that an edit war was, in fact, going on. As it happens, the protected version is the same as the version before the edit wars.

I suggest you and others make their case on the [[Talk:Efra%EDn_R%EDos_Montt|talk page]] of the Montt article and that you also post a neutral description of the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so others can comment as well.

Regards, Cecropia | Talk 03:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questionaire on RFA

Those questions look way too much like an interview questions. No one who accepts is going to have anything bad to say about themselves. It's just clutter IMO, and it could put off some good admins without identifying any bad ones. Dori | Talk 01:28, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

In addition to my response on Dori's Talk Page, we had previously been voting in a sort of vacuum, with some people voting "for" with no obvious thought given to it, and then someone would come along with a negative and then there would be an uproar. I think the questions have given the candidates a standardized way to introduce themselves, and a chance to display their people skills, which are very important for an admin. The minute an admin pushes the "revert" button and someone disagrees, they need to be able to deal with the situation. Better to get an idea of how they express themselves now than later. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

I added a military criticism section that I think is NPOV. What say you?

Personal attacks on the mailing list

I am sending the following message to multiple users I'd strongly appreciate it if fair-minded users responded to the latest string of baseless personal attacks on the mailing list ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Stan Shebs, Fred Bauder, and RickK started attacking me ferociously since it came up on the mailing list that one of the articles I'd written was featured, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993.

I know that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia; but those mistakes were not motivated by anything other than a passion to make Wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for ungrammatical POV rubbish and fiction. This is making it harder and harder for me to be as efficacious as a user as I want to be. (The distorted impression of my work that these attacks engender are at the root of quite a large number of conflicts on Wikipedia.) That's why I feel that they should finally be thoroughly discredited. 172 05:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Cecropa, I requested protection for Anti-Semitism yesterday, but no one has acted on it yet. It was unprotected without any prior attempt at consensus by Ed Poor, despite the ongoing arguments on the Talk page for keeping it protected until the most recent contributors get their Request for Mediation resolved - the initial protection was part of an older, but still continuing, debate over the POV of the contributors which always threatens to unbalance the article. Steve claimed to have protected the page, but didn't really, and I have no idea why - but if you can, please go ahead and slap the Protected template onto the article. -- Simonides 06:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you are going to Edit John Kerry....

Please STOP your WHOLESALE DELETIONS of my fully accurate and NPOV text! Your wholesale deletions are tantamount to pro-Kerry censorhip!

Rex071404 19:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you have problems with my "non-wiki" of external links, please ASK before you change them! You are butchering my text! Especially on the NYT link, the name of the link IS IMPORTANT!

Here is what I have been posting mpost recently; What problems do you have with this?:

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

File:Kerryrally.jpg

John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. At this meeting, one of the VVAW activists reportedly made the suggestion that the VVAW members should assassinate various United States politicians (including US Senators) who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War. According to reports, that statement was immediately shouted down by a large majority.

Over the years, Kerry has at various times, stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. Some reports place him at the meeting, but none report him participating in the suggestion in any way.

However, as reported in the New York Sun on Mar 12, 2004; Page:1 Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not rememeber attending.

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times, was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" (NY Times Jan,26th 1972, pg 17)

Thank you for the kind word

I am still new here.

Rex071404 22:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Help! the pro-Kerry crowd has "protected" John Kerry

And now they are saying "vote" (which I do not understand the method) and have frozen in place the pro-Kerry mush I have been up against for (2) days.

Rex071404 04:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 Request for Comment

I'm just giving you a heads up that I've posted a Request for Comment in regards to user Rex071404 and his conduct on John Kerry, Talk:John Kerry and the user pages of numerous people. I may object to his behaviour, but please don't regard this as an attempt to silence the anti-Kerry crowd. As I posted on the Kerry talk page earlier, while I think that Rex's version was extremely POV, I don't think the current version is that much better. Would you be prepared to consider calling in someone from outside to try and sort this out? Ambivalenthysteria 07:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've responded to your outside view on the RfC talk page. I generally try to stay out of disputed articles generally, unless I'm mediating on them, but it seems I've gotten caught up in this one. I don't know whether Rex hasn't received enough guidance - numerous people have suggested how he might clean up his act, both inside and outside of the dispute, and as of now, I don't think he's even stopped shouting.

I don't really agree that it's censorship of outside views. After all, you seem to hold the same views about the article as Rex, and yet I don't think anyone's calling for your head! I can deal with POV warriors who behave themselves, like Herschelkrustofsky, but when people start ranting on user and talk pages like he has, and don't seem to respond to anything said, one starts to wonder what to do with them.

As I've mentioned somewhere else, I think the best course right now would be to pull in a mediator (geez, this looks bad...a candidate for member of the MC, and having to use them at the same time), and try and work this out piece by piece.

Finally, I don't think Neutrality's handled himself wonderfully on this either, but at least he's a wee bit more responsive to criticism. Ambivalenthysteria 08:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rex reply

Ok, but I don't see any link to have started entering data on a page for that. This is how they beat me to it and made me the issue on a user Rfc, rather than the page being the issue as I had requested. Also, my edit links on my personla discussio page o not seem to work right. Try editing the last section and the 2nd to last opnes instead. The only way to get to the bottom of my page is via the master edit tab at the top of the page. The sectional edit html links do not work rightRex071404 06:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Admin boilerplate

The questions you ask on rfa are very useful to me; thanks. I wanted to suggest an addition--please have one question specifically about conflicts (perhaps "Have you ever been in any conflicts over editing in the past? Have other users ever caused you stress? If so, how did you respond?"). That, IMO, is one of the key things about being an admin, and isn't really adressed by any of the current questions. Best wishes for the future, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:11, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation

I protected it because protection was requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. According to SEWilco (who has been reverting the article), there is information being "deleted and meanings reversed by multiple anonymous editors". Angela. 03:09, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please Help!

Please take notice that user Neutrality is following me around this Wiki, changing questions I pose and entering misleading notations. It appears that he has taken too strong of a personal interest in the controversy of this dialog. See my notes (and the evidence of what he is doing) here: Requests_for_mediation#User:Rex071404_and_User:Gamaliel. Any advice or assistance you could give would be appreciated. Rex071404 04:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External links

In the history page of the John Kerry article, you say:

please adhere to wikipedia style. external references are not shown as links of text; only wiki refs.

Where does this idea come from? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External links nor in Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links, URLs.

- dcljr 21:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, you said:

Don't use external links where we want Wikipedia links

The basic concept is that we want an in-line text link to point to another Wikipedia article, not an external article

Hmm. Well... not really. The page above says:

Don't put in links like this to external URLs linking text that we will want articles on Wikipedia about.

In other words, don't link to the Democratic National Committee, for example, when you should be linking to the Democratic National Committee. That I understand and agree with. But what you seem to be saying is don't link to the Google search engine, link to the Google search engine.[5] And I say, that is not part of standard Wikipedia style. Please see the Talk page for the article you refer to above for further discussion (or place a link there to a Talk page you feel is more appropriate). Thanks. - dcljr 00:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)