User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2005 April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome message

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

Yeah, what ↑ he ↑ said. Welcome! --fvw* 22:38, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

[edit] jus cerebri electronici

Hello. Thanks for your comments clarifying the above. I've taken a closer look at the other contributions by writer of the article, and it looks like there's a bit of a history with him writing original research topics and so forth and having them deleted, so I think you might be right about the zealotry idea. --Centauri 03:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About jus cerebri electronici

Kelly Martin, may I ask why you deleted the article on Jus cerebri electronici?--IndigoGenius 03:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I did not. Someone else did, presumably because it's a recreation of previously deleted content, as I imagine you well know. --Kelly Martin 04:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Kanehl

Please take a look to new edit. Thanks. MusiCitizen 19:55, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Scientology vs. the Internet

Dave Touretzky emailed me and explained the situation re: Scott Goehring. I think I understand the situation, and I apologize for the confusion. If you need to confirm this privately, you can email me at modemac@modemac.com. --Modemac 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomic

To remind you that I'm interested, and to make you momentarily excited to see the big orange banner across the top of the page... Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 07:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Mind if I ask a few others if they'd be interested? All noobs, or nearly so, but a few friends of mine had heard of the game and seemed interested. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry S Truman

Thanks for your attention to punctuation. I am an apostrophe stickler myself.

However, the consensus has been developed on the issue of Truman's middle initial - see the article's talk page for more information. Ellsworth 00:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Father's rights

I agree. This article probably needs to be deleted, unless it undergoes a through re-write. If they keep taking the NPOV tag off it, then we need to propose its deletion.Zantastik 06:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Please see article on Ward Churchill

The entry on Professor Ward Churchill is being used to support a frontal assault on freedom of speech and academic freedom. The entry claims to be a biography but features, relative to other biography articles, a scant amount of information about his actual life and is too narrowly focused around two issues: 1) his essay from 2001 on the 9/11/01 World Trade Center terrorist attack which became a subject of recent controversy when Bill O'Reilly made it so just this year(2005), 2) His ethnicity --not nationality as is included in most Bios --, which features not much more than attacks from the American Indian community against Churchill.

I've looked at number of other biographical articles and it appears to me this entry on Churchill is not a biography. My primary concern is that the entry not be used to further the propaganda campaign initiated by O'Rielly which is part of new McCarthyism extant and growing within the United States. While the article has improved it seems pretty clear that it has become little more than vehicle for attacks against Churchill.

[edit] Streets and highways of Chicago

Hi Kelly, thanks for your great work on this article. I had a question—I noticed you added Golf Road (9200 N) as the mile 12 road. Except for a few miles south of State St., all the miles tend to be 800 apart, suggesting that Golf Road, the mile 12 road, is at 9600 N, that it is at 9200 N and is the mile 11.5 road (those halves are important too), or that the system breaks down up there. Do you know which is the case? Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was a typo. Golf Rd. really is 9600 North. I've considered adding the half-mile roads, too (some of them are pretty significant: Peterson, Foster, Montrose, and Diversey all come to mind), but I'm not sure if that pattern can be reasonably extended to the South Side. --Kelly Martin 07:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about adding them too—they are especially important to the north and west (Division, Addison, Racine, Damen, and so on). I didn't because like you, I was unsure if the southern half-mile streets are very important, and also because I didn't want to make the table too large (as it is I wish I could make it look nicer). If you have any ideas I'd be happy to see them! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Hi Kelly, I saw your comment on the vote page for Alkivar, and his reply to you, and I opposed him as a result of that reply. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the VfD pages you encountered him on, as I'm trying to check that I've done the right thing? Best, SlimVirgin 03:46, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. That was a few months back, it'll take me a while to find them. I'll see what I can do. Kelly Martin 05:18, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise for AF Article

Hello there. It's Messhermit once again. I'm pushing for a compromise on the Alberto Fujimori article, wich I really need some support. Here is an example (wich I would propose on the talk page):

Unfortunately, the AF page has become more of "bad things" rather than a balance work. For example, let me point some of the most controvertial topics.

Ex-President pages should concentrate in giving the reader a fair and accurate resume about his work.

  • Economics .- Isn't it better to talk about the economic development of the country instead of only focusing on AF? Since Morales Bermúdes until Paniagua, it could be analized more detailed and without talking about politics: A pure and simple economic debate. Accurate numbers and stadisticsare something that are not controvertial.
  • Human Rights .- It worries me that the only Human Rights violations that are ever mentionated, are only in the AF page. Not even in the Shining Path or in the Alan García articles are so detailed. I have proposed several times a separate article that can talk in detail about this: Let us analize all the governments and violence activities since 1980 (with Huchurajay) until 2001 (the Bombing of El Polo) withouth entering politics.
Taking an Example, and Article about the Japanese hostages crisis was created (by "someone") after I battled a long way, and it clearly push a POV rather than a serious investigation about what happened there. That's life I guess, but that is the way that it must be. In this page, that could be named Violence in Peru or Civil War in Peru, we could analize this and any other important things of Peruvian History.
  • Accusations .- It may sound controvertial, I agree. But at any moment the former president has not being sentenced of something, and the prohibition for him to have a public office is more political than judicial. They must be there, true. Details are something not vital on this subject, since it mostly involve peruvian-politics.

Please state your opinion about this attemp. I would gladly recieve any important advice to achieve compromise. Thanks Messhermit 04:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Advice

I read your comments that you leave in my tlk page, and I'm glad that you pointed some weakness on my compromise. Let me explain it better, so it could be much more accurate.

  • I agree that the main topic is Fujimori. No question about that. What I'm only trying to do is drawing some lines so the hole article concentrate more on Fujimori as a person and as President. Economic figures are important, and the most important of that info should remain. However, I'm only asking for another article that can deal with the economic debate, that is going away from Fujimori.
  • I don't believe that even Fujimori is so concern about those details :P
  • About other Ex-presidents, I agree that info is missing and that it must be stated . But I'm stating that those a Biographical articles, and thus, they must remain like that. The Human Rights Violations on Perú is some sort of compromise page that could dealt with any government in Peru, talking about the Human Rights Violations. I feel that by this, we could spare the others ex-presidents page to fall in another endless discussion like the one about Fujimori.
  • I agree. Political stuff must remain there, but only the most important I believe. Not every accusation that appears in the news (If i may speak, some are ludicrous), but the most relevant to his political career.

Once Again, I would gladly recieve any advice. Thanks. Messhermit 18:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

In my opinion TonyMarvin's latest edits are more POV than what you cleaned up earlier, but your interpretation is your own [1] zen master T 04:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. zen master T 06:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit on Ward Churchill

I noticed this edit. I don't mind either of the things that you did, but please seperate them into 2 clear edits in the future. The removal of text regarding him at school is controversial, while the wikisourcing is not. Thus it becomes very hard to simply revert. Cheers. Burgundavia 13:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologies. I was incorrect in this. Burgundavia 13:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion of unmitigated control of the Ward Churchill article is going to lead to the article being protected yet again.

The language and the content of your version is inadequate compared with my consensus version.

Justify your version or remove it. I have enunciated my difficulties what you've written. Please respond. TonyMarvin 16:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page should be protected I agree. You are not interested in compromise. You do not respond on Talk. TonyMarvin 16:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] join the club

Hey, you are just one of them. Grace Note is another. ;)

As an aside (it has been on my mind), nothing in the Wikipedia NPOV philosphy precludes us from taking advantage of the vast lexical richness of the English language; we don't need to neuter the language to be neutral (I draw the line at casual language of course). So why should we be lambasted for kicking up a storm?

Anyway, enough excitement for today. I am going edit dead opera singers for awhile. Take care, -- Viajero 19:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be advised I have reported you for breaches of the three revert rule. This is part experiment because I don't know how to do it and part promoting accountability for your destructive editing. TonyMarvin 23:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, I think you're perilously close to breaking the 3RR. You're definitely breaking the spirit, if not the letter. I know it's frustrating to be up against a POV warrior like Tony. Here's what I suggest. We get an agreement on the talk page of what is disputed. We make a list of disputed items. We state that we will consider it a revert to change any one of those items. This is what a revert really should be considered. Not just the same fact three times, but anything in the article. But let's make a list so that we know what's at stake and can point to the list when, inevitably, items on it are reverted. Then you, I and Viajero revert Tony once each in turn. This will take the heat out of it because we are online at different times. Tony will either have to talk or breach the 3RR and be blocked. I am willing to include his viewpoint if he can substantiate it but relentless POV pushing doesn't help this article or this encyclopaedia. Let me know what you think. (copied to Viajero and TonyMarvin's talkpages)Grace Note 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace you are correct, "Kelly Martin" has indeed broken the 3RR, I have reported this breach although being a newbie it will take a while before it's compeleted.

I am absolutely not a POV warrior, in fact I believe any attempt to dismiss WC would be very wrong. It does seem inevitable though as I gather UC has many problems with angry alumni and the new Chancellor has all but decided that he's through. So I hear anyway.

I have been careful about reverting because it doesn't help compromise and it's very disrespectful of others.

I have also been a religiously regular user of Talk.

So Grace I have no problem with what you've suggested. I do have a problem with sockpuppets and vandals ruining an article by thinking they own it. TonyMarvin 23:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi Kelly, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Ward Churchill. The reverts are somewhat ambiguous as they deal with slightly different material, but it's clear there's been too much reverting today. In future, try to involve other editors or ask for page protection. If you're reported again for 3RR violation, you may be blocked from editing for 24 hours. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, you reverted more than three times, which means you could have been blocked. It doesn't matter what others are doing; it's your own behavior that you have to watch, and let them be responsible for theirs. Does the page still need to be protected in your view, because I was considering unprotecting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Kelly, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule is very clear. Three reverts 'of a page in one day. Not of a particular edit. You reverted more than three times. [2] [3] [4] [5]

But I don't want to quibble over that, Kelly. When editors are reverting like this there's a problem. I'd like us all to try to solve it. Don't allow yourself to be anywhere near in the wrong is all I'm saying. Help fix the problem. There is only one refractory editor here and several opposing him. It needs only for us to be patient and he will soon realise he must win the discussion to win the war. But if you (or I, or Viajero, or anyone) revert him over and over, we just end up giving him fuel to make the dispute about who's reverting rather than what the article says.Grace Note 00:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubsorting

No problem. Hm, I think Wikipedia:Stub_categories is some sort of master-list, but as far as I can tell, the whole stub-categories thing is pretty spotty overall. Mcsweet

[edit] Wikipedia:Userspace_policy_proposal

Hi there! I noticed you oppose most points here on grounds that they are redundant with existing policy, or with common sense. I wholeheartedly agree that they are redundant as such - however, the point of the proposal is (and perhaps this should be clarified on that page) that most policies are cheerfully ignored in user space. As stated at the top, we should either assert plainly that the relevant policies do apply in userspace (since that isn't obvious to everybody) or we should amend policy stating that they do not apply in user space.

In general, people can post personal attacks, disruptions and other unpleasantness in userspace, and claim that since it's userspace, that is all right. The whole question is, should existing policy apply? If you think it should, please consider voting to reflect that. Yours, Radiant_* 08:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • You are absolutely correct that WP:NOT a bureaucracy (ironically, I wrote that :) ). I've added my final proposal at the top, which simply states that policies apply in user space. We'll see what happens, I've done what I can do alleviate the confusion. Radiant_* 18:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Kw

Hi, first, take a look at the RfC opened on him this past February: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keetoowah. You can either "re-open" it by updating it and relisting it under the appropriate section on Wikipedia:Requests for comment or, better yet, start a new one. Even if you just list a few diffs, that's enough; others add stuf and I am sure that a fair number of people will sign it. As to whether it will help, let me put it this way: I have seen RfCs have a positive effect on new, inxperienced editors who need a little nudge with regard to Wikiquette. In this particular case, I am less sanguine, but it is a necessary step before initiating more radical measures (ie, the ArbCom). If you need any help, don't hestitate. -- Viajero 21:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Keetoowah

I am considering opening an RFC on User:Keetoowah. His aggressive and nasty style is really not helping. But I'm not sure it would help. Thoughts? Kelly Martin 20:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Note to Keetoowah. I know it is sometimes hard to resist being snide and patronizing--these are flaws I find in myself--but it does not help build consensus. I also am concerned that you seem to be taking a position that only your views count in this discussion. This is especially toubling since you appear to have deleted a discussion I was having with someone here on this talk page. See: diff-1 and diff-1. --Cberlet 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dear Cberlet: I really don't know what drugs you have been taking but I did NOT delete anything. Also, the nature of Wikipedia makes your accusation absolutely ludicrious. Why? Well, every change, whether an addition or a subtraction, is tracked by the Wikipedia software program. My edits are a matter of record and the deletion that you unfairly, irrationally, and incorrectly accuse me of making does not appear in the record of edits. You need to show me using the Wikipedia edit tracking system the deletion that I supposedly made or should keep or unfair, irrational, incorrect and unstable accusations to yourself. So until you provide me evidence to back up your claim, and it would be in the Wikipedia system if I really did it, please get a grip on your grasp of reality. When I did supposedly do this??? Wouldn't the date and time be in the Wikipedia system??? YES. Show it to me. I now understand the reason that you feel compelled to defend the FAKE Indian.------Keetoowah 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The difference that you are pointing to was made by 137.224.252.10 That particular IP address is based in the Netherlands. I'm not in the Netherlands, I'm in the U.S. So you need to talk to someone in Europe, not here.------Keetoowah 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note to Kelly Martin: I know that you don't like my position concerning the FAKE Indian. That is your right, but you shouldn't really attempt to stifle my comments because you don't argree with my point of view. I find your style as "aggressive and nasty" also. You are not prone to consensus either. You have given me direct orders when you should have been attempting to discuss and talk, but you have not been acting that way. Also, your ally here,Cberlet accused me of deleting comments on the Talk page, which was and is not true. The Wikipedia software system makes that completely clear. You need to work on your attempts to work with me. Your "aggressive and nasty" style is not helpful.-----Keetoowah 00:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism vfd

Please consider changing the basis for your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism from "original research" to "non-notable." I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply an exposition on a philosophy which, although real, lacks enough adherents/proponents to be notable enough for inclusion. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of this topic. It was, after all, one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D BD2412gab 04:38, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

  • On second though, since its very easy for those not acquainted with religous details to confuse "theism" with "deism" - as demonstrated by the fact that most of the non-wiki-mirror references on the web do use pandeism to mean pantheism - a redirect would be useful. -- 8^D BD2412gab 06:42, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Forget the above. I have found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [6], being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[7]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

[edit] The Goddess of Democracy

Wikipedia is not a soapbox refers to articles. You are allowed to take a point of view on a talk page. The "personal essay" was explaining why the Goddess of Democracy is notable. It was composed in response to the anonymous user's negative opinions of the statue on the top of the page--which you decided not to censor for some reason. So (s)he can advocate that the statue is meaningless but I can't respond? That makes no sense. Since the essay was (1) on topic, (2) part of the discussion, and (3) relevant to the notability of the article, it unequivocally belongs on the talk page. That's why I put it there. I will revise the statements to make the notability connection crystal clear so that there are no more misunderstandings in the future.

- Pioneer-12 23:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)