User talk:Nihiltres

Home	Talk	Sandbox

Logs: contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves

Archives 2006 archived October 31, 2006 archived November 15, 2006 archived December 5, 2006 archived December 28, 2006 2007 archived March 12, 2007 archived April 29, 2007 archived May 13, 2007 archived May 28, 2007 archived June 27, 2007 archived July 15, 2007 archived July 26, 2007 archived August 4, 2007 archived August 17, 2007 archived August 28, 2007 archived September 18, 2007 archived October 10, 2007 archived October 24, 2007 archived October 30, 2007 archived November 16, 2007 2008 archived January 25, 2008 archived April 9, 2008 archived June 7, 2008

Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02 Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

[edit] Hello!

Glad to see another wikipedian from Montréal! I'll be on/off for the next 3 days because i will be working at La Ronde :) So whenever you feel like talking to me, hook me up :). I have ideas for the next wikimania if you are interested... --Creamy!^Talk 13:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kristi Johnson

Hi, you deleted Kristi Johnson a while ago, based on a PROD proposed deletion. Could you tell me if there was anything useful there and/or userfy a copy of it for me? As a non-admin I can't do this. Thanks. --Rividian (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be much useful there; nevertheless, I'll userfy a copy of the last revision for you to User:Rividian/Kristi Johnson. I'll also cross-post this reply, unusually, because I nearly forgot about this request after reading it – inexcusable, I am sorry to have left it so long. Nihiltres^{t.l} 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted)

[edit] Ιερουσαλήμ

Hi. I nominated Ιερουσαλήμ for deletion. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Greek is not related with Jerusalem. This is not an alternative language for this article. It's been a long discussion in Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't particularly care (I created it on request), but it certainly didn't qualify for R3 and removing the {{R from alternative language}} didn't inspire confidence. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise a bit. Sometimes I get a very wrong impression that everyone follows all the discussions held around in Wikipedia and I have followed. Plus, even if a always try to write summaries for my actions, it seems I have serious problems to explain my actions. Your revert was just ok. In fact, I tried to make two moves in one. First removing redirect from "alternative language redirects" and then nominating for speedy. It was not the best idea. Of course, I still believe the redirect should be deleted but the procedure does matter. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And I in turn have been too defensive of what ultimately I don't need to worry about. I'm sorry. Nihiltres^{t.l} 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question re archiving/deletion of an old comment (on my Talk page)

The Question is on my Talk page. Thank you. Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there. Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU. [see also response below] Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

>[...] yes, just delete the comment if you want, it's fine. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did. or, I will soon.

>You can archive it if you want. Archiving isn't automatic unless you get a bot to do it, so [...]
I am not familiar with archiving, but my mailbox on gmail is a sorta "write only memory", (well, also read, just hardly ever erase), so I sent a Cc of it to there. Before deleting it. Thank you. Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] Could you help me understand about your decision Regarding Van Resistance.

Your decision "no consensus" on the issue which the opposing editor claims that my language skills are poor and rejects any help, or guidance to improve language in the article. His response falls into personal clarification that he will not provide any information regarding his objection on my language skills, beyond he did not like my grammar. If the user failed to give "a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made," and your decision of "no concencus" holds, also in this special case the user clearly stated in his response that "he will revert the article" constantly, which puts his edits as an act of vandalism. I believe, your decision should be accompanied by removing the lift from the page, and informing the opposing party to be more constructive in his edits. Thank you for your help. --Seemsclose (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My only decision was to disable the editprotected as the request was opposed. It should not have any other effect on the discussion. Further, although repetitive reversion is disruptive, it is not vandalism. I don't feel like getting involved in this dispute. Nihiltres^{t.l} 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" means having an agreement amongst editors. There is no consensus. Given that I think Seemsclose's aims and edits will be detrimental to the article, I will not work with him towards obtain a consensus if that means incorporating those edits in their present form and extent. Unfortunately, having the article protected means that we are in an all-or-nothing situation: either having to accept all of Seemsclose's substantial edits in one go, or accept none of them. If in a week or so there is still no concensus reached, I think the page protection should be removed. Meowy 21:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What might be a good course of action would be to go through Seemsclose's suggestions and suggest improvements to them, or at very least highlight specific problems. Don't worry too much about the writing at first: if you two (or more) can agree on the content itself, correcting spelling, grammar, or style would then be trivial. Nihiltres^{t.l} 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" only happens if parties with WP:GW, communicate based on non-personal comments or insults and giving clear and constructive response for each objection which the parties bring into table. In the absence of clear explanation of why one disagrees, we can not talk about a "process of consensus." I'm disappointed with Meowy's behavior of not involving a constructive "process of consensus". Seemsclose (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On a light note, what does "Gnome Week" have to do with consensus? :p Nihiltres^{t.l} 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked, sorry. There used to be an article for "good will in wikipedia." I thought I was linking to that article. The editor, who is interested at the same article which I was trying to improve, claims he knows the subject so well that he can plot the mistakes, but not have goodness in him to point out to me. :-) That article is in serious need, but there are so many "good will" floating around to prevent any form of improvement, as they perceived it lost of their battle. I was trying to be sarcastic (behind the keyboard), missed the whole point I guess ...--Seemsclose (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My core objection to Seemsclose's suggestions is that he is ruining the lead section by expanding it beyond all reasonable limits through adding trivial details. He doesn't seem to understand that it is just meant to be a concise summary of the essential points contained in the body of the article. So the dispute is not about content, it is about methodology. I don't doubt that I would take issue with some of the additions on content grounds if they were to be added to the body of the article - but I object to all of them at the moment because of where Seemsclose wants to place them. That objection will not change, because the objection is based on my well-founded understanding of what the lead section should be and what it should not be. Meowy 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Per your revision to the Earth article, note that both geography and cultural anthropology are considered science.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that they can both be technically considered sciences. The term "science", however, usually refers primarily to the natural sciences and not to the social sciences, as the pair of groups constitute most academic knowledge. As most people make the distinction, I omitted it so as not to mislead them, which seems perfectly reasonable given that the knowledge in the article should be entirely academic in nature regardless. Nihiltres^{t.l} 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Discussions or relevant discourse are at Talk:Earth#Other_uses_statement, User talk:RJHall#Earth_article_hatnote, and here, in order of priority. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That particular distinction in the use of the word "science" is a new one to me. I suppose I think of science in terms of its contrast to art or philosophy, for example, and don't really have an issue with science covering a broad range of academic disciplines. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thanks! Yeah I'll use it carefully. Vishnava _talk 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. :) Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)