User:Adam Carr/Talk Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent work on the anti-Zionist draft. It has my full support as a replacement to the existing article, although my influence is not too important after taking about a month off.

BTW, in case you're still interested in a list of articles in need of a rewrite, I have a couple of ideas. For instance, Fascism probably should be promoted to the top of the list, in the event that one's created.

This came to mind when I noticed that Wiki's article on fascism is among the top 10-20 hits on google and yahoo search engines. It's also the first encyclopedia article to be listed. With that in mind, Wiki's probably a top source for high school students (who generally fail to appreciate the complexities of history as it is) scrambling to write quick reports for history class. Consequently, it's a shame to let it languish in such a simplistic and superficial state. I'm unable to start revamping it for now, having left behind far too many incomplete projects on Wiki over the course of about a year.

If you're interested, would you also want to establish a talk page on history articles in need of rewrites? So far, I've been compiling a list for some months now, but have yet to do anything with it. 172 10:39, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I will have a look at fascism, it sounds like a challenge. Yes I still think that List of history articles needing writing or rewriting is an excellent idea. Adam 11:24, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Great, I'll get it started and link it to the article on articles of all topics needing attention. BTW, perhaps I was being a bit to hard on the fascism article. It gets to all the important points concerning the general characteristics, but should be less superficial. In other words, it's worthy of Encarta. But if we're one of the first hits listed, it would do a lot to enhance Wiki's reputation if it's better than Britannica's article.172 12:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Having had a quick look at it, I think it starts reasonably well but then deteriorates. I think there needs to be a clearer distinction from the start between

  • fascism as an ideology
  • fascism as a system of government
  • fascism as a political movement, both prewar and postwar

Adam 12:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well put. I'm going to add it to the fascism talk page, along with my suggestions for sources. This could be a good organization for a future series as well. 172 12:43, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I am not an expert on Australian copyright. If it is ok to include the images, please explain why and include the source. Sorry for the trouble. Alexandros

replied on my talk page. --Jiang

User:Mcarling left a reply to your comments on my talk page that may be of some interest to you. --Jiang 18:18, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, yesterday on the wikipedia IRC channel a discussion arose between several users who believe that the EN Wikipedia is suffering because it contains too many marginal articles/too much junk information and a couple of users who believe it should include everything, ie, articles on schools in New Zealand and lord knows what else -- you know the stuff. What keeps coming out of these discussions is that the "inclusionists" have a lot of easy arguments (Wikipedia is not paper, ignore what you doesn't interest you) and that those of us opposed to it seem to do so out of some kind of natural instinct. I mean, I think I have a good feel for what is encyclopedic and what isn't, but I can't really articulate it, and neither, I noticed, could others. I know you have touched in this issue as well with your very humorous arborealoids article, and if you would ever feel inspired to help define some kind of basic inclusion criteria it would be an enormous help. I thought the comment you posted at the talk page of Wahhabism and reposted on the talk page of the Albanian nun whose name can't be mentioned here (ie,, the encyclopedia as a product of the enlightenment) was absolutely brilliant. Keep up the great work. -- Viajero 22:12, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually I don't think I have a problem with the quantity of articles. If people want to write about schools in New Zealand or characters from Star Trek I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The beauty of an online encyclopaedia is that it doesn't have any space limitations, and people can find any topic they like with a search engine. My problem is with the quality of articles (see The Wikipedia Quality Survey, and also with the stability of articles - it is never possible for an article to be finished, and authors have to constantly guard their articles against illiterate edits.

Having observed WP for a couple of months now, I would make the following changes:

  • Only registered Users may post to the site, except at some sort of readers comment section.
    • What about those adding interwiki links? Also, some actually want to test it out before going through the registration process (which would be more involved than currently). I think it would take some of the charm away.
      • The point is not to be charming but to produce an encyclopaediaDori | Talk 04:51, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
        • True, but less charmed users == less contributors. Dori | Talk 05:11, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • I would support this proposal but not the next one. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Registration as a User should be made more difficult to deter the frivolous and the mischevious. Registration would be by IP-based email (not a Hotmail account) and there would be a 24-hour waiting period.
    • I don't have a static IP, how would I register? Dori | Talk 04:51, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
      • Get one
        • Too expensive for me. I would give up the wikipedia (and so would many others). I would suspect the non-english pedias would stop being updated. Dori | Talk 05:11, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this is too tough (and has no chance at all of being accepted so forget it). An intermediate arrangement is similar to the way you subscribe to yahoo or google: you have to give an email address then something (a password or an activation URL) is mailed to you. After that you log in by password. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • There be two levels of registration, Users and Editors. Users may contribute articles but may not edit existing articles. Editors may contribute and edit. Promotion from User to Editor status would be by nomination by two other Editors, and given only to Users who have good English and have shown they can write in an encyclopaedic style.
    • The Wikipedia would deteriorate very quickly as the number of articles far outwighs the number of editors (the more editors the better of course) Dori | Talk 04:51, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it would just grow less quickly. But since most of its growth is junk that is no loss.
        • It would virtually stall in my opinion. Especially coupled with the other restrictions. Dori | Talk 05:11, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • Sounds too unwieldy to me. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Articles may be nominated for Completed Article status. Nominations must be seconded by another User, and there must be a week's time for objections. Once an article is registered as Completed, it may only be edited with the approval of a review panel of some sort.
    • But many articles are never completed. Dori | Talk 04:51, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
      • Maybe so, but that's not really to the point.
        • I'm just saying it would become a hassle. Only the most avid contributors would remain. It would cease to be an encyclopedia, and it would become a blog as I see it. Dori | Talk 05:11, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • I support this proposal in some form. Contributors needs to be able to write a good article then walk away without being too concerned about an ignoramous coming along to destroy it. However, I'm not sure of the best way to achieve this. Also, articles involving current events won't ever be closed. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Here is an alternative proposal. Any editor can make changes to a Completed Article but the new version is held as a draft separate from the original article. Only someone with authority (or a minimum of N editors) can make the draft into the official version. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • A higher level of WP would be created, with another name since it would not strictly speaking be a Wiki, at which only Completed Articles would be visible.
    • Not sure. Links between articles would be a nightmare. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The contents of Talk pages should be visible only to registered Users.
    • Yes, maybe. --Zero 12:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam 02:53, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

An unedited version of these proposals appears at User:Adam Carr

Do we have permission to use the photo in that article? I found the same photo here. --mav 10:11, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia:image description page if you want to try making a fair use claim for this photo. If not, it may be deleted. Angela 17:15, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam: If you do have permission, please include the source of the image. I already asked you to do so a few days ago, when I found more possible infringements, but you did not. Alexandros 17:21, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

concerning the changes you made to the Adolf Hitler article:

  • whether his father was German or Austrian, whether there is something like a "German" culture that is spread beyond Germany's frontiers - I don't mind, I won't argue with you over this.
  • I added newline characters to the article to make it easer to edit. However, this does not change the paragraph structure of the article, we need two newlines for a new paragraph. Some buggy browsers (like IE 5.5) make it quite difficult to work on articles with very long lines, and for all users, it is easier to navigate inside the text if there is only one sentence per line. So please reconsider this.

Best regards, --zeno 23:49, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do it, but it all fits one line on my screen. I made my screen smaller and it still fits. If it's still a problem, submit it to the Wikipedia:Village pump. --Jiang

It seems as if the inevitable shit has hit the fan. Alas ... Nice try. Danny 01:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good Morning! Wondering if you could have a look at some of the recent changes to Nazism, particularly the claim that it is a socialist movement. Getting tired of the silliness. Danny 12:09, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- I didn't realize that there was criticism of me. I deleted the page because Eloquence is no longer a problem. He has been getting along with other users quite well lately. Alexandros 13:10, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, in the Mother Teresa talk page you said

I don't know if there is a procedure from banning a person from a particular article, but unless and until he is banned from this article, I won't be taking any further part in editing it. (re Alexandros).

Alexandros has now permanently withdrawn from the article. silsor 19:04, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for RVT'ing the Blum article - i've never understood the whole "Nazi Germany/Nazi German" thing - as you said the country is called Germany and they were Germans.

PMA 23:31, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

It's mostly a matter of standardization. I had read in Kim senior's article that junior was better known as and well, that's exactly where Wikipedia's guidelines tell us to put the article. It sprung from a discussion on Talk:Paul Simon (disambiguation). I don't want to see a situation where we have articles such as "Eldred Gregory Peck" simply because some hypothetical mass murderer shows up with the name "Gregory Peck"; it should be "Gregory Peck (actor)" and "Gregory Peck (serial killer)" so that people know who the heck we're talking about. - Hephaestos 07:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adam, you've had a lot of experience dealing with controversial topics and I wonder if you might have anything to add to this meta-page Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles that I just started. Many thanks.

What (other than a shared first name?) inspired you to write this? I have no criticism of the article, nor its being written from the other side of the world (which is probably better for NPOV anyway), I'm just curious -- I live near his namesake gov't office building.

I'm actually surprised there was nothing whatsoever on him in Wikipedia until Monday. --Charles A. L. 18:08, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I don't suppose you'd be interested in turning Vincent Gair from a stub to an article? PMA 21:54, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think you'll have to agree that this looks like crap: [1]. Therefore, I will revert your edit unless you provide me with a screenshot that shows it as much uglier than what I have to look at.

As for the other page, I will reduce the images to smaller size and then link to the larger size ones. It will be nice if you have even higher resolution images to link to. Tell me if you do. --Jiang | Talk 10:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please wait before you speak. Here it is: Image:Ugly page.jpg. I will revert again. --Jiang | Talk 11:39, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Commented at User talk:Angela. --Jiang | Talk 05:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adam, please read the protection policy. It states "the protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one."

I am not taking sides in the dispute. I couldn't care less where the pictures go and I have no idea why you would be fighting over such a thing. It just happened to be on that version at the time I decided it needed protecting.

Please discuss these issues with Jiang. On my browser, both versions work so I don't know what the issue is and can not therefore help you. Angela. 05:12, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me but it wasn't actually me that listed it for deletion. It was Aplank, who for some reason, seems not to have listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. I just removed it from the article because he had labelled it as a copyvio on the image description page. Thanks for going to the effort of getting email confirmation that it is not infringing. It might be a good idea to include that email somewhere so you can point to it in future when your images are queried, or link to it from your image description pages. Angela. 02:00, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just had to clean up the Adolf Hitler article 'cause of one of these people. Could you keep an eye out for them mate?

PMA

Someone wants your opinion over at Talk:Consequences of Adolf Hitler PMA

I'm starting to think you might be right. The lack of control you hope to address with your proposal on Meta might stop so many great contributors leaving. Angela 04:53, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this item that appeared on the Israeli academic mailing list SEGAL-Plus. --Zero 06:08, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Menzies[edit]

Thanks for pointing out i made a T.T. mate, sorry about that :(

PMA

By the way, I came across your proposal on Meta and hope it will generate some discussion. I'm thinking about it and will probably contribute something on the talk page over the next few days. Bmills 16:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well I'm not entirely nonantagonistic myself but I shall see what I can do. (Is nonantagonistic a word?) May I suggest you change the title of the page at Meta. As I just said to Anthère on my user page at Meta, it's not just about anon editors - it's about being able to lock articles away from the neurotics who want to harm them. It's a much wider issue than whether anons should edit and I think the title needs to reflect this. Something like Should there be stronger controls over editing? perhaps? Angela. 20:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Regarding your suggestion for Wikipedia: "Registration as a User should be made more difficult to deter the frivolous and the mischevious. Registration would be by IP-based email (not a Hotmail account) and there would be a 24-hour waiting period." I have to say that many users (like me) have no IP-based email (which I suppose is the same as ISP email) but only use services like Hotmail, Yahoo etc. It should also be noted that many Hotmail and Yahoo users pay money for their email (for example if they want more space), not all of them get it for free. Personally I have been unable to register at some other websites because they required ISP email, something that not all users have (for example users who buy Internet prepaid cards or use netcafes or change ISP very often). I would not like to see this happen in Wikipedia. You cannot know how another person connects to the Internet and you cannot assume that anybody has or is willing to use ISP email. Best wishes and Peace Profound Optim 23:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on simple:Talk:United States of America - I agree completely. It's a dreadful mess. Any help would be very welcome! Angela. 14:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: Guantanamo, presumably Kenney is talking about a general pecking order where Americans suspected of terrorism-related stuff are treated best; not specifically treatment in Guantanamo? Evercat 02:16, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Source for "KSM is the mastermind of 9/11[edit]

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/02/mohammed.biog/

WhisperToMe 02:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Kansas and a couple of random ones are done. Danny 03:20, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would you be averse at all to my nominating you for admin? I think it would be good if you had the extra freedom to work around the software checks. - Hephaestos 03:58, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's not so much about knowledge of software, just the ability to move pages when there' s redirect at the desired name (which is what I find most valuable), deleting articles which consist of "ths sux" and so forth. - Hephaestos 04:07, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I sympathise with the sentiment. *grin* - Hephaestos

OK, well, it was just a suggestion. :-) Evercat 15:20, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

According to Debrett's ([2]):

Barons are styled 'Lord', both verbally and in correspondence... The only time the term 'Baron' is used is for citations in formal and legal documents. In these instances, the formal style is accorded along with the forenames: for example, The Rt Hon John Geoffrey Tristram Baron Oaksey.

It would thus appear inappropriate to say "Baron X." Thus, "Lord X" would be used. Note that the problem does not arise in article titles, for the forenames and surnames are there included. -- Lord Emsworth 00:54, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dr Carr, I have made changes from "Baron" to "Lord" in the case of both Canadian and Australian Governors General; since the former were considered last, I had on my mind at the time of determining the title of the section those that were so considered, and I also had no reason to assume that you only objected to tables showing the succession of Australian Governors General being renamed: for the said reasons I did title the section on those of the aforementioned country, and not to cause any undue offence. -- Lord Emsworth 01:43, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

MT[edit]

Would it be completely out of the question for you to keep an eye on the MT article for a month or so? I'm getting sick of it. I know you are, too, but maybe by taking turns we can keep it in a half-decent state.—Eloquence


Reading some of your pieces on Iraq on your website, I was wondering if you're familiar with the article by Michael L. Ross "Does Oil Hinder Democracy?" published in World Politics 53 (April 2001)? The study is a counter-argument to other explanations explaining the absence of democracy in the Middle East, especially ones stressing the influence of Islam/the region's distinct culture and the region's colonial history. His impressive use of regression analyses could be useful evidence in favor of the interpretation that you're stressing. 172 15:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here's a link to a PDF file from a UCLA site. If you're interested, I could send you links to other journal articles stressing rival explanations or complementary ones. 172 05:25, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Michael L. Ross, "Does Oil Hinder Democracy?" World Politics 53 (April 2001), 325–61. If, by any chance, you don't have Adobe reader downloaded, I can convert it into a .doc file and send it to you as an e-mail attachment. 172 05:25, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't know wether you have seen my comments at talk:Mary, the mother of Jesus? Pfortuny 21:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ezra Wax removed a sentence of yours from Zionism. He is correct that its meaning isn't clear, but something is needed. Can you insert a replacement? --Zero 00:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Okay, I changed a few names. I will go over them and fix them. Hope you don't mind me giving a hand with the Reps. It is actually very interesting. Anti-Semitism--the bane of my existence, both professional and wiki ... I would love to have a go at it, and I have a lot of stuff here at home too, but ... this is going to be even more contentious. Danny 04:03, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adam_Carr/Talk_Archive3&oldid=570949005"