User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Dec 2004)

Quotes

I don't feel a months old quote, slightly out of context (my own fault), is a correct assessment of the present situation. However, it has raised an issue, and I've done my best to answer it. Looking forward to your reply. GeneralPatton 20:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sir, I want to thank you for understanding. GeneralPatton 09:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whom do I notify?

A year page has been redirected to some pretty bad porn images. How can we get this fixed?Ksnow 20:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)ksnow

When you get a second

Read the last line of this section and let me know if you have any opinions on it in relation to your matter currently in the AC. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for clearing that up. I'm sorry about that. I should have listed the standing order alone. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Auto

I want to thank you for unprotecting Autobiography (album); that article is very important to me and I appreciate being given the opportunity to work on it again without being stuck with the temp page. I'm hoping that my new revisions will put an end to the whole dispute, which has been blown completely out of proportion by everyone involved, including me; if not, I intend to stay well within my three revert limit. And I'm committing myself to remaining above petty insults and sniping this time around. If you spot me doing any of that, feel free to slap me with a block to remind me of that pledge. Everyking 20:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unlocking of Jihad Article

You unlocked the Jihad article. To my understanding, the article is not to be unlocked until some sort of conclusion is reached on the discussion page. Are we to assume that you felt something had been decided on the discussion page? If so, I would appreciate it if you explained on the discussion page. If not, why unlock the article? -- Pename

Since this was posted by an IP and I am not sure how better to reach this editor if they do not log in, I will respond here. I unprotected the page because it had been protected for two weeks, and protected pages are considered harmful. There is no requirement that all issues be settled on the talk page before unprotection, though it certainly would help in this case if people work on resolving issues there before making any substantial edits to the article. --Michael Snow 05:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thanks for protecting Dennis King and Jeremiah Duggan as per my request. I would ask, however, that you add the NPOV dispute tag on both articles. At Wikipedia:NPOV dispute it says:

If a Wikipedia administrator must protect a page for neutrality protection, this label should always be added.

--H.K. 16:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10-4 on that. I am a bit surprised that some of these [[Wikipedia:]] aren't locked against sneaky editors. --H.K. 21:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Michael, regarding the protection of Dennis King and Jeremiah Duggan at the request of Herschelkrustofsy, would you mind alerting me if he requests that the pages be unprotected? We have been in dispute over Jeremiah Duggan before; the page was protected, our dispute was resolved, and the page was unprotected. Now objections have been raised again, and I fear this may continue, so I would like to have the dispute definitely settled this time. If you would like more information, you can read the pertinent details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision in the section called Regarding this Arbcom ruling, as it applies to the dispute between SlimVirgin and HerschelKrustofsky. Many thanks, Slim 05:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Michael, thanks for your reply. I'd like to ask you something about the use of the NPOV template. The reason Herschelkrustofsky requested page protection for Jeremiah Duggan is because he wants to keep the NPOV tag on it, and he believed (as it turned out, erroneously) that by having the page protected, he could automatically retain the NPOV tag.

The background is that the article reports criticism of Lyndon LaRouche that was made in a British court and was reported in reputable newspapers. The editors who object to the article Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and Weed Harper are LaRouche supporters and they have been attacking the article since its creation.

My understanding of the NPOV tag is that it should only be used where there are specific objections to the neutrality of an article that are fixable. However, in this case, these editors want the NPOV tag on it because they feel the article should not exist, not because of anything that is fixable. They would have no chance, I believe, in having it deleted via VfD, because it clearly is a legitimate article, so they seem to want a permanent NPOV tag placed on it instead.

I should add that it's not a question of rewriting the article. (It has already been rewritten at their request and, in fact, the current version is Herschelkrustofsky's, which I agreed to as a compromise). It is about a young LaRouche recruit who died in odd circumstances; a British coroner's court has ruled the LaRouche organization may have used mind-control techniques on him just before he died, which may have contributed to his death. The LaRouche supporters have said the article must provide "proof" of this or else the NPOV tag must stay on it. Of course, the article cannot provide proof. It can only provide reputable attribution by reporting what was said in the coroner's court, as reported in the Washington Post, Guardian, Times and Independent newspapers.

In a case like this, where the NPOV tag is being used (as I see it) inappropriately, am I justified in simply removing it; or what is the procedure, if you know? I've looked at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute but it doesn't really address this kind of issue. Many thanks, Slim 15:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Adminship Election

Salve, Michael Snow!
Back in September I was a candidate for adminship, but I withdrew and since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Though you voted to oppose at that time, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:14, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

How much do you have to change a Web article to avoid copyright problems. Ksnow 17:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Thanks, it's good to confirm what I thought. I never copy and paste, but of course most of what I write is not original. Ksnow 18:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Recent composer edits by KSnow

Erm, my opinion, but there’s no reason to add supercategories of categories that a composer is already in. If the composer is already in Romantic Composers there is no reason to put them in Composers also — they’re assumed to be in that category. Again, one includes the other.Correction: you're right, it isn’t a supercategory. I think the correction would be to make it one, not to make all these edits... Schissel‐bowl listen 21:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I know I’m being at best... word doesn’t need filling in about this, but it would be nice too if supercategories were mentioned on category pages. Oh well. Category:Composers -> Category:Classical composers -> Category:Romantic composers. Schissel‐bowl listen 21:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and the same should apply to languages, for example. Ksnow 20:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ksnow

Hrm. How is this handled, in general and as practice/policy (the difference is a bit finer than it was where I worked a few years back ;) ) in Language articles? Schissel‐bowl listen 23:19, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Emilia

Do you find more information about this Swedish diva? If you do so, help complete this article! --202.75.80.6 00:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Subcategories

How do I make a category a subcategory of another? For example, Romance languages is not currently a subcategory of Languages. Ksnow 18:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Thanks again. Ksnow 18:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ksnow

And how do I create a new category? Ksnow 18:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ksnow

Adding the category tag does not create the category, but I'll look at your link. Thanks again. Ksnow 19:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Well, I moved the categories above the other-language links (like it says on the categorization page), and it still doesn't work. Who would know how to fix this? Ksnow 20:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ksnow

The link stays red until you write the article to go with the category. The category page does exist. Ksnow 22:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ksnow

Ma On Shan (KCRC)

This article is listed on WP:FAC. Do you agree with my way to do it? --218.103.188.199 13:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom terms

I'll take the three-year term. This election has been ugly, so I hope we won't repeat it for awhile. Warmest regards --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 21:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Salve, Michael Snow!
I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful WP:RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted by yourself and others. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sports

I exaggerated. I thought you'd be wanting stuff about managers, star players, Pac Ten records, etc. I'm fine on shifts of ownership, stadium budgets, and I can probably even name about a dozen pro athletes in Seattle over the 25 years I've lived here, but probably not 20.

I actually crossed paths for a couple of months with Bouton when I was 15 years old: we were both volunteers on Allard Lowenstein's unsuccessful re-election campaign for congress. Ball Four was new at the time, so he was quite a celeb, and often introduced the candidate. This worked out especially well because Lowenstein was chronically overbooked, chronically late, and Bouton could happily and entertainingly talk for 30 minutes about baseball and about politics until he got the word that Lowenstein had arrived. Even those of us who heard his speil dozens of times weren't bored. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:17, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Cachet

You mean it isn't the thing you flush when your web page doesn't update? :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade

Hi Michael, the First Crusade article is now a Featured Article, but I'm not sure if your objections were ever answered satisfactorily. I hope we can still work on it and fix it so that everyone is pleased. Adam Bishop 19:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism: Abuse Adminship by User:Fawcett5

Hello I am a new user RUSSIAN MONK and seek your help to admonish one of your wikipedia administrator Fawcett5. This user has just vandalized my article on Alexander MacGregor. I am a science biographer and just joined wikipedia. I wrote and expanded the article from cited sources and found that Fawcett5 has vandalized my article. This is against wiki rules and ceratinly not conforming to NPOV. NPOV is "non negotiable" and I all for equality of rules to all. I noticed a lot of controversy about this article; it seems all driven by Fawcett5 who has monopolized the wikipedia article against all rules. Please help restore my article and check-out my cited sources- they are legitimate and moreover quoted in the article. If I presented a positive balance on this article from cited source it's called fairness. Perharps Fawcett5 has some close relationship and obsession with this article. pleas help. Long live wiki!

(RUSSIAN MONK 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC))