"I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [1]
I think it best that the whole dialogue is kept together so I will usually reply to messages wherever they are posted. If you write something here, my reply will usually also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page, I will be watching it for at least 5 days. Any article I have contributed to recently will also be on my watchlist.
Please post comments relating to the contents of our articles on the relevant page's discussion page, and not here. That way all interested parties (including you and I) can participate and reach consensus. (All articles I edit are automatically added to my Watchlist).
Perspicacite comments go in the "P Section"; all other comments: (+)
This "P Section" is for posts by, (or that have a strong link to the conduct of,) User: PerspicacitealiasJose João (P).
One of the reasons for this division is the sheer volume of templated messages from P - measuring up to 105,077 bytes in one message!
If one did not assume good faith, one would assume he is attempting to drown out normal dialogue on this, my user talk page since, unless in extremis, I don't usually instantly expunge unfavourable comments (as P does on his own talk page and now even on article discussion pages ).
I should imagine you are talking about P's latest attempt to have me perma-banned: [2]. I find it a little ironic that someone who ostensibly, is so concerned about rules, can not follow the simple one at the head of that page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)"
He's tried to get me banned 5 times on that page now but rarely bothers to inform me of the discussion...
Thanks for making some perspicacious comments!
Being fair to P, there is a sliver of truth to his allegation that I watch his contributions. But only occasionally do I check up on his activities. And only because he is such a prolific editor, his particularly sour brand of instant reversion and wiki-lawyering can be very dispiriting and bitey to new editors.
I hope that my "baptism of fire" by P has made me stronger and more knowledgeable about our policies and procedures but I do try and encourage new editors that have been savaged by him so that they do not leave the project in disgust as fast as he attacks and reverts them.
The real solution would be to appoint a mentor for him and put him on one revert per day parole. He really is quite hard-working and could be an asset to the project if we could only correct his bitey behaviour and contempt for his fellow editors.
PS: I'm going to move your comment and my reply up to the P section of this talk page now... Alice✉ 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}How can I make my name appear in red again?
Before, when I didn't have a user page, my name appeared in red in my watchlist. Now, even though I've deleted my user page, it is still the same old boring blue. How can I get it back to red again?Alice.S03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Links to pages that exist appear as blue and links to pages that do not exist are red. Blanking your userpage doesn't delete it. You can request that your uerpage be deleted by adding {{db-user}} to it. Alternatively, if you just want your signature on talk pages to appear red, you can add [[User:Alice.S|<font color="#CC2200">Alice.S</font>]] to the signature box in your preferences (remember to check the raw signature box. That code will make your signature look like this: Alice.S . Hope this helps. :)WODUP(?)04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you must be the most helpful person on Wikipedia, WODUP!
That's done the trick for my signature (on this page at least) but how do I get my name to appear red in my Watchlist? Is the only way to do it the {{db-user}} trick? Alice.S04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you probably realise, that is beyond my capabilities, so I've placed the code you suggested on my user page, WODUP. Thanks again for your very prompt help and assistance! Alice.S06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I found something that may work: User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js. This script highlights your username on pages (including your watchlist). If you want to try it, you can add
That works wonderfully - I've changed the code to show my name with a background in a fetching shade of Coral Pink - you really are the cat's whiskers, WODUP! Alice.S 07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits at de facto appear to have changed many non-italic text bits to italics. This is in contradiction two principles. (1) If it's in an English dictionary, it's appropriated and should not be italicized (this is the Chicago manual of styles definition of appropriation, but Wikipedia does not have one to the best of my knowledge and it's a good rule of thumb), and (2) the exclusion for the topic of the article in WP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms. Would you mind fixing the article so that neither de facto, nor de jure is italicized? Pdbailey13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view.
My reasoning was as follows:
1) a) Is "de jure" a phrase or a word? I decided that it was a foreign phrase (in latin) that did not (yet) have everyday usage (other than in legal and constitutional, etc, circles) and, therefore, that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages...". Adding weight to this argument was that de jure is usually italicized in legal texts
b) an additional consideration was that, throughout our article, de jure is contrasted with de facto and it is helpful to italicise to emphasise the distinction.
2) I did not italicise de jure in the title of the article as perWP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms but think that in the body of the article the italicisation is clearer and thus trumps any style preference but realise that this is a fine point.
I have, therefore, copied this passage to our article's discussion page for further input from other editors. That being the case, I would prefer not to self-revert until consensus has been achieved but do feel free to revert me if you are utterly convinced I am wrong since I am very new here!
Alics.S, in your post regarding this same topic on the talk page you mentioned interest in WP:IAR. You may find that the WP:IAR? an interesting read. My interpretation is that there is no reason for a rule to make Wikipedia not all that it can be. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia.
BTW, I generally put comments not about a article on the talk page, and comments to an editor, or unrelated to a specific article on the user's talk page. However, I generally request what I consider to be clear candidates for reversion on the talk page if the edit appears to have been made in good faith--but with a misunderstanding of the rule or policy in question. I'll admit right off the bat that i don't always know the policy as well as I think, so it's fine to challenge me, and it was fine but not necessary (in my opinion) to move that challenge to the talk page of the article.
I'm very sorry if I did something wrong by trying to discuss things on the article's talk page - I really don't wish to challenge you in any shape or form and please forgive me as a newbie if that's how it appeared. I just assumed it would be OK to have a public discussion since I didn't think it right that just some of the occurrences of de jure should be italicized but not others.
I think we are poking at the underbelly of this particular policy. Usually when I do this I get one short response from one other editor over at the guideline page and it's often not all that well thought out--but sometimes I get a gem. BTW, you are far from falling out with me (quite the opposite), I was trying to say thank you and give you a tip as to how things usually proceed because you appear to be new and curious about how Wikipedia works. Pdbailey06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do really apologise for the misunderstanding - it may be a gender thing or the fact that I am very new to online argumentation - it's quite difficult when there are no smiles or tones of voice to give you a clue.
Thank you very much for being patient, tolerant and understanding with me. Please feel free to correct my howlers - I'm trying to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can. Alice.S06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's easy to forget that jargon and abbreviations are not easy to recognize by the new. "rv" just means revert, which I did because I think "European ethnic groups" is not an appropriate place to direct readers to. Ethnic groups did not colonize Vanuatu, it was European nations, and "Europe" is what most readers will expect to find when they click that link. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask.--Cúchullaint/c21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying both the abbreviation and the reason for the revert that I queried at your user talk page.
I would slightly disagree with you that these were all national government sponsored and organised expeditions - some of the very first landings were by privateers that would have been executed by their respective (European) governments if they had been caught- but no matter. There was also a distinct feeling of ethnic superiority and solidarity amongst the colonisers which many Vanuatuans feel is still relevant. Alice.S21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome, and please do feel free to do modifications as you please. This is your talk page afterall, and a beautiful one at that! Meanwhile, I notice you still appear to have some problems with the signature part. You only need to insert --~~~~ behind your comments. No need to manually type in your name and timestamp. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... good question. To be honest, I didn't have a specific definition of Pacific in mind when I made the category. I initially used it for articles relating to the history of NZ in the Pacific islands, but articles on NZ's relationship with countries like Japan do make some sense being in there (but not - as Gadfium says - articles like Japan itself). Thanks for the comments on the paintings - I should take that banner off my talk page, the exhibition finished a couple of weeks ago! It went well, though with fewer sales than I would have liked. Lots of good comments and a couple of good reviews, though. I have quite a few on my paintings up at my website here and follow the links to the "by year" pages :) Grutness...wha?23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do like Liz and the reiteration of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is wonderful, James. "Life's a long song" is really poignant, too. Have you ever shown any stuff in Singapore - there's lot's of folk with high disposable income here now...
I'm going to try and make the category description a bit more explicit - just correct me if I do anything you don't like.
I'm also going to take a look at some articles (beginning with Samoa) to see if they can be appropriately added to your category (which looks a bit on the sparse side...). Best wishes! Alice.S 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair. As far as I'm concerned, any articles directly connected to NZ's links with Pacific Island or Pacific Rim countries are probably suitable. Any articles on Samoan links are definitely woith putting in there, since Samoa was a New Zealand territory at one time, though again, the category would be more for things like History of Samoa than for Samoa itself. I'm glad you like my art - no, I haven't exhibited outside New Zealand yet, though several people from other countries have bought my work either through my website or through seeing it in galleries while visiting New Zealand. Oh, and it's "Kia ora", BTW, though it's normally used more as a greeting than at the end of a message :) Grutness...wha?23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful reply, James. I've already added the History of Samoa to your category (that article seems like it could really do with some knowledgeable editors - I'm certainly not one) and I'll watch out for any others.
Sorry about the "Kia ora" (maybe now you understand the "Bimbo" stereotype about beauty pageant queens...) What would be a good thing to say at the end of a message to someone from New Zealand? Alice.S 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:) That's ok. Other than the standard English sign-offs, I'm not really sure what you'd use. "Haere ra" is used when you've been talking to someone in person (sort of the equivalent of "farewell, be seeing you"), but I'm not sure whether you'd use it on a written message. I have seen "Na tou hoa" used, but it's a slightly different sign-off (literally "from your friend"). "Kia ora" does work, but it's less common as an ending than as a greeting (confusingly, it's also an affirmation - you can use it to interject and show your support for what someone's saying, like the old "hear, hear!"). Grutness...wha?00:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really lovely of you to help me with this, James. I'd love to come and visit your wonderful country one day and "Kia ora" sounds like a very useful word for a forgetful person like me.
Is there a place on the web that I can learn to pronounce it properly? Hopefully Maori is not an intonal language like Chinese where slight changes are crucial. I suppose the weather is wonderful now on your southern island? Alice.S 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not intonal (thankfully! I've been trying to learn the basics of Mandarin Chinese, and the tones are thoroughly confusing me, as is remembering the difference between ch, sh, q and x!) I don't know anywhere on the web which has Maori pronunciation guides. Very approximately, Kia ora is pronounced KEY-uh AW-ruh (key as in door-key, aw as in saw), though it's often pronounced KEY-AW-ruh - and there's a very slight trill on the r, like in French. As for the weather, it's typical spring here - warm sunny days alternating with cold wet days. Today was sunny but windy. Hopefully it'll soon settle down into long warm periods as we get nearer summer. Grutness...wha?08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you sound like such an interesting fellow, James. Are most New Zealand people like you - we tend to lump you in with Australians but I guess you're very different and probably a bit more cultured - if that doesn't sound like an offensive stereo type. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful that we get to meet and co-operate with people from right across the world to make a better information source!
Thank you very much for the pronunciation guide - I'll try it out on the first guys I meet who I am sure are from New Zealand (off to check the differences in the Flags... ah yours has red stars).
It must be nice to have the weather to talk about - Singapore weather is so reliably predictable - even when we have those dreadful smogs from Indonesia. Thank you so much for being helpful - as you might have noticed from the section above, I was beginning to think that Wikipedia is not really the place for me! Thanks for brightening up my afternoon! Alice.S 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And no need to pull your punches - it was pretty stupid of me not to have read the whole debate before I commented and your succinct and accurate summary of the process jolted me out of my laziness. Sorry again and thanks for the "wake-up at the back" comment! Alice.S 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'm a slow typist and folks seem to be very quick on the draw. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, Gwen! Alice.S 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It was my mistake Alice, and I deserve no congratulations for reverting it, though I appreciate your kind words at my talk page. I apologize for not looking closer at what you were actually doing, and you have my sympathies in your current dispute with Perspicacite. I've watched the dispute a bit, and it appears you're on the side of angels there, so-to-speak. Keep up the good work of encyclopedia building! Best regards, K. Scott Bailey06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, I realize Encyclopetey beat me to the revert, so it wasn't actually my undoing of my mistake. Again, though, I take full responsibility for not looking closer at what you were actually doing. K. Scott Bailey06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dragons are busy creatures and it can be hard to spot the detail sometimes when you're flying at such dizzy heights (grin).
P has been actually showing distinct signs of editing rather than reverting recently - I do hope I'm not grinding him down (wan smile). Alice.S 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been on the lookout for a userbox saying something like that for awhile. Where did you find it? And I hope you don't mind that I swiped the code to put on my userpage. K. Scott Bailey17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, you're very polite and friendly for a dragon! I'm afraid I've forgotten where I swiped it from, (that'll teach me to use better edit summaries) except that I'm fairly sure it was either GFDL or public domain. You might like to edit it to show the male symbol as slightly more prominent or keep it the same to reflect the female gamete's dominant role in our world (grin). Thanks for being so friendly! Alice.S 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Me too and how lovely for you to think of me! A very interesting new source for stopping me getting any work done! I think I need a sugar daddy so I can stop all remunerative work and concentrate on Wikistuff. This may get seriously addictive... Thanks for being nice to me. Alice.S 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. My editing today on a few articles may have removed or changed some of your material. Please don't be offended, but all I merely wanted to do was to remove any dubious unreferenced material. The worst though is that anon IP who turns out to be a block evading sock of the rude User:Domaleixo.
I'm not offended at all - that's what is so wonderful about Wikipedia: we can all stand on the shoulders of others and become GIANTS!
I'm sure that, given your evident cultural sensitivity, you will be aware that the IP (s)(socks or not) feel very strongly about the topics they edit on and that may lead them to be bit rash and loud at times - especially when it is evident that, like me, English was probably not the language they first learnt to read in. They have provided some good material, though, and the articles they have edited could definitely do with lots more citations.
Lastly, I'm intrigued as to exactly which message you did not understand - can you provide a diff? Alice.S 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What North Korea thinks of itself isn't relevant to its well sourced government type. NK fits the very definition of communist, etc. If you would like to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page, that's great. But simply deleting sourcec information isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
But I do agree that it's more productive that we discuss this on the article's talk page, so I've added to the previous points I made on that discussion page here. Incidentally, your point had already been well discussed on the article's talk page by (you and) others, so please don't assume that I am ignorant of the background to your comment. Alice.S 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake then, I read your comment as implying that I changed the "label" in the infobox from a position of ignorance and without reading the prior discussions on the article's talk page. My change took account of those discussions (I don't have to participate in a discussion to be able to understand its drift). What I took offence to was the "simply deleting" part.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that government's self descriptions are both illuminating and relevant; I will get seriously worried when the USA ceases to view itself as a democracy (whatever I may personally feel...) Alice.S 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic. It's in the name. If you were aware of the talk page discussions, then why did you choose to delete something most editors believed belonged? Rklawton (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't usenet and I'm not going to debate politics here.
I chose to delete two words from an infobox description that was un-encyclopedic: "communistdictatorship"; used together they are inappropriate and a contradiction in terms. We don't label the Provisional IRA or Al Quaeda as terroristmurderers for the same sort of NPOV reasons.
Most Wikipedians are not telepathic and, without active canvassing, it's only a small minority of editors that will ever comment on an article's talk page. That's one reason that Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy and it is the arguments themselves that are important rather than counting heads. I know that's very difficult for most westerners to understand, but it's something very easy to understand in Asia.
You take a different view, even although there is discussion on the article's talk page that explains a view that runs counter to your own. I'm not vehement about this which is why I've commented as I have done there. Please make your points on the article's discussion page rather than here - that way your rationale (and mine, if I choose to contribute) will be available for subsequent editors to assess. The magic of Wikipedia is that it has developed mechanisms so that editors of all persuasions (and none) should be able to work together collegially. Alice.S 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Working together collegially does not include making controversial changes without discussion. It also does not include using the words "ignorant" and "bimbo" or accusing others of these presumptions. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look Robert, we're in substantial agreement here that you didn't mean to offend me (and I certainly didn't mean to offend you) so let's give it a rest, eh?
Both you and I were wrong in being bold and changing the Infobox description without reaching a consensus. Now let's concentrate on the article's discussion page in proposing mechanisms for reducing to-ing and fro-ing in this infobox so we can reach a stable, good article...
PS: I did enjoy the Japanese motorcycle article you pointed to! Alice.S 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Alice.S, I never care what people call me, so it's completely up to you. I usually try to call people by their entire username unless they ask me to do otherwise (not that I'm suggesting this for others, it just what I do out of fear of accidentally insulting someone). Cheers, Pdbailey (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call you Paul then (email me privately if it's really Peter or Patrick or Parthenon or whatever - I promise to respect the confidence. I have a mental image of a tweed jacketed, pipe-smoking Irishman originally from the Scottish lowlands that is ultra-reliable and patient - but that's just because of one of my tutors - cheeky grin).
I prefer to be simply called Alice. Thanks for giving me lots to think about in our discussions! Alice.S 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing Alice. I'll answer your question about the "red link bot" de facto here because it's less apropos to the article. Sadly, there is no red link bot that fixes them and makes everything all nice in the way you described (and I would argue that we don't want one because red links are good in a sense). But if you set up a redirect then it is seamless (i.e. try this link to Robert Zimmerman). Now try clicking on the link after "Redirected from ..." where you can edit the Robert Zimmerman page. Right now, it's just a redirect to Bob Dylan. Now, as far as I know, a bot would come along and fix that link to Robert Zimmerman were it in the article space (and not in the user space where the bot might not roam).
Back in the de facto* world, this means that de facto, de jure and the other one that I couldn't spell without looking at it all could redirect to one article transparently, saving many a neophyte the trouble of making a red link or having to look up the real article.
Since you appear to like to know about Wikipedia's clock works, I'll point out that sometimes people link to disambiguation pages, which probably isn't what the intended. These are all flagged and one can help by going through and fixing them to the author's intention, and many editors do (helpfully) spend time fixing these. Pdbailey (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* italicized because it's a word as a word ;)
I do appreciate the time and careful way you have explained this to me. It's much appreciated, Paul.
Where is the list of links awaiting disambiguation to be found, please? Alice.S 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Wikipedia amazing! If there's ever insufficient work to do with the 120 articles I currently have on my watchlist I know where to look. Thanks again for being so helpful and informative, it's really appreciated! Alice.S 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You could also fix the one on this page. Hint: it's in italics against wikipedia's type setting rules (as defined by you). ;) Pdbailey23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, there is a wikilink on this my talk page (written by me I guess) that points to a disambiguation page instead of to a Wikipedia page or redirect and it is in italic script? I can't see it but are you saying that there is some page I could go to or tool I could use to find it, Paul?
If you're talking about in extremis then I'm happy with the explanation given at the top of the disambiguation page for in extremis (and I personally use a different rule for italicization than that followed by our encyclopaedic articles). I'd still like to know if there is a tool or page to find these for a particular page, though... Alice.S 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was talking about. You're right that there is a dictionary entry there and no encyclopedia article that you might want to link to. I'm not sure what to say about that, it's a bit ugly (not what you did, the page and how it disambigs). Pdbailey (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a relief, I can stop worrying that my growing reputation as a pedantic little minx is safe. I assume that there is no tool or page I can use to check out a page that you know about. Have you voted in the ArbCom elections yet? Alice.S 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's just possible that you are not feigning ignorance here, Paul, so I will say that many editors view the Arbitration Committee as a court of last resort (and some, misguidedly, as a court of first instance ); it sees itself rather differently. Elections are useful for trying to ensure that the electorate views ArbCom's decisions as having the stamp of legitimacy: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. (PS: I'm still cogitating on your merge query). Alice✉ 07:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Possible, but not the case. I generally pay no attention to the rules until I get smacked on the hand for not doing so. BTW, you probably have more edits than twice the number of edits I do (or about 95% of wikipedia editors), so I would suggest getting used to knowing more than most people you run across. PS, thanks for the update on the cognition. Pdbailey (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's very sweet of you and makes a pleasant change from some of the comments that have been left in my "P section". I must admit I trembled a bit before I dared tickle the lead since I know diddly squat about the subject matter. Thanks for giving my spirits a boost! Alice.S 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this is exactly what the article needs: The editor which is sufficiently separated from the - too often - very pointed discussions. Nice work. --Whiskey (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Whiskey! Passion is important as a motivator to drive the quest for better sources but it can hinder presenting a balanced distillation of historical research sometimes. I suppose you've had the sort of "White Christmas" that is popular on many Christmas Cards in Singapore still? We have our own rivalry with Hong Kong but of course it does not have the same degree of historical venom that is obviously present inside some of the editors regularly contributing to some articles focussed on your region. Alice✉ 12:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm brand new here as you probably realised. Does that mean that the shortcut [[WP:WHY]] may change in future? Alice.S 11:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It may change but probably won't... the main reason you should redirect to the article directly is because MediaWiki won't finish the redirect wholly and will just halt at WP:WHY... which isn't the aim of a redirect (because then you'd have to click it manually to get to the main page). -- Mentifisto12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to explain that to me - it's much appreciated. (I have gone back to other 2 re-directs I created and, I hope, done the job properly now.Alice.S 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Folks were very welcoming to me when I first started 10 weeks ago and their welcome is archived.
More than 80% of the bulk of this page is taken up with the "P Section" but I am unable to archive that until the situation is resolved - hopefully next year in 2008. Alice.S 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective that's a bit like asking the Polish Government on 17 September 1939: "Why is it you keep getting into conflict with your neighbours?".
Obviously I have my opinion, but it might be better if you form your own by reading my "P Section". Thanks for your interest! Alice.S 13:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: The contents of the "P Section" have now been archived to here [3]. Alice✉ 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome :-D Hopefully we can get the Singapore Airlines right and make it a great article and balancing veiled and explicit views of editors in the process! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit! Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? What's your favourite airline if you're flying economy ?Alice.S 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.
Especially when you are not dealing with some pimply teenager that can not take a hint. Why not ask Edward nicely first if you do not wish to receive communications from him? Alice.S 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Edward is passionate about Wikipedia. He has a stack of intellectual effort invested in it. Admins should only block serious contributors as a last (and not a first) response. Alice.S 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In my mind, disrupting an open election through a smear campaign is a serious matter - especially if the perpetrator has been asked to stop, and has refused. >Radiant<22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're assuming too much again. If you had bothered to read what is on the top of this talk page, you would be able to work out that I believe it's more difficult to have a dialogue when people are talking in separate rooms.
You may well have been privy to information that I wasn't but I just reacted to what I thought I saw. A rather veiled warning to Edward followed by a block a few minutes later. I'm probably getting a warped view of things but I see too many examples of lazy admins (not that I'm necessarily putting you in that category) who can't be bothered to attempt to engage a (possibly) problematic user in dialogue before reaching for the block button. I must admit that I'm not impressed by you removing the thread from your own user page so quickly and then suggesting that I'm "unwilling to respond".
Now I'm going away for a few days so I'd suggest a period of sober reflection to ascertain what you want from me before appearing on my talk page again - to swat me round the ear or to persuade me that I was in error. If the latter, then I'd very much welcome the courtesy of a considered reply (since I don't perceive any urgency about the situation now) rather than (what still appears to me as) a precipitate response.
By the way, I do like both the idea and execution of your "quilt". Alice.S 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me that if you disagree with a block on somebody, you should address the issue at hand, rather than copy/paste a bit of a policy page. I am aware that people shouldn't be blocked lightly; if you believe that I have acted too hastily, it is far more helpful to explain why you think so, rather than reiterate that blocks are a last resort. For what it's worth, after investigation by a few other admins, Dbuckner has now been indefinitely blocked. >Radiant<00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, Radiant. I headlined a relevant ArbCom page, not a policy page and I've already outlined precisely why I thought the block was inflammatory and wrong. I note that you've not commented on why you remove uncomfortable posts from your talk page. Alice✉
Personally, I think Edward went about things the wrong way (I voted for FT2). It might have been better if he had raised his concerns about bad publicity for Wikipedia with the ArbCom secret mailing list or the Foundation in confidence first. Equally, he may actually have done that and felt his concerns were not being timeously addressed or he may just have felt that confidential mailing was an underhand way of going about things. I don't know the guy, but from his postings he seems to be concerned with ethics. Whatever the sequence of events I do think it sad that things had to come to this. Anyway I do hope we can agree to disagree on some issues without rancour or grudges. Alice.S10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to have ONE article, entitled "When law and common practice differ"
with three main headings of de facto, de jure and desuetude
to change the current three separate eponymous articles to redirects to the relevant sections?
Would there be any technical difficulties with having redirects to sections rather than the whole (new) article? If there weren't, that would overcome my neophyte argument, but I must confess I'm still not clear on the advantages (as opposed to the lack of drawbacks) of such a merger, Paul... Alice✉ 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was kind of hoping you would say you were still strongly against it and then I would drop it. But, it comes down to a view of this beast (Wikipedia) as an encyclopedia and a few things I've noticed:
More articles on the same topic leads to a few that are way below par and a maybe one great one that is even well maintained. Why not have all the below par ones in the great one as subsections and let them get lots of attention?
Many times when I look something up, I find just one of the many possible articles and it can take months for me to find either the good one or even years to find all the bad ones to redirect.
But again, I fear it's just my view of Wikipedia and that I'm not right to impose it. So since you considered this most I thought I would ask you where you stand. I'm fine with all of the above, and it will all work great as you hope. Pdbailey (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have given me some new perspectives to think about and deepened my respect for you, Paul.
Now you have given me a positive (editor pedagogic) rationale for making the merge.
However, may I ask you to explicitly answer each of my 3 numbered questions posed above. If the answer is a clear YES to the three numbered questions (and a NO to the subsequent un-numbered question) then I would support whatever you wish to do. Thanks again for explaining all of this patiently and rationally to me! Alice✉ 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You got the facts wrong my friend. The latest HDI values (2007 report) are derived based on 2005 data. People often get confused and think that the year of the hdi report is the year from which the values are derived. This similar mistake is found on the wikipedia pages of many other countries too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.236.218 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here. (Although a better place, since yours is a general point concerning the contents of the article, might have been Talk:Singapore).
Personally, I'd hate to doubt the truth of your statement. However, our encyclopedia needs verifiable sources for everything we write.
It would really help me if you could provide the source (even quicker would be an on-line source for your changes). Again, a good place to do this would be on the talk page of our article. There's some information you may find useful for that right at the bottom of my "user page" here. It would help myself and others take you more seriously if you got an account and signed your comments on talk pages.
Lastly, on talk pages, it's Wikipedia etiquette to add new sections at the bottom of the page. Just click the fourth tab from the left at the very top talk of talk pages that's marked with a "+" (plus sign). Thanks for taking the time to write a better encyclopedia! Alice✉ 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
To remove the external source is necessary because it is misleading. It basically provides the rate in the year of 2006. Plus, the inline citation already showed the sources of rank. If you want to object, write down your reason in the talk page of Singapore. Coloane (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here, Coloane. (Although a better place, since yours is a general point concerning the contents of the article, might have been Talk:Singapore).
Your comment relates to the contents of our article so should have been placed on Talk:Singapore) and not here. That way all interested parties (including you and I) can participate and reach consensus. (All articles I edit, including their discussion pages, are automatically added to my WP:Watchlist).
Your editremoved the relevant inline citation placed by Huaiwei but left the claim: "It (Singapore) was rated as the world's best airport in 2006 by Skytrax". That may not be what you intended, but if you actually examine your edit that's what it did, Coloane! And you are also running perilously close to being in breach of WP:3RR. Alice✉ 09:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you've been celebrating with the traditional barbecue and crate of cold beer? I dream of coming to visit your beautiful locality one of these days ... Alice✉ 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish I were the author, who I believe may be user "Splaka" at Uncyclopedia. Thanks for dropping by and saying friendly things (and for joining the "bouncers' club")! Alice✉ 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As to your second opinion, then I have no strong feelings one way or the other but Talk:Singapore Airlines is a better forum to discuss the contents of the article than my talk page.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to raise both these issues and I hope you will forgive the impertinence of taking the discussion there? Alice✉ 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you changed WP:BIO to say that diplomats do not have inherent notability. Disregarding my opinion on this topic, can you point to a discussion or general consensus for this edit? It seems to me to be rather unilateral and unconstructive. Thanks --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thomas, nice to have you drop by.
I assume you are talking about this edit of mine: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29&diff=prev&oldid=180540586 where I added the text I have italicized for emphasis: "**Simply being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons aside from his/her diplomatic career and few appointments will not have been noted in independent, reliable sources. However, many career diplomats strive to maintain a relatively low profile and this may mean fewer reports than might otherwise be expected for international officials of similar seniority.
If that's the edit you're talking about then it was certainly not my intention to reinforce the view that ambassadors do not have inherent notability.
The source for this was the discussion on the article's talk page together with the Article for deletion discussion on a newly appointed Australian ambassador to Zimbabwe: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_John_Hodgson where my contributions were signed under my previous user name of "Alice.S".
My view point is that almost all ambassadors merit their own article on Wikipedia since they are almost all plenipotentiaries and, as such, represent their head of state in the country of their accreditation.
The talk page discussion made the valid point that notability does not equate to either being important nor does it equate to being high profile - it merely means that there exist independent authoritative sources for verification and on that test it would be a very rare ambassador indeed that did not pass this low threshold notability test. Please note that not all diplomats are of ambassador status, though...Alice✉ 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
They were wrong to do that, but I apologise if my language was so opaque that it caused the misunderstanding. If you can point me towards where this misunderstanding is occurring then I will attempt to put the record straight, Thomas. Alice✉ 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your not objecting to my replacement of your text with what I'd been working on off-wiki. I also appreciate all the tweaking you've done to the text I placed. I didn't feel it was quite ready, but when I saw a stub had been placed, I decided to go ahead and add my off-wiki work. Bellwether BC (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC) ;)[reply]
No problem, BBC; nice to have your school on board! Alice✉ 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not "running amok deleting stuff" without reason. The presentation of the material on the capital page is lopsided and uncited, and has been the case for many months. Death penalty is a serious issue and any material on it should be backed up with credible sources. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have a valid rationale. However, unless you make your motivation clear (either in edit summaries or, better still, on the discussion page of the article beforehand), you can understand that folks may be puzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzled.
As a first class lawyer, you will also appreciate the distinction that many folks have edited and deleted material (both sourced and un-sourced) from Capital punishment in Singapore and my edit summary was not specifically targeted against your good self. I assume that you were going to go back and source the material that you removed at a later time but some may have thought that a neater way to proceed would have been to either tag or remark out the un-cited stuff and then allow a reasonable period for someone (even your good self) to format the citations. As a lawyer, I think you know that very little of the stuff you removed was completely without foundation in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
Anyway, nice of you to take the trouble to clarify your concerns and I hope to see you making a reasonable précis of some of the applicable legislation very shortly and killing some of those glaring red links. A prosperous New Year to you (whenever you celebrate it)! Alice✉ 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alice! But frankly I have better things to do than to read through that tripe! I'll just leave it for the two of them to... fight it out ;-P Have a Happy New Year 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elise Primavera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the kind words but it was really only serendipitous that I created and made the first few edits on the article; the heavy lifting was done by Bellwether BC, Risker and Alansohn. Alice✉ 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To improve our Encyclopedia for our readers by restoring the citations you keep removing and fixing the redlinks and mis-spellings you keep reverting to. You are really incorrigible.Alice✉
I'm sorry, Spartaz, but I am genuinely puzzled. My clear intention and actual edits (as clarified in my AN3 riposte to Perspicacite) was not to remove anything at all (other than a spelling mistake), but rather to restore a WP:BLP citation.
Please would you be kind enough to specify the information that I removed from the article "4 times" so that I can understand and agree with my block rather than regard it as a mistake on your part (understandable - P does make a cunningly contrived case). Alice✉ 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You removed the following phrase from the very start of the article 4 times In 1989 he pleaded guilty to evading income taxes in 1984.. None of your edits specified BLP concerns. If you think I made a mistake you can use the unblock template (as I pointed out yesterday) and another admin will come along and review the block. SpartazHumbug!08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|your reason here}} I should have pointed out the unblock template should you wish to appeal the block.
We never had any prior interaction with each other as far as I know, but your comments and support in regards to my getting unbanned showed genuine thoughtfulness and integrity. You had/have your suspicions about whether I can really behave myself on this go round -- or at least not be so combative and china breaking -- but I will make a genuine effort. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and I will just walk away instead of resorting to my old ways. But again thanks very much for your time and efforts. You and Haemo helped push away -- at least temporarily -- much of my cynicism regarding Wikipedia editing, and other admins should look at the responsible, on point, logical and fair conduct the both of you displayed as something to emulate and strive for. Hopefully I won't be giving you any reason to regret this later. Take care. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alice. I plan to allow the dust to settle on Finnish matters for a few weeks. But, I will come back to them in due course. regards. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to get more pleasure from observing other people's edit history, I would suggest that you had better spend more time on improving the article Singapore, or countries from Sacanadivian areas. I am not very interested in talking with you although you are attractive, beautiful as you claimed. Good Luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloane (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally I encounter editors who are not vandals, but whose consistent behaviour patterns (as exhibited by the historical record of their past edits across several articles) are problematic for other editors and, often because of that, for our encyclopedia. You seem to be one - User:Perspicacite and User:Corticopia are others.
I'm not aware of ever making any comment (or "claim") as to my attractiveness or beauty (or lack of either). Can you e-mail me some diffs? Alice✉ 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess you haven't, Paul. I might take a long break myself the way things are going. Perspicacite managed to engineer a block on me by lying through his teeth. Not good!
Alice, I think I've known you for most of your time here and very much enjoy reading your talk page, if you don't mind, can I ask you a question? (if you do mind, I guess you have to skip the next sentence.) What do you think you spend most of your time here doing? There are lots of ways you could take that, and I leave the question intentionally vague. Pdbailey (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you supply diffs for your second accusaton re Domer, regarding a WP:COI or retract your comments. I have asked you not to make them as they are unhelpful especially on artcles relating to the Troubles. For an editor who is cagey about there own privacy as seen by your, about you, section on your user page you are quick to throw out unsubstantiated accusations BigDunc (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not accusations, they are my personal observations followed by pertinent (unanswered) questions - and they apply equally to you. And, of course, like Domer48, you are at liberty to continue to ignore both my questions and my observations. Editors are entitled to keep their personal details secret. They are not entitled to ignore our rules on conflicts of interest. This is exactly what I wrote (italicized because it's quoting my previous writing):
In this section, I can understand the contributions and rationale of Bastun, Damac, R. fiend, and Scolaire (listed in alphabetical order) but I am getting increasingly perplexed as to why BigDunc and Domer48 seem so resistant to any and every argument and cling like grim death to the exact (and, admittedly minority point of view) stance of a single non-historian."
The only other time I have seen such obduracy on Wikipedia has been when there was a conflict of interest between the partisan aims of a particular team of edit warriors and those of our Encyclopedia in presenting a balanced and unbiased summary. If you do have a particular interest (such as working for a book publisher or being aligned with a particular political party) I think that now would be a good time to declare it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been affiliated to, a member of, a candidate for or donated to any political party or movement whatever and I have never been an employee of, a voluntary distributor for, had close connections with any book publisher, newspaper or magazine whatever. Are you able to say the same, BigDunc?
And before you ask, you are not obliged to answer those questions; you are obliged to read WP:COI and conform with the guidance therein.
Any pile-on comments from you or your fellow-travellers will be expunged.
I have edited on other controversial articles such as Scientology and North Korea but I do deprecate the way you ganged up on former admin R. fiend and because of that unprincipled and nitpicking and argumentative stand I want nothing more to do with you or your kind since, rightly or wrongly, (fromreadingmany of yourformeredits) I have formed the opinion that you seem principally concerned to justify and excuse acts of violence and edit war with those editors who seek to introduce balancing points of view and sources. Alice✉
I can answer no I haven't to all of your questions and regarding the diffs that you have supplied, are any of these edits against wikipedia policy, if so would you not revert them and report me to an admin. Also half of these diffs are in response to an editor who under the The Troubles arbcom case has had his second months probation for edit warring. I have never been blocked for anything since I started editing wikipedia. And I would like to know how you feel I ganged up on an admin who admits to editng while high and drunk and has resigned his admin powers due to his misuse of same. BigDunc (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have misjudged you, then you have my unreserved apology.
It was certainly helpful that you have answered - voluntarily - my questions unequivocally.
If Domer48 does the same then that would certainly clear the air.
As regards R. fiend, then I think that the comment he left on the Talk:Easter Rising page today was helpful and I may re-consider my position.
At the end of the day my opinions count for little, but I do still feel that the mechanisms of WP are currently excessively vulnerable to gangs of editors with a harmonised political or religious viewpoint and a zealot outlook.
Thanks for giving me pause for further reflection and perhaps I was a bit harsh in my comments above. Alice✉ 10:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted but in my humble opinion NO editors opinion count for little that is what makes wikipedia such a great project is that every ones opinions can be aired and discussed to make this a great encyclopedia. Also Domers silence in no way means that he has a WP:COI, it is up to him to reply if he wants. BigDunc (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alice! You are of course right. But please remember - many times an editor is just making changes to a specific section and, unwillingly, may link something already linked above. It is not on purpose. Of course editors should be carefull, but please be understanding. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Afternoon, The Ogre. Thanks for taking the trouble to visit my talk page.
I do understand the problem and I think you've correctly identified one of the reasons for overlinking. I can see from your contributions that you're an excellent editor and I'm sorry if my edit summary came overs as a bit exasperated or short-tempered.
Here's the explanation for the Template:Clear - I used it in this case for better visual appearance on Linux and XP machines so the right-aligned image in the (rather short) lead does not "foul" the following "see also" section - but I also often use it so it is clearer which are the appropriate "edit" buttons for particular sections. Alice✉ 08:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
