User talk:Texture/Archive-2004 July

The Alternate Asphygmo-Pyramidal Syndrome

I listed it on Cleanup and Excellsior told me that it didn't belong there because it was perfect. He then removed the cleanup header, which I promptly replaced. I discovered last night that he had deleted the header again and still hadn't done any cleanup, so I re-added the header, told him to knock it off, and re-listed it on Cleanup. RickK 05:11, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Maharaji, not vandalism but correcting one sided POV

Texture, with regards to Maharaji, I think you made a mistake when you reverted a change that you labelled as vandalism [1] The "vandal"/contributor just wanted to correct very one sided POV. Please be more careful with this article next time. I am involved in a dispute with user USER:Jossifresco about factual accuracy and NPOV on this article. Andries 15:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by anon IP 24.69.61.197 that removed what appeared to be a valid link relevant to the article. No reason was given by the anon IP for the removal. I see that it is now being discussed on the talk page. - Tεxτurε 22:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yes, now I see that you were right. The external link is, I think very insulting and unfair but should be included. The article is the most difficult and contentious one in Wikipedia that I edited until now. Andries 18:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please HELP

I need your help.... On the maharaji page, anti-religion, anti-guru, skeptics and vociferous ex-followers are coluding to impose their POV. Some are accusing me and using vituperation and threats against me. One Wikipedian (Andries) is braging to the ex-followers that he can get me removed from Wikipedia. I need someone that can bring some truthful NPOV. Please? --jossi 16:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do for this article. I am not familiar with the subject matter and can only help when I see obvious vandalism or bias. Most of the activity I see in the history can be argued as factual. This needs to be hammered out in the talk page. - Tεxτurε 14:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

regarding User:24.66.94.140

Hi there. I'm not sure how serious you were about blocking 24.66.94.140 (you left a warning on their user page), but they have vandalised another article (Needles, California, check history as I have reverted it). -Frazzydee 01:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

***UPDATE***- the user continues to vandalize pages...please check their contributions page. -Frazzydee 01:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was away during the repeated vandalism. No one blocked him according to the log but he stopped after about a dozen vandalisms. He seems to come back once every few weeks to do this. - Tεxτurε 01:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Photomosaic

Actually no, although a quick look on the internet shows up at least one open source generator, and a couple of free ones - as I understand it the major issues are: 1. What to use as the pool of images to generate the mosaic from. Obviously a wide pool of images will make finding an exact tone match more likely, while a smaller pool would be more likely if you wanted related images. You can alter the tone of the images used to make them match. 2. The second major decision is what pixel size to use. Obviously, the smaller the better in terms of maintaining the quality of the original image, but consequently, the image will have to be larger to make the components visible. Let me know how you do! Feel free to blank it if you want to generate more informed comment! Mark Richards 22:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I need your input

I'm going to take a week off from re-inserting the allegations of rape and desertion into the Ronald Reagan article. I've replied to User:172 and made a request for mediation - but find there are a couple baby steps to follow through before I get there. I'm game if another finds my tone too catty and wants to edit me on that aspect. I strongly object to the content being deleted. I don't equate major newspapers to supermarket tabloids. You've commented on Talk:Ronald Reagan upon this topic. I'd appreciate additional input. Thanks - Sparky 03:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Troll

This word is utterly unhelpful, IMO, as is the concept of attempting to discern motive behind our fellow wiki's actions. This is particularly true of difficult and potentially crazy wiki's. It would be hard enough for me to attempt to discern a motive behind a given action you (a generally respected and non-erratic admin) take, much less to try and discern motivation behind an action of a troublesome and potentially crazy anon/new user. IMO troll = "person who bothers me (my friends)". I feel strongly that such "bothering" aught to be quantified and qualified, specified and penalized according to specific policy. General lack of policy enforcement (particularly regarding misbehaviours by admins) is one of the most serious problems affecting the wiki. Adding to the mayhem by allowing subjective pejoratives to be accepted as policy (Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls) is the absolute worst answer possible, IMO. I'd have put this in the project page talk, but it seemed a substantial aside. Sam [Spade] 17:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

stop what now?

I'm curious how I came to receive a message telling me to stop vandalizing entries. I've never posted any content. Maybe it's a clever way of asking a repeat user to join the project? In any case I've nothing to add, so I'll just continue to anonymously use this as a reference tool-- if it's alright with you.

Your user talk page had no entries so any message I left for another user was not intended for you. There appears to be an occassional bug where one anonymous user gets the message that was left for another IP. The only other explanation is that your current IP is not the one where you got the message. In that case you may have used a non-static IP that was used by a vandal before you. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding. - Tεxτurε 17:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text deletion: satanism page

the text i deleted (which was then restored) didn't belong in a serious article on the subject.

i realize it's better to edit rather than delete, but those short grafs couldn't be fixed with text edits. the page has a lot of proprietary action by satanists of various factions, all trying to control how things are presented. i like those guys fine, but 'jews might say x' isn't a treatment of how 'satan' appears in the judaic theological tradition. it's someone speculating and making stuff up.

An example of text that needs to be in the article somewhere are references to "The great satan" pointed at western powers by some groups. Someone looking for references to this is likely to look up "satan" for references to the use in modern society. All the paragraphs have contemporary truths (that my require edits). Can you suggest a better way to present the same information? - Tεxτurε 21:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

restoring section title, same page

could you please stop restoring things long enough for the page to be edited?

i quit, btw. this page can take care of itself.

Are you the same user I just responded to above? The idea is to discuss changes. The restored text was not merely JudeoChristan so I restored the title. If the content is removed the title can be changed as well. I am asking if you have ideas to do just that. - Tεxτurε 21:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Got your message. I am going to translate it into English. I will link it to the english version of As Good As It Gets ASAP. And if it's still going to be deleted after I link it, all my hard work of trying to translate a page into a language I don't know (German) will be gone.

-WikiFan04

If you feel it would not be completed in time add a note to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English explaining that you need more time or create a subpage under your user page to work on it, like: User:WikiFan04/So Gut Wie Es Erhält and you can move it to the article when its finished. - Tεxτurε 23:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's going to be done within the next 15-20 minutes. If I put a link to So Gut Wie Es Erhält from As Good As It Gets saying it's the German translation page, will the page be deleted from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English?

-WikiFan04

Another user indicates that it is just a machine translation of the article. Why do you think we need a german translation of an existing article in the english Wikipedia? Should you try to create this article in the German Wikipedia? - Tεxτurε 23:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: page on 'satanism'

I'm the user who did the cuts.

It can be an uphill battle trying to work on articles like that one, because they attract users with a strong emotional connection to the topic. People will jostle and elbow each other to have their points included.

I've found that articles like that can be 'tamed' by introducing lots of specific factual data and cites. Unfortunately, that takes awhile, and my style (I've posted without an account for some time) has been to work an article up in bits. See my articles on Fender Telecaster and Oceanic Whitetip Shark for examples, and check the histories.

My idea was to knock out the section on 'satanism' in various theological traditions, because it was nearly fact-free and full of speculatives, and because there isn't any such thing in Judaism, most of Islam, and indeed much of Christianity. The notion of 'satan' appeared in the Jewish tradition only for a brief period after 300 BCE, via heavy contact with the Persians and Zoroastrianism (etc). It's a bad section topic.

If you start with Zoroaster, do another thing on Judaism and Christianity, then maybe deal with Islam separately, maybe got something. But there's already an article on 'Satan' that's a better venue.

I'm really not that interested in the topic, while the other contributors are perhaps too interested. I'd vote for knocking the text out simply because it's uninformative and often wrong. It doesn't seem necessary that anything else go there.

Replied to you on my talk page. VV[[]] 20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson

I highly doubt that user was testing. The message said "she is a prostitute and she is going to hell for it." Yeah, some test. Mike H 21:31, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I try to give people benefit of the doubt when they make their first edits. Could be they didn't know their comment was being kept. The test message makes it clear next time that they have been informed how to "play" properly and direct warnings start. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...okay. Mike H 21:39, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Test

I dont understant your message, I dont make a test. I am trallating the english wiki into catalonian wiki.

80.58.40.172 21:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What article were you editing? I can't find any deletion around that time period that looks like a translation. You should probably not perform your translation inside the english wiki. Create your new article in the catalonian wiki. - Tεxτurε 22:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dick Cheney Post

Thank you for the criticism.

However, my editing was not vandalism. Rather, it was adding context for the Vice Presiden't comment. I chose not to write "mother-fucker" because this is a free encylopedia, and I thought that by changing the wording I could keep the meaning while removing unnessecary vulgarity.

Clearly, the Senator's comments were a vulgar insult, and not to be taken literally. Likewise, I do not think Cheney meant his imperative literally.

I heard nothing of Leahy's remark. Can you cite a source for this information? - Tεxτurε 14:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is true, I suggest that you not redefine the phrase as a reference to incest. The expression is merely a vulgar expletive and does not convey what the words literally mean. Leahy was using a vulgar expression and not suggesting the exact definition to Cheney. Make sense? - Tεxτurε 14:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/24.168.92.117

Hi. I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.168.92.117 (Keith Wigdor). I saw that you tried talking to this user on his talk page about his edits, and I was wondering if you'd want to certify the dispute. Quadell (talk) 17:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I was attempting to mediate and steer the user in a proper direction. (I honestly don't understand the subject matter under dispute.) You should contact Guanaco or others who have had direct interactions for certification. (I can't speak to his actions and his only comments to me were reasonably respectful.) - Tεxτurε 17:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

vfd

Hi there. It seems like you have a quick hand in putting articles up for vfd. Just to remind you, articles can be edited and you could put up a message like {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}}. I am sure people are just as willing to 'help out' an article then, as they are when you put it on vfd. Yardcock 19:45, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you are referring to. If you are responding to my summaries that say "Not a candidate for speedy deletion - please list on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if appropriate" then you are looking at the message I use when someone has listed an article for speedy deletion when it is not a valid candidate. Occassionally, I will move that article to VfD because I can see that the request has merit but it still does not qualify for speedy deletion. Does that help? - Tεxτurε 19:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am referring to several messages on your talk pages in general and the article on Mary Cheney in particular. The 'lack of NPOV' was an honest mistake by a serious wikipedia member and the article was not supposed to be an advertising.

Point out specific items on my talk page if you wish to discuss them. Mary Cheney has improved over the original. It was originally phrased as an advertisement solely supporting the one site and not addressing the individual for that person's own merit. I do not agree with rewarding any article focused on a single web site rather than the topic of the article. In my opinion, it is still not an article about Mary Cheney but rather an article about this one position she has taken that the site is against. If it remains I hope it will improve. - Tεxτurε 20:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So you are saying that by not putting an article up for deletion you are rewarding it?

It's an expression. I'll say it again. An article should not be focused on a single web site's position rather than the topic of the article. It becomes an advertisement for the website and says nothing but their viewpoint. - Tεxτurε 21:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing against it. Just cut people some slack and don't go so far as to put a page up for vfd when there are other options.

James Graham (American politician)

On another note, can you delete James Graham (American politician). The content had to be moved to James Graham Fair.

Next time you need to do that please use the "Move this page" link on the old article page so that the history of the original article is kept. I'll merge the two histories so it stays together. - Tεxτurε 21:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)