User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 5

This is an archive from 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC). Leave new messages at my talk page.

The history of this archive begins at this diff and ends at this diff.

Copyright issue

Oh right, ok, thanks for your help. I wont make that mistake again. Skaterblo

Templates

Hello I see that there is alot of schools that are not using the right template. I was thinking of notifying them of the things they are doing wrong or should I just stay away. If I do I will post the following in the schools talk page.

Just wanted to make a point the templates that you are using for you school needs to be changed. You need to use a templates from Template:Infobox School. You can also look atWikipedia:WikiProject Schools. John R G 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Vermette

I was sorry to learn of your great-uncle's death. Are you fairly well-versed in his art? If so, I am friends with the fellow who writes the Info STM pages for Métro newspaper; he has a series on metro artists, and I know he'd like to do one on Claude Vermette. Can I put him in contact with you? - Montréalais 04:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC), webmaster, metrodemontreal.com[reply]

Oh, my, that *is an anomalous situation. It was on the Info STM page in Métro this past Tuesday: [1]. Montréalais 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only to the extent that he might want to do an article in a hurry after this announcement. I'll pass you on to him. Could you e-mail me (address on my user page)? - Montréalais 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox School II

Something isnt right with this site I think you need to take a look at it. The template is incomplete. Template:Infobox School II I hope you can fix it. John R G 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starving the troll

Consider not feeding the troll...

I see your efforts are productive... ;-) --Serge 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind map spam

Bravo on the Mind map spam cleanup! It's a dirty job, but ... -- Mwanner | Talk 22:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was even fairly liberal with what I left, so mayhap it could use another review and cleanup with fresh eyes in a little while... — Saxifrage ✎ 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Children

Thanks for continuing to refine the article; I've made some additions recently, and I notice that you are very good at polishing things up!

One note: Under references, I see "Schoo McKenzie" instead of "Scott McKenzie." Couldn't figure out how to correct it.Founders4 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Think I got it. Could you explain, please, how these footnotes work? Might help my future editing efforts.Founders4 10:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelliworks

Thank you for pointing out that I cant vote again on the deletion discussion at Intelliworks I have removed my second vote and added the comments to my previous vote. Thank you once again. In defence of my contribution of this article, I would like to point out that:

Every competitor of Intelliworks has a wikipedia article. Some trivial like Talisma_CRM.
I have made efforts to make this article NPOV, however I have not been very communicative. Could you help so as not to end up removing this article all together?

Thanks. Honeyuee 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of NPOV, more a matter of Intelliworks not being an important enough company to have an article. The guideline for notability of companies is at Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Note too, that Talisma CRM does not satisfy those requirements either, and the article will likely be deleted too. There are literally hundreds of millions of companies out there, and very few are actually significant enough that anyone is actually going to look them up in an encyclopdedia. SAP and Oracle are such companies, so you can see that the bar is set rather high. — Saxifrage ✎ 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification.

Intelliworks was profiled by The Washington Post. Full version of the article can be found here, and this is the link to The Washington Post's Archive search result.
CRM Blog profiled Intelliworks as recently as May 11.

Doesnt these satisfies WP:CORP criteria no. 1 - Honeyuee 09:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Criterion #1 of WP:CORP requires that there be multiple, non-trivial, and independent published works. Blogs are not reliable sources as required by our Verifiability policies, making them inherently trivial and potentially non-indenpendent (because we have no way of assuring our readers that it's unaffiliated). The Post piece isn't an article so much as it's a profile: an inherently trivial piece of coverage by journalistic standards. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism and God Hating

I did not mean to offend you either. You see, Hard Shell Calvinism teaches that God loves some people and saves them through no good dead of their own and hates other and makes them partakers of wrath, for his good pleasure. So, when Alienus said I have a good sense of humor -- thats how I deal with God hating me, I said "If God hates you, you must be a Calvinist". Thats all, it was just a joke! --Anon 64 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mr Anon 64, I have to thank you for teaching me a lesson I'd evidently forgotten, or at least needed to learn in a new way. I was failing to assume good faith in a spectacular way and made a bull in a china shop of myself. I'm sorry for that. And, thank you for your patience—despite my poorly-advised beligerence, you (and Al) were patient with me, civil, and scrupulously avoided making the situation worse. Two ways of learning are from our own mistakes and from the example of others, and you've allowed me to benefit from both sorts of lessons this week. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A gracious apology. I probably was a little bit less polite than usual because at EXACTLY the same time I was also dealing with another Wikipedian on another issue, who, in the name of all things good and pure (his intentions were good) was injuring me, unknowingly and would not stop. It had worn my patience a bit thin, so if I was offensive in anyway, please forgive me too! --Anon 64 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly much more restrained than my words, so forgiveness is easy. Thanks for accepting! — Saxifrage ✎ 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 64, don't be fooled. Saxifrage is not sincere, all he cares about is forcing his opinions down other people's throats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.56.137 (talk • contribs) .

I do not feel fooled but I do assume good faith, particularly when I see no good reason to doubt it. I think Saxifrage is trying to make Wikipedia better. Try to open your heart! --Anon 64 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's just my non-linear troll, and can safely be ignored. He's wacky. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 64, You will believe that he is trying to make it better until your ideas conflict with his. Then he will seem to make Wikipedia worse. My heart is always open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. Savifrage, on the other hand is a stubborn fool who will never consider your point of view. You might not feel fooled now, but just wait. Sooner or later, you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.0.181 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the warning. But I feel inclined to 1) keep an open mind and 2) assume good faith. That goes for you as well, though I have to admit, I wonder a bit about someone who salts wells while using different IP addresses.--Anon 64 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While some people claim to stop doing what they know is wrong, people inevitably return to their old and known habits. This is an undeniable fact. Go read the archive parts of saxifrage's talk page and read for yourself. He has earned enmity from many people who have been abused by his undeserved and abusive authority. Having an open mind is a good thing on paper. In practice, it often becomes an unwillingness to accept an undeniable truth. Saxifrage has so far treated you well and that is also a good thing. To have a real open mind requires the awareness to expect probable possibilities. Do not be Saxifrage's friend, do not trust him. Do not expect him to make decisions in your favor, or you will suffer the consequences. As for my differing ip addresses, this is necessary. I am saxifrage's enemy. To reveal yourself to your enemy is a tactical mistake.

For whosoever contaminates another man's blood will have his own blood contaminated. Saxifrage, you are on your way out. Eternal condemnation is yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.3.86 (talk • contribs) .

divs and spans

I've reverted back to spans for now, but we need some systematic solution for this. The only sane way to extract the intro of an article is to get starting <p>s until the first heading. So anything that goes before the start of the intro should be in other elements than <p>. This works on the vast majority of articles, as almost all top-of-page templates are in <div>s or in <dl>s. One solution would be to put this template lower in articles, but that's too dependent on too many people following the suggestion. A better solution would be to use the template that inserts spans as a meta-template only, and construct a different one for the use in articles which would insert a div around it. Zocky | picture popups 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning rod

You seem to be quite the lightning rod. —D-Rock 12:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not free of blame for that. I've found that the need to work with other editors well at Wikipedia has taught me much about toning my argumentative tendencies down. Still, those tendencies are there.

With that particular troll (and thank you for reverting his vandalism; much appreciated), they have no interest in the project so I've felt safe in engaging with them. However, now that I think about it and it seems like it has no end, I really shouldn't be using up Wikipedia's resources for my own amusement. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strip games

Hey, thanks for copyediting new article Strip games, excellent job! My incentive for this article, was the AfD article Strip chess; whether strip chess is indeed deserving of its own article is questionable in my mind too, but undoubtedly, there are a lot of strip variants of traditional games going around, and that phenomenon is certainly encyclopedic. You may have noticed that I incorporated some text from Strip chess verbatim; those parts that I didn't "adapt" are the ones that you rewrote for me. Thanks! (Patrick 02:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Attested

Geez, I've got a degree in English from Harvard, have written 18 books, have a whole office full of dictionaries, etc., and have never *heard* of the damn word in that sense! So, I've gotta agree with you -- it's not one that should be used in a Wiki article about a general-purpose word. Cheers! Hayford Peirce 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Langdon

Saxifrage: Thank you for understanding. I'm very new at this and right now am doing the work of three other people who are away from the office, so please bear with me. It took me three tries (like 15 minutes!!!) before I could even make my way to your talk page here - hope it's the right way to get in touch and doesn't wind up in a public forum someplace. Anyways, thank you so very much for the guidance. I'm trying. - Mike

Saxifrage: I can't even find (or use?) your "pencil". Is that the little square between the brackets * ?? NOTHING happens when I click on it. The way I am writing this to you is by "editing" my last message, and I know that isn't right. First I click your talk page, then the discussion page, but there's no window to leave a message, so I go back to the talk page.Then I click the discussion page again. It's very much like a revolving door for a hotel that's closed. I bet THIS message doesn't even reach you! But at least you know I'm trying!! (VERY! Right?!!) Thanks for your patience. Communications weren't my forte in high school, but I was GREAT at P.E. :) - Mike D.

Arbitration?

Arbitration was rejected in the past because all parties did not agree to arbitration. I have no reason to believe there will be agreement this time around... --Serge 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was confusing mediation with arbitration. Sure, let's try it. --Serge 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to start it. Now it looks like he is using Hannatk. --Serge 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mindmanager

I think my edition was correct and should be there. There are a lot of other software articles that, in the end of the article mention alternatives to that software.

Also this "claims the product is used by 60% of the Fortune top 100." sounds like advertising, and it's still on the article. I think my edit is useful. --Licurgo 04:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Pictures

I have been trying to upload pictures but just havent figured it out yet. So I would like your help but dont do it for me just tell me how. I want to upload an image from the following site. http://www.wshl.org/ The image is in the upper left hand corner. If you would tell me how I would appreciate it. If I cannot do it tell me of a site where I can so I can practice. Thank you. John R G 06:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have it figured out if you want you can look at the sites. World Hockey Association (proposed) and Western States Hockey League and see how I did. Again thank you. John R G 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see there are two leagues World Hockey Association which was active from 1972 to 1979. Now there is a new league with the same name World Hockey Association (proposed) why they have the proposed part there I do not know. I have thought of changing the title World Hockey Association (proposed) to something else but with my luck someone would object. I think that World Hockey Association WHA would sound better. John R G 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Img school.gif I may have done something wrong here. John R G 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just found out that the World Hockey Association (proposed) was redirected from New World Hockey Association (redirect page) and World Hockey Association (2005-) (redirect page). Im going to change the title to something else but I have to figure out what to name the new league probably World Hockey Association WHA but I will need some support. John R G 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Technology Deletion

Thank you for the help and insight. As a reletively new user/editor, I appreciate your suggestions and will strive to make sure to follow the 'rules of the road'. Thanks again! --Bschott 00:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Saxifrage, I guess the unsigned message above is from Bschott (guess he's pretty new).

Please don't badmouth other editors at my Talk page. It's not productive. I realise this is a very small badmouthing and some might feel I'm overreacting, but you've been harping on his supposed newness in every interaction I've seen between you and it's uncalled for. Besides which, you are demonstrably unfamiliar with Wikipedia as much as he, if not moreso. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've went over WP:AUTO once again - why did you think his realtion to the company is irrelavent?

If Bschott is from the company or dependent on the company it is strongly discouraged to contribute to the stub:

This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself.

StanMan 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sax, I will reply to him on his talk page. If I had know he would follow me over here, I wouldn't have posted here and would have instead sent you an email. My appology. --Bschott 00:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need! Talk pages are animated and active places, and I think it's well that they are. He came here regarding my comment to him on the delete discussion page, so he's not so much following you as much as reacting to me involving myself. That he ill-advisedly chose to take a swipe at you in the message to me, and that it was necessary for me to call him on behaviour that Wikipedia frowns on, is no fault of yours. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxifrage, I trust that if your messages would have been deleted you would have felt the same.

In regard to your point - I've tried to find where does it shows that working in the company is not relevant to the deletion discussion. Where can I find it? StanMan 01:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I called him down for removing it as well, but I also have a more nuanced understanding of what's out of line and what isn't so I stopped when I saw that it wasn't going to be a problem. So, call that done!

As for the deletion issue, you won't find it anywhere in the deletion policy because bias isn't relevant to the deletion process, so it's not mentioned. The only reason to delete an article is if its subject doens't belong in the encyclopedia in the first place, not based on what the article says. If the article says unacceptable stuff, then the solution is to fix or wholly rewrite the article rather than delete it. After all, if a subject is truly significant enough then Wikipedia will need to cover it somehow eventually, and deleting it is just counter-productive to that end. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxifrage - I have made changes to the Alien Technology page. Since I know you are unbiased here, would you be willing to check the page and make any corrections as you see fit?--Bschott 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamory

Hi, you asked about the edits on Polyamory. Well, it is relatively minor, and we can revert if you think it is important. The first edit, it the point seemed to be in giving the definition of Polyamory, and it used a quote from the alt.polyamory FAQ. I felt that the important point here was to give the definition, and to rmain true to the quote, since it was a direct quote. So, I went to the source to check the quote, and quoted it. I didn't see how the "2). What's polyamory, then? - :(Glad you asked that. ;-) )" portion added to clarifying the definition at all. SO I tried to trim it to the essentials of the quote.

The second edit was pretty much the same thing, but was a little more complex. First in the quote from Morning Glory Zell Ravenheart on their page at "http://www.mithrilstar.org/Polyamory FAQ-Ravenhearts.htm" it was not stated in that order. Secondly, the portion about swingers is contrasting, and does not agree. In the quote on her page it said (which is quoted in the wii article "The two essential ingredients of the concept of “polyamory” are “more than one;” and “loving.” That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, “cheating,” serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as “mate-swapping” parties."

Essentially, it seemed to be saying that they did not consider the ending list of things that were merely casual recreational sex to be part of Polyamory. In my experience (I know ...anecdotal is of little value) our organization pretty much does not see eye to eye with swingers, and we have few to no swingers in our organization as they pretty much have different values." Regardless of my experience, the sentence that I cut, which talks about swinging, not about the articles point, Polyamory, " Since this section was about defining polyamory, I didn't see how the paragraph about swinging was really relavent. In fact since it seems to say that they think swingers may be polyamorous, it is confusing. I guess the deciding facot for me was that the paragraph did not seem to add to the whole in helping to paint a definition of how Polyamorous people defined themselves.

If this doesn't make sense to you, please feel free to revert, or edit to your liking.

Best Regards, Atom 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should get weary more often

Good show that, opening a "second front". You're doing a better job than I was. —Tamfang 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

message from fused

Fused 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) - Sax - while I can certainly understand the perspective for the Fused Solutions article, I'm simply trying to establish a global presence from an informative perspective. As an private company, we don't have the luxuary of public financial reports to establish credibility. I posted this as a "starter" in hopes that our user community will contribute to it with non-biased information. Regarding the posting for KnowPlex ... I fail to see how this different from SugarCRM other than the fact that the Sugar article may not have been authored by a SugarCRM employee ... or least not that you easily tell. The Fused Solutions article was really there just for a reference for the KnowPlex article. I'm trying to outright advertise and I am trying to follow the guide lines and linking back to as much of the exiting wiki content as possible regarding topies and other keywords.[reply]

Please advise ... if they have to have to be taken down, then I will accept that as I want to be a valuable member of the wiki community.

Much ado about nothing?

Hi! I left a message on the FTP article's Talk page asking about the 0 in the RFC's title. I never knew that we could all be so contentious about literally nothing! :) --ElKevbo 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]