User talk:Spaceharper/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Spaceharper. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the archive for User talk:Alynna Kasmira from September 6 2006 to May 16 2007.

(There were no messages between May and September in 2006.)

I saw on your Suomi page that you have some affiliation with Gaithersburg, MD (of course, I can't read Suomi and have no idea what Tulen means). Just wanted to let you know, I'm currently living in Rockville. Mundus parvus est! --17:15, 6 Sep 2006 Ioshus ^(disp)

Hi! I'm from Gaithersburg; the text on my Finnish page reads "I am a student. I come from Gaithersburg." (Or at least I hope it does :P) --Alynna 22:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/24._September_2006#Kategorie:Wikipedian_unterst.C3.BCtzt_Lesben-_und_Schwulenbewegung_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29

Some people try to delete category:Wikipedian support gay community: please help GLGerman 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'd vote against deleting the corresponding English category, a) I'm not sure if I should be interfering in a wiki I've never contributed to, and b) Even if I wanted to say something, I don't speak a word of German. Sorry... --Alynna 16:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on Medicinal plants of the American West! I think that the way this page has come together - and, in particular, how quickly - is an excellent example of how Wikipedia works at its best. Waitak 13:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And good work merging the books+refs - I was thinking the way it was was a bit redundant --Alynna 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- I wasn't aware of the policy. To be honest, wherever I did that I probably intended to use Category:Year of birth missing and wasn't paying attention. I'll pay more attention in the future. Thanks for letting me know. --Alynna 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is if you say it is, and/or if people use it to identify you. Do you mean it isn't your LEGAL name? That's something else entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.97.99 (talk • contribs)

(I moved the above comment from the middle of my user page.)

When I say my name is not really Alynna, I mean that I don't say it's my name, I don't call myself Alynna, and I don't use the name Alynna or expect anyone else to use it in real life. I only use this alias on the Internet. Thus I don't consider it my "real name".

By the way, this is my talk page. If you have further questions please comment here rather than editing my user page. --Alynna 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jacinda Moore!? Besselfunctions 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been found out! :P Yep, that's me. Was it the using this alias for everything else under the sun that gave it away? --Alynna 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me? I just messed up. And I'm no expert on WP DISAMBIGUATION, REDIRECT, & REVERT.

• 1. The former should be a WP book article.

• 2. The latter should be a WP adage article.

Thanks, & please reply on my page. --Ludvikus 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already done it myself, thanks, --Ludvikus 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. For your reference I'm pasting your comments here:

Hello,

I see you've restored the original content at Praemonitus Praemunitus and eventually put the disambiguation back at Praemonitus praemunitus. Since I think you intended to make the former about the book, I removed the other content from that page and left a link to the disambiguation. I'm not sure whether we need an article about that edition of the book or whether it should be merged to Protocols of Zion - what do you think? (Reply here, or on the article talk page, or on my talk page, whichever you like; I'm watching all of them.) --Alynna 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we absolutely do need an article on this edition of thr "book." Protocols of Zion is already too long an article. And it concentrates much on the content and distribution of this infamous text. I want Wikipedia to present the form and actually facts relating to the literary event which produced the Warrant for Genocide.

It is already a practice of WP have articles on historically important books. Unfortunately, this ugly and stupid book has seen the light of day and - like a germ, bacteria, or virus, has reproduced itself in many forms - and now lives on the WEB. So I want Wikipedia to be, inter alia, the ultimate source of facts about this plagiarism.

Also, I believe that Wikipedia is extremely democratic in its nature, so that what its founders want it to be, and what it is already becoming, are two different things. In brief, WP is becoming the ultimate (at least) source of knowledge for the commom man (and woman) about anything which holds a significant interest for people.

I wish I could write like Lincoln, or D'Israeli in my first draft, but I cannot. English, like in the case of Conrad, was not my first language. But he had a linguistic genius of the kind that's not mine.

So I hope to get the asaistance of other WP editors and writers to improve or develop my articles further!!!

Best Wishes, and Seasons Greetings, Yours truly,--Ludvikus 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've done the DISAMBIGUATION!!! Great, I appreciate it very much! Ludvikus 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Got your wonderful "availability" message on my USER PAGE.

Why don't you just click above, and click on to my "Table of contents to see all the articles and/or stubs which I'm working and and which are probably dying(sic?) for your "cleanup" or other improvements!

I guess I'm recruiting!

• Thank you for your attentiveness - and if you live in wonderful NYC, why don't you visit The New York Public Library to see this probably most beautiful antisemitica, the second formally "published" English language American edition of the Protocols of Zion!!!
• Regards, Ludvikus 23:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not do anything to your user page. I commented on your talk page in response to your comments here. I never intended to insult your work, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. Since earlier you expressed unfamiliarity with Wikipedia mechanics and asked for help, I was offering that help should you ever want it again. That's all. Happy editing, Alynna 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why you are removing this template for Bishops from articles about BISHOPS? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks! Pastorwayne 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• nevermind. someone else removed this, perhaps because the article is no longer a stub? You removed other cats and such. Leroy Charles Hodapp. Sorry to bother you. Pastorwayne 13:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see that at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Category:United_Methodist_bishops_by_U.S._State you recommended keeping the area categories, and deleting the state categories. I thought that it might be useful to point out that this would mean keeping 32 categories for 55 artcles, an average of less than 2 articles per category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I have been watching the discussions. My thought was that we could first clear out the obvious problem categories, and then more thoroughly discuss the ones that are logical, but underpopulated. --Alynna 04:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a solution: Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which PW created a week ago, with a very useful explanation of how it works. This divides UM bishops into five groups, which seems to be a very useful level of sub-division: much better the than the hundreds of cats which would have eventually been created in Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Alynna 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please tell me what was "wrong" with the description/lead-in article I wrote last night for this category? Are you an expert in U.M.C. polity? What I wrote was factually accurate. Please respond on MY talk page, if you please. Thanks. Pastorwayne 14:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please look at the most recent Talk:Silver_Chips_Online. An anonymous user is insisting on language I believe is not neutral. Do you agree? Cerberus 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alynna, I hope you will approve the compromise language on the Silver Chips Online page. Frankly, the "Gifted and Talented Reporting" section doesn't deserve to be there at all, but since Cerberus insists, I have tried to moderate the POV. Cerberus needs to acknowledge that he is NOT neutral and has a political ax to grind over an article that he didn't like. Wikipedia is not a venue for relieving vendettas, so I hope you will find the new, neutral language satisfactory. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I appreciate your time and help. 69.255.238.227 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that 69.255.238.227 has not yet deigned to demonstrate the neutrality of the proposed language, which I have challenged on the talk page. That is the proper venue for the discussion, I believe, and I hope it will move there. However you may also wish to view some of the discussion at 69.255.238.227, where this user has repeatedly been requested to participate in the discussion (and not just by me). Note in particular the offer to use other Wikipedia dispute resolution measures, which 69.255.238.227 has simply ignored. That offer still stands. Sorry to burden you with background, but you may find some of it relevant. Cheers. Cerberus 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done what I can to try and move the section towards a more NPOV stance. See what you think. Reply on the article's talk page. --Alynna 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The new wording is okay, except for the term "associating," which still carries a skeptical connotation. "Which reported the origin of" is more accurate and neutral. "Associating" makes a judgment that "reported" does not. This is not a matter of point of view; it is a matter of fact.

I think the revision would have more credibility if you made it, rather than me. Please do so if you approve.

Thanks again for your efforts to resolve the conflict. I hope that with this minor change, the issue can (finally) be laid to rest.

69.255.238.227 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See my response on Talk:Silver Chips Online. --Alynna 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation is provided in the article itself. But if that is not satisfactory, "citing" will do. Thanks. 69.255.238.227 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see suggested change on Talk:Silver_Chips_Online. I appreciate (!) the effort to search for neutral POV, but as 69.255.238.227 points out, "cite" is not quite accurate. Cerberus 13:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A disappointing outcome for the Silver Chips page, which I think was getting much better from your edits. But in any case, thanks for all your help! Cerberus 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alynna, you made an intersting comment on Project gender studies I'm asking around a few intersted parties for opinions on a few changes to the project and its templates. The discussion is here (abouut templates) and here (the project). At the moment the project page is protected but IMHO I think it should be unprotected and editted to give due balance to the Gender Theory activities of the project as well as the removal of systemic bias activities. If you're interested please have a look--Cailil 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look at that. --Alynna 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to show my students how easy it is to update a Wiki page... but you keep changing it back ... please leave my edits alone until this evening

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naomithatsme (talk • contribs) 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal educational tool. Please read Wikipedia:School and university projects. --Alynna 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions. Teay are greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.88.216 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome :) --Alynna 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that you removed a definition of Slog as a type of blog, which I added. This usage is receiving some currency by others. What do you feel are the conditions necessary to allow a new word usage to be added? --Bwelford 11:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at slog, you will see a link to slog (disambiguation), which lists uses other than the cricket one. One of them is your slog (blog). It is customary in wikipedia to only list one meaning per article. --Alynna 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that was the way to do it. Thanks for handling it. --Bwelford 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your various changes to the article Play n trade. I have reverted a part of one of your changes, changing the title of the "External links" section back to the plural form. According to Wikipedia:External links#External links section and by general convention, the title of such sections is usually left in the plural form even if only one link is currently provided. The reason behind it is that the phrase refers to the section rather than the link: i.e., it is a "section for external links" (the same applies to a "References" section). Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a bot that regularly changes such section headings from the singular to the plural, although I currently can't recall the name. -- Black Falcon 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was under the impression (from previous comments and what I thought was general consensus) that an "external link" and a "reference" both got singularised. Weird... I'm really confused now. The section you cite doesn't directly address the case of a single link. I'd be interested to see what most people think, as it appears our impressions of consensus are different. --Alynna 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've received contradicting comments? Huh. Now I'm confused as well. The relevant sentence in the link is this: "The standard format for these is to have a level 2 header (i.e. == Header ==) named "External links" followed by a bullet list of links.", but you are right, it doesn't mention the one-link case. I think grammatically "External links" is correct, but it won't hurt to see which option (if any) is supported by consensus. I have almost always seen "links" even when there was just one link, so I assumed that was the convention. I will add a comment at that guideline's talk page to request clarification. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Femto has replied to my inquiry at WT:EL#Question: link or links?. Whether there is a policy or guideline that covers this I cannot be sure, but it seems that "links" is the prevalent form. Another user mentioned that it's covered in the Manual of Style, but no particular link was provided. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will appreciate you dont undid the Lanzarote webcam link, its a great webcam, probably the best of the island including webcam archive 24h, awarded by various webcam websites like earthcam (top 10 2007). So I am sure lots of wikipedia users enjoy it when looking for information about the island. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vizzon (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Jupiter12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Please respond on my page, thank you.

Jupiter12 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

hi Jacinda (???) / Alynna!

		The Original Barnstar
		Please have this cheery barnstar in recognition of your hard wiki editing! Much appreciated by the casual wiki-user such as myself, Dr Spam (MD) 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, thanks, I think. Call me Alynna. --Alynna 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)