User talk:Aecis

Archives

1. Messages 1-12 (August 2004 - July 2005)

2. Messages 13-24 (July - August 2005)

3. Messages 25-36 (September - November 2005)

4. Messages 37-48 (November - December 2005)

5. Messages 49-60 (December 2005 - January 2006)

6. Messages 61-72 (January 2006)

7. Messages 73-84 (January - February 2006)

8. Messages 85-96 (February 2006)

9. Messages 97-108 (February - May 2006)

10. Messages 109-120 (May - August 2006)

11. Messages 121-132 (September - October 2006)

12. Messages 133-144 (October 2006)

13. Messages 145-156 (October 2006)

14. Messages 157-168 (October - November 2006)

15. Messages 169-180 (November 2006)

16. Messages 181-192 (November - December 2006)

17. Messages 193-204 (December 2006)

18. Messages 205-216 (December 2006 - January 2007)

19. Messages 217-228 (January 2007)

20. Messages 229-240 (January 2007)

21. Messages 241-252 (January - February 2007)

22. Messages 253-264 (February 2007)

23. Messages 265-276 (February - March 2007)

24. Messages 277-288 (March - April 2007)

25. Messages 289-300 (April - May 2007)

26. Messages 301-312 (May 2007)

27. Messages 313-324 (May - June 2007)

Wikipedia Signpost

1. Wikipedia Signpost 1-12

2. Wikipedia Signpost 13-24

3. Wikipedia Signpost 25-36

mtt family.jpg

Can you tell me what else I need to say that I can put it here on wiki?

Thank you,

Samuel Pakalomattam 17:03, 4 June 02007 (UTC)

Economy section of Georgia

Dear friend, I just want to let you know that I have been troubled on the economy section of Georgia that I wrote, which you really liked. There are user who simply wanted to delete it because of its pro-EU aspect and I am asking you, as a Dutchman to help me out. I am going to initiate voting on Talk:Georgia (country) and please vote! Thanks SosoMK 10:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are wellcomed for mediation, and participation in the voting on the talk page Talk:Georgia (country). Tamokk 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigi Becali

Hello! Some time ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gigi_Becali&diff=84039528&oldid=83119792) you've marked that article as NPOV, but you never detailed on the talk page why exactly you did that. 7 months since that date, the article has changed pretty much: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gigi_Becali&diff=136073762&oldid=83119792 Could you please check it out and see if the template should still stand? In that case, please also point in the talk page the precise reasons for that! Thank you very much! --Vlad|-> 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you very much for having answered my message! I've read the article carefully, and I can tell you that unfortunately (for him) the article presents a perfectly balanced image of the character. And once again, unfortunately for him, this is what he is: an unbalanced balance. As anyone can easily see, each and every paragraph is referenced (true, only with links from Romanian media, but only because GB is a favorite subject of Romanian media, but not at all as a "threat to politics", but mostly like a curiosity and with increasing popularity, due to his crude, and often foul language. So, all in all, like I've already said, if you feel like it, please feel free and re-add the npov tag once again (maybe pointing to these discussions) or if you want, you can raise the issue on the Romanian noticeboard. But as I've seen from your Babel, you haven't indicated your level of knowledge of Romanian, so it might be difficult to discuss a subject without understanding the referenced sources (like for instance I wouldn't ever think of arguing about a Dutch-related issue without being able to understand a iota of Dutch! :)~--08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~~

I'm sorry if I've offended you by questioning your Romanian skills, it wasn't my intention at all (as I see now that you've got a certain level of understanding! :) And unfortunately, my Dutch is far worse than your Romanian (like I've already said), so I have to take your word for granted (about using the Romanian article about Cadrilater in nl.wiki). The article you've pointed it's unfortunately a little bit too long for me to read it entirely (I'm a little short on time, like you). So once again I take your word for granted, and once more I urge you to mark the article as NPOV if you still feel it's the case! Thank you very much for all your messages so far and have a nice day! --Vlad|-> 13:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. So you want to create some subsections: anti-Roma, anti-gay etc. Of course I don't mind, after all we're all here on wikipedia to make it better and the editors motto is: "be bold!" --Vlad|-> 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fugitive

Hm, I suppose I should have explained that better, sorry about that. As you probably know, deletion debates are not decided by a vote count, but rather by weight of arguments. In general, categories with unclear inclusion criteria are considered not such a good idea (the overcategorization guideline has some thoughts on that). There are a number of fictional characters for whom being fugitive has a clear and continuous impact on the story (e.g. "The Fugitive" from the series), but there are also many for whom "being on the run" is mentioned in their backstory but isn't really important throughout the story, and there are many for whom the "fugitive status" is a temporary plot point that is resolved in the next chapter. Aside from that, the categorized characters really don't have all that much in common. Contrary to what Petri says, in general fictional characters are categorized by their fictional characteristics, not by plot elements. HTH! >Radiant< 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, I'm not at all bothered by the questions. I'd say that Category:Fictional characters by situation is in itself somewhat dubious (e.g. is "disease" really a "situation"?) but the difference is that an adoptee or rape victim does not in later part of the plot become not an adoptee or rape victim - whereas a fugitive generally stops fleeing later in the plot. There are always exceptions, but vaguely defined cats are generally deleted because they're not useful for finding things. >Radiant< 10:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Elaine Summers / section on Kinetic Awareness

Dag Aecis,
Why did you delete this section and after I had just asked for more time to correct it, yesterday? I've re-read IT again and cannot agree with your classification as a WP:COATRACK - which on the User:Weregerbil/Coatrack article is (self-admittedly?) said to be "the official policy of absolutely nobody".

Summers' choreography is closely linked to Kinetic Awareness and as such I argue that it has a right to be mentioned in an article about her.

I had just re-written it yesterday since Yamara had pointed out to me that in its previous form it was more like an advertising than an objective encyclopedic text. I've cleaned all, to what I thought was to the absolute bone. To then have the entire section removed by you, not Yamara, without further advance notice and especially after I've just requested to give me time for re-writing by inserting a "hangon" mark, is a quite a stunt.

Here's my argumentation against this section being covert advertising:
This specific kind of body work has been around since the 1960s. It has been written about by others than me, and others than Kinetic Awareness practitioners (although admittedly not many) These are a.o. Sally Banes and Anne-Sargent Wooster.
Given that I have correctly understood the guidelines, the writings of these two women are qualified as secondary research, and I have mentioned them in the sources. In these articles you will find the historical information from which sources Summers developed this body work, about how the work is structured and what its goals are. The approach to exercises in this body work is a characteristic, other body work has very different strategies. I fail to see how the listing of these items still qualify as hidden advertising. The one thing I could have done, on re-reading is to change the in-text weblink to the Kinetic Awareness Center and put it down to the links at the bottom.

When you find time to respond I'd appreciate it, also if you'd leave a mark that in any case you've read this.
Thomas Körtvélyessy 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aecis! Thank you very much for your quick and detailed answer. I appreciate your points and line of argumentation as very clear and logically well-reasoned. I will try to respond accordingly by giving it a second try, now having quite a bit more clarity about your points of objections. Thank you again for being specific and to the point.

My plan is to be more tight with the references on which I base my content in this section, especially where it concerns validation of reliable secondary sources about Elaine Summers as the originator of Kinetic Awareness, and being very sec about the work itself, indeed presenting its proclaimed aims and perspective as exactly that, not as facts. I will also try to get this done for the entire article.

It may be a long way before I will reach the detailedness that I find in the comparable article on Moshe Feldenkrais, but I will go for it. I will notify you when I have the section ready. Once again thanks for your prompt sincerity.
best wishes,
Thomas Körtvélyessy 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arden Wohl

sorry I was just trying to add a "hang on" tag ..didnt mean to mess with anything...could you please take the time to look at how I fixed the article up and take off the deletion tag! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs).

IJsselmeervogels

On 10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article IJsselmeervogels, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hitler Game

You had no right to delete this article. If you do not believe that it should be on wikipedia, could you please tag it AfD, rather than simply removing it yourself. Morevisit 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hitler Game

The Hitler Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia should be a community site, not one man's vendetta Morevisit 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Sounds great. I'll finish writing the questions, and get in touch with you later this week to get a head start. Ral315 » 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)