User talk:Athaenara

Civilisation is High Maintenance.

Courtesies:   Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines     Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages

Archive 1.

Wikipedia Tip of the Day — updated daily 

Tip of the day...

Wikimedia has mailing lists

Cannot get enough of Wikipedia? Then join our mailing lists! A mailing list is a shared address for a list of recipients. Anyone subscribed to the list can send e-mail to that address and thereby reach all other subscribers. This is a convenient way to discuss complex issues with multiple people. There is a WikiEN-l list which is used for discussing policies and current issues related to the English Wikipedia, and there is Wikipedia-l for language-independent discussions. If you want to help developing MediaWiki, join Wikitech-l and share your ideas. For a complete list see m:Mailing lists.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Read more:

Wikipedia:Mailing lists  

m:Mailing lists/Overview  

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Wonkish & Arbish

This observation by ArbCom member Charles Matthews was cited by Jimbo Wales with the comment that it should be required reading. I echo it here in agreement with the discernment of discretion as the ability and the freedom to make sound operational decisions. –Æ.   [See also: Template:Wisdom]

We have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of discussion call them Wonkish and Arbish.

In Wonkish, discretion stands for certain vague and disreputable areas of policy where what should happen is not yet properly regulated.

In Arbish, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention and the application to the mission of writing the encyclopedia.

In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that proactive admins are the main lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, taking the mop and bucket away from a few, than to do up the constraints ever tighter to preempt misuse of admin powers.

Wikipedia vandalism indicator

VANDALISM THREAT

Guarded __ __ __ __ __

Signature talk

→ (Userpage gallery moved today to User:Athaenara/Gallery.) Æ. ✉ 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage (gallery)

Absolutely beautiful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.220.9 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! — Æ.

Thanks Athaenara, for signing my autograph book. I'd like to add my sig to yours, but I'm not sure where... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome—I'll add yours to the Wikipedian Signature Art Gallery ... if it's ok with you. –Æ. 23:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a Guest book qualifies to be on the list; as long as you can sign there, it's fine. If you don't want it to be there, it's fine, but I still think it should. And thanks for adding my sig to your collection too. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK ... –Æ. 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

→ (Update: User:Athaenara/Gallery#Gallery Guest Book. Æ. ✉ 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you add my signature there? I don't know exactly where to put it though. Thanks. —¡Randfan! 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As curator, I added it to the Infinite Variety section (an earlier form [23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC) in the history], not the one you used here) nearly a week ago ... –Æ. 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

→ Addendum: New addition in Boxes & Blocks. –Æ. 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

→ A most extravagant version now in Extreme section. –Æ. 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my signature book. Current signee #21!!! --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome ... (p.s. I updated your sig in the Infinite Variety section.) –Æ. 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Category

You might want to put [[Category:Wikipedians who collect signatures of other Wikipedians|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] on your user page. —sd31415 (sign here) 16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to do that, but I haven't found the syntax which will allow the listing to be, exactly, User:Athaenara/Gallery#Gallery Guest Book. Athænara ✉ 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're a genius?

I hope this doesn't offend you, but you didn't seem like a genius. And you don't edit anything particularly brilliant, but rather, your edits seem to be just simple fixes here and there. How about completing the table of logic symbols? That's something I actually wrote on the article's talk page that I was going to do, but never did. Or how about "dumbing down," the articles on advanced mathematics and physics, so that, for example, the average reader can understand what the hell this means? At least maybe you can help me correct the article on Classical Liberalism. Robocracy 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) aka HP_Owner in the IRC

No, I really cannot imagine why Mensa let me in. Given your low estimation of my intelligence, you won't be disappointed that I decline your offer of an assortment of ambitions in which you've lost interest. — Æ. 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On Aggression

I think you made the article On Aggression more encyclopedic, but I don't agree that my reference didn't support the claim (regardless of how encyclopedic the article was on the whole with it). Alas, my reference to page 94 fell out when I made the reference work, so perhaps you thought I meant the whole book. I'd be glad to hear your opinion on that. (–Uncas)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Examples is excellent reading.

• Specifically in regard to: "Many ideas are now believed to be false, such as [this] and [that] ... ".

The reference's link trail does not lead to verification of the claim.

• To check this most easily: go into the article's history, find an earlier version which still includes the reference (this one, for example), and follow the succession of links as if you had not written it yourself but were another reader, seeing it for the first time, seeking the support implied by the ref tag.
• The De Waal article does not mention Lorenz. The article about his book is a one-line stub.

In any event, what was said on "page 94"? And, whatever it was, does it not more properly belong in the De Waal article? Lorenz was not a primatologist. Most of his studies in ethology were of birds, which are also social animals with complex social behaviors.

By the way, how come you "cultivate a high tolerance for ambiguity" in an encyclopedia? Or is it in some other context? --Uncas 01:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I find life to be full of meaningful ambiguities. I haven't time just now for a more substantive reply to the question, but I thank you for asking. — Æ. 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Special Thanx

Dudette! Thanx again for all the great help you've been and for the long chat. You've help me a great deal :) I hope I can call upon you in the future for your input. Next time I'l share my Belgian truffles with you. Mystar 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Mystar. — Æ. 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PoV/NPoV

Aaron Klein

Your helpful contribution to the discussion was here: Talk:Aaron Klein#Edit warring. Recently User:MikeJason has appeared and begun to make some of the same changes previously reverted when they were made by anons. MikeJason is a new contributor to Wikipedia. Sigh.. Can you advise patience, or something? I kind of have two choices: (1) forget it, and think peaceful thoughts. (2) Propose the Aaron Klein article for deletion. (3) anything else? My colleague in POV-fighting, Robocracy, had earlier sponsored the page for semi-protection, which has recently expired. What can you do about logged-in contributors who misbehave, when they seem to be single-purpose accounts? EdJohnston 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The repeated reversions (cf. Wikipedia:Edit war) both before and after registration, in deliberate defiance of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, confirm that this miscreant is stubbornly resistant to the policy. I can personally do nothing but remark on it (I'm not an admin) but it's obvious the article should be kept and he should be blocked from editing it. — Æ. 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Athaenara. Recent updates at Aaron Klein by an anonymous contributor, mostly labelled 'minor edit' and 'brief add', often restoring previously-deleted material, deserve your attention, should you still be interested in this obviously non-earthshaking issue. I wonder if writing to WorldNetDaily would do any good. Perhaps we could denounce them for tampering with Wikipedia. EdJohnston 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, it's on my watch list, too. 192.118.11.112 is undoubtedly MikeJason. He didn't puff it up promotion style this time, but WND links are still too numerous and other newsmedia links (which he should find if they're out there) are still too few. –Æ. 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Aliweb

Hello Athaenara! Since you've been on the job, I have felt free to ignore the constant POV issues on the Aaron Klein page, and I've made no further edits (since 13 Nov). We have a similar problem now over at Aliweb, where the topic may be just notable enough to prevent deletion, but there is a troublesome user (with the same name as the page). Perhaps the remedy there is something like 'stubbification', where everything not verifiable is removed. I'm not sure I have as much patience as you do to keep tidying up the page after multiple assaults; deletion (if appropriate) would be simpler. If you could just look at the page and give me advice, that would be very helpful. EdJohnston 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend the Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfC) process, for "disputes over article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." The problem user's contribs page is also pertinent: Special:Contributions/Aliweb. –Æ. 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Suite101.com AfD

An article that you have been involved in editing, Suite101.com, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks — I have not edited the article except to support its deletion (date:time 2006:UTC):

• 21:43, 20 November: Increased singular to plural in article's {{prod-2}} tag).
• 03:54, 20 November: Added Suite (disambiguation) warning with links to WikiProject & WikiMedia Spam discussions.
• 21:24, 19 November: Thanked Femto on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Suite101 dot com for removing link I had added 07:29, 10 November to an article. — Æ. 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- you did not have to go to all that work above -- I was just routinely putting the standard "Adw" notification template on the various editors' pages per the WP:AfD procedure. Looking at the language now, I see the tone almost sounds vaguely like that of an indictment, which I certainly did not intend! (I just wanted to give a friendly notification.) --A. B. 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem—I like WikiWork, it increases my WikiSkills ;) — Æ.

→ Addendum: AfD closed. Article deleted 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

WTF?

Huh? Not that it isn't funny, but I'm not quite sure what you meant...Cheers, Moreschi 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I had been wandering through a thicket of posts, on and off admin pages, after Cool Cat tried to get my support on IRC for some recent WP:POINT absurdities and stunts. I told him he and Bastique owe apologies to Moby Dick (and to a lot of other people, as I now understand it); he stalked off, after a few parting shots, in high dudgeon and/or low umbrage. [cf. Chewbacca defense.13:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)]

When in the midst of these wanderings I stumbled over that strange (and unrelated) unsigned post in the undergrowth I couldn't resist the urge to use the {{unsigned}} template, even though it was just an old post on a user talk page, and I felt awkward about it. Sorry I upset you! –Æ. 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Upset me? No, not in the slightest! Cheers, Moreschi 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

House episode

Hello, Athaenara. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused, but I didn't want to get involved in the discussion at hand. I simply wanted to say a word to end the "thread", in hopes that any problems had been settled off-site of the page. Cheers, PullToOpen^Talk 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, PullToOpen, for restoring the listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion. –Æ. 04:04 ... my head is spinning after your brief materialisations and disappearances and reappearances on three (have I lost count?) pages—anyway, thanks again! –Æ. 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi, I noticed that you recently moved several House episodes to include a consistent disambiguation suffix (House episode) when none is needed. You might be aware that this issue has been a matter of significant debate at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), but the general consensus is that consistent suffixes are to be avoided unless there is a compelling reason to use them which is related to the show itself. I was unable to find a discussion of a House naming convention that you mentioned in your move logs, but any such written convention should probably be changed to comply with WP:TV-NC.

If you feel strongly that the articles should use the suffixes, feel free to propose a move request through WP:RM. –  Anþony  talk  13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time (over a week ago) there were something like 60 episodes, approximately 17 of which lacked the form. Whether formal or informal, I perceived it as a convention. Only later did I learn that House enthusiasts eschew the form except where essential. I disagree with the consensus as described but television is not ordinarily one of my interests and I won't be pursuing it further. Thanks for your note, I do appreciate the additional information. Athænara 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Athænara. (I hope that you and Anþony won't mind someone whose name contains only modern English letters joining the conversation!)

Just so you know, I had previously moved the House episode articles to comply with the convention at WP:TV-NC, which you probably would have seen if you had looked in the articles' history .... if you really want to dig into the matter, you can read the discussion in the archives of WT:TV-NC, beginning here.

The dispute has included some acrimony and an ArbCom case, which you're welcome to look into if you're interested. I know that you moved the House articles in good faith — I just wanted to let you know that you've inadvertently wandered into a minefield, and why you might see explosions going on around you. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Minefield *chuckle* yes, I do see that. I am old school in my preference for consistent form in related encyclopedia entries. I am also old school in my deliberate avoidance of being drawn into lengthy acrimonious disputes between deeply entrenched opponents ;-) This was far more information than I wanted or needed but, sincerely, Josiah, I welcome your friendly note! -Æ. 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

→(Josiah's lengthy post, which is packed with comprehensive detail and pertinent links about this contentious issue, is an excellent reference archived in its entirety in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 1#Naming conventions while abbreviated here. -Æ. 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Pattern

→ To keep discussion located where previously established: Post timestamped 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC) in this talk page history moved to User talk:Fresheneesz#Your WP:3O report where first responses to that report were posted several hours ago. –Æ. 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why? I was talking to you, not responding to the 3O request. >Radiant< 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that Fresh is in the habit of removing remarks from his own talk page (e.g. [1]) so it's disingenuous for him to complain about other people removing remarks from their talk pages. Worse, rather than removing threads, he selectively removes only parts of threads that disagree with him, thus in effect misrepresenting the discussion. >Radiant< 09:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your allegations best pertain to your own habit as previously shown in the diffs cited in the request last week for a third opinion. Fresheneesz's attitude is reasonable. Vindictive attempts to cast him in a bad light, which really should not continue, reflect far more on you than on anyone else. Athænara ✉ 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I guess I shouldn't have deleted one of his PA posts as a direct response to his removal of peoples' comments. I feel like something needs to be done about Radiant, but I've just resigned to ignoring him as much as possible. Fresheneesz 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Athænara ✉ 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• What on earth are you talking about? He was alleging on 3O that I was abusive by removing talk page posts. I respond that (1) it's not abusive, and (2) he's doing the very same thing himself. I'm not alleging anything, and vindictiveness has nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 08:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, the discussion was and is grounded elsewhere. You should never have posted on my talk page. It merely exposes your mispresentation of events to deeper scrutiny which, while perhaps exactly what it needs, is probably not what you intend. Athænara ✉ 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's just FUD, Athy. >Radiant< 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"FUD"?   I don't know what that means. I suspect I'll be happier if I remain in ignorance of it.
"Athy"?   Whoever you are, and you are a stranger to me, you are becoming increasingly offensive. Are you trying to discourage third opinions? Athænara ✉ 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

50 States flag.PNG

Sorry about the delay. Must have missed your message. It should be possible to do a white border background for 50 States flag.PNG. I'll go through my files at home to see what state it currently is in. One challenge is that, because of the white from the flag, it wouldn't have a significant contrast with the exterior, and I'm not sure if I've still retained the original US outline in the file or not. I'll get back to you.--DaveOinSF 19:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Though it's great to have a USA map which doesn't omit Alaska and Hawaii, I see the difficulty as you describe it. I should have thought it through. Thanks for getting back to me—the delay was not a problem. Athænara 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)   (Afterthought: if Alaska and Hawaii could be coloured using red and blue only, they wouldn't disappear into a white background.) -Æ. 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PSK/Vanderbilt craziness

Thanks for the invitation to weigh in on the PSK discussion on the Vanderbilt University talk page. My own argument against including any mention of PSK, of course, is that it's trivia. I hope adding another voice to the discussion does some good! Esrever 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivia, and you're quite welcome, it was great to see a third voice involved again! Athænara ✉ 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not, in fact, ever submitted an RfC. I certainly have no objections to you doing exactly that, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esrever (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome. And, as I tried to make clear in my posting on the talk page, please feel free to edit the words I added in any way that you think improves the article, per WP:OWN. My only request had to do with not removing everything I added without a prior posting on the talk page. John Broughton | Talk 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore the full name—{{fact}} was only needed when the unsubstantiated characterisation was also in the line. Athænara ✉ 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki etiquette

Hi Athaenara, I think we've finished the pike discussion but I still had a few more questions so I moved to your talk page. First of all the changes I made were all done in good faith and from a sincere effort to keep a NPoV. I've changed it back but I still think it shouldn't be like that. Can I go to a higher editing instance then the WP3O? Like users vote or something? I'll probably loose since most people seems to know more about the fish then the weapon but I want to make my case somewhere. Now for wiki etiquette. If I want to move a page is there a recomended procedure to do so? I'll be much obliged if you'll counsel me since I'm quite a new editor. Hope it's not too much trouble for you.84.110.52.183 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)