User talk:Brian0918/Archive 16

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Omnipotence paradox for Christmas Day

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I have responded on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Thank for the page protection. This isn't to endorse my edition, but it's for stop the edit war and reverts everyday without discussion. I think this need LOT of discussion about OPV insertments. --Brazil4Linux 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new proposal today. Can you opine in Talk:Ken_Kutaragi? Thanks. --Brazil4Linux 22:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal with a good faith and try to reach a consensus. But is hard to deal with Sock puppets. I'm just tired with GoldDragon because he create another account now. I ask for your help. --Brazil4Linux 09:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

Moved to Template Talk:Unreferenced. I'll reply there later.

Well, Thank you, Sir...

I was just about to leave a message at Raul's talk page to thank him for the work he did in closing my recent RfA. Having read your comments at Raul's, I thought it only appropriate to come here first, and thank you for showing such strong support for my nomination. I wish to assure you that anything I do in my capacity as an administrator, will be for the benifit of the Wikipedia, rather than myself. I agree fully with your assesment that WP is a reference work first, community second. The resource must be protected. If I can help do that, then I will have fully met the mandate I set myself as an admin. Thank you for your support, I will do what I can to live up to the high standards I have come to expect from the majority of WP administration! Hamster Sandwich 02:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quick responses on GWB seem to have done the trick. That guy is such a prize asshole. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry you disagreed with me on Bush! I plan to steal your signature colors : ). Anyway, I just had to say it, I was in the middle of a very disheartening book - it makes me think of his malice to such a degree that I find myself unable to do something for such an evil man. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I apologies for the tone of my comments over at MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning yesterday. I should have been less aggressive.Geni 07:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Fir0002 FPC page

Hi Brian!
Hope you can cast your vote on this batch of photos! Thanks --Fir0002 10:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References - Thank you

I see you are back to tagging articles. Thank you for compromising and agreeing to place them at the bottom of articles. One idea, is that perhaps before bugging others to reference their contributions you could go through your own articles and bring them up to standard. A quick check of the first ten items at User:Brian0918/Articles created found that only one of them had a references section. If every major contributor simply went through their own contributions and added any references they remembered using, we would be a great deal closer to our goal of a well referenced encyclopedia. - SimonP 21:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So who or what is going to motivate you to add references to your articles? What needs to be done to get Zork Timeline referenced? Also what about East Malling and Larkfield, Dowdeswell, and Cess, Norfolk? They were created only a couple weeks ago and are unreferenced - SimonP 21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References - No thank you

You have repeatedly been asked by users to stop adding the unsourced link to articles and place it on talk pages. You have ignored everyone else and bulldozed ahead. If you don't stop I'll simply revert every one. You are showing complete contempt for every else in deciding that you will do what you want and to hell with everyone else's requests to do it in a less in-people's-faces manner. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to echo these other editors, there is no method to your add cites madness. Where an article is dubious there is already {{verify}}. --nixie 02:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "everyone else" is not against me. Of the people who were against what I was originally doing, the majority were against my specifically placing it at the top of pages, going against what it says at {{unreferenced}}. In accordance with their concerns, I have stopped this activity. Others were against my placing it on pages that had external links. In accordance with their concerns, I have stopped that as well. Instead, I have created custom block of text, shown at the top of User:Brian0918/Sandbox, which will go at the bottom of the page, exactly in accordance with the guidelines at {{Unreferenced}}. Since I have started following these guidelines, you are the only who has complained. As for reverting my edits, there must be something more productive that you could do for the encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss it further, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 02:47

Brian, how many people are going to have to complain before you listen? I agree 100% with the need for citations. But as everyone has told you, the way you are doing it is counterproductive. Even those agreeing with the aim of what you are doing disapprove of how you are doing. If you place the link on the talk pages then it will be seen by contributors and each article will be linked in a category so people can go around fixing it. But putting that template on the article simply is not on. You may have misinterpreted people's criticism of you placing it on the top of the page as meaning it was the location on the page that was the problem. The problem is the page you are putting it on. If you really wish to put a template on each page then design a new template that casts less implications than the one you are using now, which basically says "this article is not trustworthy". That is what is annoying people. Again I stress I agree with getting proper citing. But how you are doing is an own goal. It is heavy handed and turns what should be a simple issue of the need for citations into an appearance that you are leaving a message on articles saying "this article is could well be bullshit because the fucking ejjits who wrote it never put their citations in." Please stop it before you create a complete backlash that so annoys people they deliberately won't put in citations because they think you are trying to bully them into it. There are two ways of doing this, and you have chosen the route that is more likely to create resistence, not compliance. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus yet about where it should be placed. According to the straw poll, though, more people are in favor of it being on the article page, not on the talk page. In any case, "no consensus" means "no preferred method", so either method is acceptable. Using the rollback button to revert non-vandalism is not acceptable. Reverting my work is also not acceptable, unless you then proceed to move my content to the talk page, which is fine. But it seems like quite a waste of your time. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 03:04
It's simple. Which of the following guidelines am I breaking? Please tell me, and I will change my ways.
- This template will categorise tagged articles into Category:Articles lacking sources.
- This template is a self-reference.
- This template is not useful for Wikipedia:Subst.
- There is currently no consensus about where to place this template, most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page 'References'.
- This template should not be used with stubs.
- If the external links section includes a references section, this template should not be used.

Thank you for your concern. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 03:06

I also disagree completely with your knee-jerk reaction; I don't think this backlash will occur, and indeed I've seen the opposite. In the three articles I've checked where I had placed this template, their contributors have since added references. So, it would seem the opposite is happening. Do you have any evidence that this template will cause people to purposely violate policies and guidelines, or that I am using a hostile tone in the articles I add it to? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 03:13

Thank you

Thank you for reverting 216.165.145.78's edit to my user page. Now he has stopped, but I'll keep an eye on him. Mushroom 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've blocked him: well done, thank you again! Mushroom 04:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Photos

Hi Brian, I would very much appreciate your input in the following argument. There seems to be a gang of users unwilling to allow anyone to interfere with there Canberra project without invitation. It was risky to take my camera on our school excursion to Canberra, but I did for the sake of the photos I could upload to Wiki. Needless to say, I'm deeply distressed over the reaction that has taken place. In particular, I would like to ask if the removal of all my photos off the Lake Burley Griffin article was a step forward in the usefullness of the page. Please either voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra or write back to me. Thanks for your time (and I hope) support. PS thanx for your comments on the Mt Ainslie view photos (incidentally, those shots have been removed off the Mt. Ainslie article :-()--Fir0002 08:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kutagari, User:Brazil4Linux, etc

Just as a heads up, Brazil4Linux seems to be just as guilty of pushing POV as he claims GoldDragon is. One of the comments Brazil4Linux takes issue with is this:

With Kutaragi, Sony Computer Entertainment loss $25 million in Q4 of 2004. During that same year, Sony’s game sales fell to $7.5 billion from $8.2 billion, and its operating income slid to $650 million from $1 billion

Not only is that quote sourced in the original Ken Kutagari article, it's an exact quote from the source. Source is here. The quote comes from the 11th paragraph (the 3rd pargraph under the "Gaming 101" section). Source looks reliable, but Brazil4Linux keeps removing it saying it's bogus.

FYI.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your input desired

Please see Template_talk:Unreferenced#Test_of_new_methods. I put some alternate methods to the test, and they seem to be quite effective. - SimonP 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages

I've fooled myself with that as well, oddly enough. Yeltensic42.618 18:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Sorted. I have been adding extlinks to the source for all these, and seems to have missed one. Do you think that "according to the 2001 census" is sufficient for parish population counts or do I need to provide greater detail?

Might I add how many sources you have added to articles today? Morwen - Talk 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the really hard bit (not just hectoring people to include sources as they should), will be to provide sources for articles that are long and comprehensive. Encouraging people to do this is somewhat harder and probably requires leading by example. Morwen - Talk 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Raul's talkpage==

I assume by now that you are aware that a full blown civil war is being (verbally) fought over when to put Christmas and the Omnipotence Pardox on the main page. I lew of this I suggest that we as a community adopt some sort policy about the timing of articles so as to aviod such a problem in the future. It doesn't have to be a set in stone kind of thing, but I think it would be good for all of us so as to set a few ground rules. Your thoughts? TomStar81 08:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a discussion is long doesn't mean it is a "war" and people are "fighting", so please don't characterize it as such. You have only replied once to the discussion, so I am in doubt that you have read any of it, since your only comment was to compare it to featuring Adolf Hitler on Hannukah, thus fulfilling Godwin's law. In any case, I don't agree with your bypassing the entire discussion to get Raul to create rules that favor your personal outcome. It would be wiser for you to read through the discussion, understand everyone's reasons, and reply as such. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 13:43

You are right. This is not a war, it is more of a debate. In a broad sense, a debate or war is merely several people disagreeing on a course of action to take. You are also correct in assuming that I, having left only one comment, have not read much of the preceeding discussion. Naturally, a discision of what to feature on the main page for December 25 must be made; when that happens we will see what Raul654 has decided to go with. At that time, I am suggesting that his descion and the rational behind it become a factor in choosing the article for the main page. On that note I apologize for having upset you. I will refrain from commenting on the either of the articles' main page nominations; this should allow more capable Users (such as youself) to to focus on the issue without having interference from annoying idiots like me. Again, sorry for having stepped out of line. TomStar81 21:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian,

Thanks. I had put the summary up as a starting point from which to create an original summary, but point taken. I will do that work offline in the future.

- Mark

Master Man

Oh, thanks. But I didn't create Master Man pages, in a sense. I just wanted to seperated the two pages apart. (Seeing how theres two characters from two companies.) You going to have to look at the revision history of the Master Man page, to find the person who did the original page, without any reference history. - -- LEC20 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light up signs

Hi Brian
I know what you mean, but I haven't taken a photo of one yet. I'll look out for it and maybe I'll soon be able to upload a photo. --Fir0002 21:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dixon -- sources

Hi, and thanks for your message. Generally, I can understand what you say about citing sources, but in this particular case having to state where I got the information from borders on the ridiculous. Just have a look at the stub: All it contains is a list of titles, information which I gathered from various online bookshops. Would you like me to quote amazon, Powell's, or Barnes & Noble? All the best, <K F> 21:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try again: There is nothing to refer to so what would be the point of having a section entitled ==References==? You don't seriously expect me to cite http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_sf_b_as/102-1636736-8663334 as a source? <K F> 21:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In no academic institution anywhere in the world are faculty or students required to provide a source for a book list. A list of publications is public knowledge. Let's assume I had all of Dixon's books at home. What would be the source then? Am I supposed to write "my bookshelf" and add a photo of it? <K F> 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome

Dear Brian:

Thanks for the suggestions on my first article (Turner D. Century). I think I made the changes as shown in the citation guide. How does it look to you now?

21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Konczewski

Tonight's Music

Hi, I saw your comment about Tonight's Music. Well, if I take the info straight from the album booklet there's really no way to put a link. So how it should be done?

New Identity Crisis Summary

Hi Brian, I have put a new summary up on the Identity Crisis (TNG) temp page which should meet the requirements.

intentionally blank

hi thanks about the photo. sorry that was loaded at the highest resolution that I took it at Astrokey44 00:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hely

I can't find anythingto support my assertions, but I know it is true as Steve Hely was my college roommate. In fact, I could add much juicier information here, but I doubt Stevie would apreciate that much.

Transcendent article

Sorry, I couldn't tell if your message to me was a bot or hand written.

Either way, you asked for sources for my information.

I am reading the book. The book itself is my source.

So, I added a references section. Thanks for your help!

Michael Christian's Flock

I took the picture, and the info that I got was from the plack in front of it, don't know what to cite.

References

Hi Brian,

You requested that I leave my references on my pages. I have no problem leaving these, but, for some reason, when I previously left my references they assumed it was a possible copyright infraction. Therefore, originally, I was leaving my references but stopped after the false assumption someone was making. What do I need to do to record these references without recieving the accusations? Thanks

Riponfball

Help! Me !

Comics book title box 1st time making a box! Goto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates Help ME! Fix it!--Brown Shoes22 16:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on...

Look, the Bill O'Reilly entry is getting unreasonably long and tedious, featuring new quotes from every week of his Fox news show by people who want to show off what an ass he is, probably w/ the idea that they're going to change peoples' minds about the man. Everytime I - or anyone else, for that matter - attempt a meaningful edit, to gut or rewrite the totally useless information, it's completely reverted. This time by you. This article is insane! It's become the internet's most active Bill O'Reilly blog. -- Plastic Editor

What is the word...

I think the user JIMBO WALES IS A . . . is some sort of troll or sockpuppet, I'm not clear as to which one it is. I say this because I think it is safe to say that the JIMBO WALES RAPES CHILDREN . . . user is the same. In addition, yesterday it was, the same vandal edit was made, with the numerous genitals displayed. Maybe you should block the IP address. --Master Jay 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pls unblock me and unprotect my userpage

i have more than 3000 edits, see "user contributions" - i was blocked for no reason. if the list of hebrew words is the problem i would remove it from my user page. User:Haham hanuka

I see no formal statement of why this user was blocked indefinitely (other than the block log). I think there should at least be a statement on his talk page regarding the matter. --DanielCD 15:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response. --DanielCD 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to thee here

In reply to your "Brilliant work! You fooled the community twice over! We are way too trusting :)

Yeah, maybe too trusting. But in my defence I did ask for these articles to be put up on AfD the proper way. I guess Redwolf24 was too hasty in believing me. And I wasn't meaning to fool the community twice over (once over, yeah, ok, I'll admit that). I was trying to do the "right thing". --Wonderfool 22:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]