User talk:Niteowlneils/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Best place for discussion re justification for page changes?[edit]

Hello. I want to ask you why you've made certain changes. Should I put my questions here, or into the Discussion page for the entries in question? If here, then should new additions go at the top or bottom? Some other Talk pages seemed to be a bit chaotic, so I'm not clear if there is an established convention.

Also I note that editing this page gives a warning: "WARNING: This page is 38 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB." I don't know enough about Wikipedia to correct this - over to you.

Rhd 08:34, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)


In response to the clean-up request, I've split this into two new pages and converted the original to a disambiguation page. The latter is correctly tagged (I think) but I don't know how to put (disambiguation) into the title, which I gather is usual, although it will function perfectly without it. Both of the new pages represent hours of looking up sources, mainly on the web, and are personal syntheses of what I found. They are not verbatim copies from any one source. Naturally, they contain individual phrases and info from several sources - this is scholarship, not experimental research. I am curious to know why you say they "smelled of copyvio". With respect to botany and gardening, in particular, there is a limit to how much the description can vary. I have rephrased them to be, um, a bit less stilted.

Rhd 05:29, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

0101CHANyf, etc.[edit]

Trailed them back to a class project being run by Fuzheado. He's done this before without causing the mess the Dartmouth people did. -- Cyrius| 03:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reply to your questions about the 0101__ users[edit]

Yes, you are right. All the 0101_users are from the University of Hong Kong. We are now doing a mid. term project which focuses on the Chinese Journalist. There are about 150 people who are working on it, with 10 people doing each journalist.
For BJ, your guess is right too. It stands for ' Bachelor of Journalism '.
For more information, you can check out the assignment homepage or leave message in my page
Finally, thanks for noticing our works.

Picture help[edit]

Many thanks for checking out Castletownshend. I feel a little more confident now. Joyous 10:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

"Tom King" vandal[edit]

Thanks for helping on my talk pages. I owe you big time. This idiot seems to be User:Haydes who's being blocked for the same nonsense.

  • That's two I owe you. Thanks again! Signing off to take a breather. - Lucky 6.9 23:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I moved IMDb movies over US$200,000 worldwide to your user space. That page doesn't appear appropriate as a Wikipedia article at this time. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


Hello there. Concerning the expresson "Heteronym", this is probably the closest adaptation of the portuguese word "Heteronimo" that the author of Fernando Pessoa found. This is the most important point in this author's personality and terms such as schizophrenia would not be correct to classify this behavior.

I do believe that it's a fairly recent (as in twenty, thirty years ago) word, but it's taught in literature class, so it's a factual word. I just wanted to clarify the "possible neologism".

So long.

Thanks for the revert[edit]

Thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism to my user page. I've already reported that guy at WP:VIP; hopefully someone will take care of him soon. Triskaideka 22:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletions[edit]

The Vicia articles were candidates for speedy deletion on the grounds of patent nonsense. That's all that's needed to get garbage like that deleted. RickK 23:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion idea[edit]

I also put this in User talk:Geogre. My idea was to set up a page where borderline deletion cases can be listed for a few days, but like cleanup, discussion will be discouraged. Unexpanded articles will be listed on VFD. Tell me what you think. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletions[edit]

Anthony DiPierro wants all speedy deleted material copied to him. I've begun the process, we should make sure he sees everything that's speedy deleted. RickK 23:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Civic Act-up[edit]

It seems that there is a cyclic link for Civic Act-Up. Are you still working on it? Hlaw 03:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pages you marked {{vfd}}[edit]

Hello, it seems you marked a couple of articles with VfD, but never listed them. I thought I'd ask you what should be done with O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing and Love Divine, All Loves Excelling. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I think we're mostly in agreement (as are most people) that lyrics do not an article make. Cool Hand Luke 01:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

west corporation[edit]

hey there sorry i havn't gotten back to you yet but here i am. i just wanted to apologise for any inconveniance i have caused and also wanted to thank you for correcting my mistakes, i do appreciate it quite a bit. thanks for the heads up. --Larsie 17:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


You left a fairly firm statement on my RFA page. I'm just wondering if you can explain some more about where you've seen me displaying "fairly extreme uncivil, unilateral behavior". I can't remember any specific interaction between the two of us, and if you're just going off of the other voters' statements, I'd like to explain my position. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can't remember which previous RFA that was regarding. I have since put my thoughts on the matter down in writing. I agree it seems a bit strict, but for the right candidates I would be flexible on applying them. As far as the "unilateral" actions, I left a couple notes in the comments section about that. Specifically with the VFD stuff, that was about two months ago, and I was mistaken in my actions at that time, and have since learned a lot about that. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

thanks for help on "bicycle"[edit]

and if you see fit, please vote "support" for "bicycle" for "featured article" candidate before it falls off the bottom of the page. currently stands about 6 "support" and 2 "object" (although it looks like a lot more "objects" because one guy voted about 6 times ... and i think all of his objections have been addressed). thanks.Sfahey 04:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

gracias. you are indeed a nite owl. hoooooooooo.Sfahey 05:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Events such as wars, should be proper nouns because they refer to a specific event, for example Boer War, rather than Boer war. The edges of this are a bit blurred, however, between what would be a proper name and a description, and quite often the description becomes the proper name. So, the Gunpowder Plot is the proper name of plot which might be described as a gunpowder plot. The British press atleast is referring to the current occupation and the previous invasion of Iraq as the, "Iraq war", though I suspect over time that 2003 Iraq War will become its official name (there does appear to be a shift toward decapitalisation in English, and I have somewhat developed conservative views on how it should be written). I really don't want to get too involved with editing pages about illegal and immoral wars — I'll just get wound up over more than the capitalisation. I just wanted to put in my two penn'orth. Dunc| 12:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Urgh! A Music War[edit]

I saw the Bowling for Soup video a few times, and I thought it was pretty funny, alright. I'm probably a shade older in my view of the "glory days." Every year is the glory days, after all, and I remember, in the mid-80's, thinking, "Oh, those poor, poor people! They're going to grow up thinking Duran Duran and Culture Club are the glory days!" :-) I was a musician contemporary with the acts parodied in the Bowling for Soup video (my album came out in 1986), but it was the magical year of 1980 that made me think that it was better to make no money and perform droning punk than to make a living playing frat houses with Who covers. The number of greatest albums released in 1980 is astonishing, when you think of it. Clash: London Calling. Police: Zenyata Mendata. Talking Heads: Remain in Light. Gang of Four: Sold Gold and Entertainment. Wire: 154. Joy Division: Closer. Even old guys did great things that year: David Bowie: Scary Monsters. It was a bracing few years, when you could never have enough money to get all the really good records on the rack. Don't forget the Siouxie and the Cure and the Fall, and this is after you'd gotten your latest Ramones (Road to Ruin), and even Devo and the Cars. Then there was the weird stuff. Anyway, you should check around to see if you can discover a video rental place with a film called "Urgh! A Music War." It was three concerts all held in 1981. You get Police before they were too famous. You get Wall of Voodoo. Dead Kennedys. Echo and the Bunnymen, Gang of Four, XTC (oh, and their best record was probably 1980), just an incredible array of great acts and an amazing array of really, really embarrassingly bad acts (a band called Invisible Sex that has to be the worst group ever) and odd acts (Klaus Nomi...a large gay man who sings an opera soprano). It's a true hoot and treat to see. On IRC a day or two ago I told a younger person about how I used to try to run over Michael Stipe with my car, because I thought he was getting too self-absorbed and needed a good scare to get back to rock 'n roll. The poor other fellow didn't know how to understand what I was saying. :-) No good shouting "punk rules ok" at them now.

On the subject of your heroic Quixotism, all I can say is that I'm in strict admiration. I am at such a state of despair about it that I honestly don't know what to say except that I hope for the best. I do have several ways of presenting the case that you're trying to make that might help, but I've stayed away from your efforts very much on purpose. I think I am right now as much of a death's head as a good luck charm when it comes to policy. My presence in a debate seems to automatically swing some support and harvest up a larger amount of opposition. For having worked at VfD, I'm assumed to be an "enemy of information" or something.

Here's the central truth, to me: our speedy criteria were developed, like our VfD, when Wikipedia was very small, when its top concern was attracting authors. All authors were presumed to be of good will, and those of demonstrable bad will were dumped (probably without a hell of a lot of paper<a onMouseOver="window.status= ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status=;" oncontextmenu="window.status=; return true;" onclick="location.href='';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>or process). We are now at such a point that our rules are still designed for bulk, and we have the bulk and are on the point of collapse. This is most true of VfD, but it's true everywhere else, too. Our commitment to democracy has overriden our commitment to becoming a reference<a onMouseOver="window.status= ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status=;" oncontextmenu="window.status=; return true;" onclick="location.href='';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>long ago.

So, admins abuse the speedy process. They really do. Anthony and Netoholic shout and stamp their feet about it, but it doesn't matter. Admins push the criteria and delete things. We can either make the practice fit the rules, in which case VfD will grow much worse, or the rules fit the practice, which is what I favor.

The problem is that if you present it for an open vote.... Well, I hope I'm just pessimistic, but I think we are at a point where no policy change can take place, in any direction. With equal votes, there are too many people of any (and always entrenched) opinion. That's why, eventually, I think something undemocratic (but not unilateral...there is a big difference) will happen, or the project will simply bog down further. Sorry for going so long. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help present the case. Geogre 04:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Syntax - now with brackets[edit]

Hi, and thank you for positive feedback earlier on my talk page. I've just done another run with of the Wiki Syntax checker, and it's now a wiki project, so it's now located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax. The good news is that this includes checks for brackets/parentheses; The bad news is that many of the problems it finds are because there's a newline character between the brackets start and the brackets end (I'm guess it's people pressing enter compulsively at the end of every line, instead of running them on continuously, as they should). All the best, Nickj 05:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hi there - I saw your edit comment on WP:FAC - by way of explanation, I think in stetting Cat and removing the duplicate William N. Page, I may have deleted your amendment to support which you made to the duplicate entry. Sorry. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed - I do try to stet the latest amended version and deleted the older copy, but obviously fouled up in this case. As you say, all's well that ends well. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits to DUI article[edit]

I would ask that you rethink the edits to the DUI article wherein you amended the portion of the article dealing with the rationale for imposing harsher punishments on individuals with high BACs. Your edit note cites the proposition that high BAC DUI offenders are usually chronic alcoholics as "THE" reason for the passage of such legislation. Please review the study prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration evaluating enhanced sanctions for high BAC DUI offenders. You may view it online at Therein it provides that the main justification for "Tiered-BAC sanction systems" is "the assumption that DUI offenders with higher BACs pose a greater risk than offenders with lower BACs." Based on this source, I would ask that you consider reversing the edit, as that section of the article is now rather misleading and factually inaccurate.

William N. Page, etc.[edit]

Greetings from another "niteowl" I wanted to thank you for the Barnstar and all the help with William N. Page research. Homelife really is rough right now, so I really appreciated the attaboy. It nice to escape the problems at home anfd go online. FYI, I have updated my own TALK page with personal information, etc. I am woking on another project right now about the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Vaoverland 04:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Companies VfD[edit]

Hi Niteowlneils, thanks for getting back to me. I was just about to post on your Talk page for your feedback, you've saved me the trouble. =)

So, essentially, based on the VfD debate, your feedback, and the CellOpt AFP VfD page you showed me, it appears to me that the real reason my article (and other similar articles) was deleted was not so much that it was unnotable, but more specifically that it was an unnotable private sector company. It seems that the notability issue does not apply to geographic locations/landmarks, government divisions such as public transport facilities, or, in fact, almost anything besides non-famous people, and businesses. In a way I suppose this makes sense - it does help prevent Wikipedia from becoming one huge business advertising directory, and one which anybody could edit out their competitors listings at any time!

Still, I have to admit, this issue still sticks in my throat. The boundaries of the definitions involved seem to be grey and blurred at best. There are examples defying every aspect of the policies in question all over Wikipedia. For example, the Stile Project website is hardly a Fortune 500 company, and yet it merits an article because of its sheer cult popularity. By the same token though, a company website could generate a million hits a day and turn over phenomenal profits, but if the site/business is a privately owned company, would it still not merit an article because it doesn't classify as a Fortune 500 company?

I just can't get my head around it. Essentially, it seems to me that, for a private sector company or corporate website to merit a Wikipedia article, it needs to meet ONE of the following criteria:-

  • Prove its popularity by showing a "lot" of listings on Google (can we define this more specifically?), and/or;
  • Be a Fortune 500 company.

And additionally, though Wikipedia policy specifically says this is NOT a reason for VfD, it seems that the article preferably should not be posted by anybody directly involved with the company in question, as it seems to irk people into immediate suspicion.

So, in short, a business either needs to be famous on the internet, or be a publically listed company on the stock exchange (and a Fortune 500 company), to merit an article. But then, you say that the #1 seller of widgets in any given country would merit a listing. Why? Is there a policy precedent to back this up? And by what criteria could somebody prove that the company in question IS the leader of its industry in its country of origin, assuming that it doesn't have a strong online presence and is not Fortune 500?

It seems to me that the whole system, or at least in regards to business-related articles, is intrinsically flawed. What a mess. I think I'll steer clear of posting/editing ANY articles about business (and non-famous/historical individuals, for good measure), unless/until Wikipedia develops a more concrete policy on such things. Because the current system just seems like a nightmare.

Vaelor 03:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks again for bothering to spend your time on such a lengthy response to help me get my head around this mess! =)
Having read your last explanation, this finally makes sense to me now - in a nutshell, it is because the rules don't make any sense that these kinds of articles aren't kept in, not despite the fact as I first thought. =)
Although I still find the lack of any definitive ruleset or policy on this matter somewhat discomforting and disturbing, I do understand the criteria for "notability" as you've explained it now. And I'm fairly sure that even though the whole big picture doesn't really make any sense, you've given me enough information and enough seperate identifying factors to at least be able to rationally measure what would and wouldn't be considered a notable enough business to merit a Wikipedia article.
When you first started VfD'ing my articles, my natural assumption was that you were some troll who was going to be a regular thorn in my side if I chose to stick with Wikipedia. But you've gone above and beyond to explain the rationale behind your decisions to me, and now I finally see where you're coming from. Thanks Niteownneils, you're a<a onMouseOver="window.status= ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status=;" oncontextmenu="window.status=; return true;" onclick="location.href='';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> credit </a>to the community man. =)
Vaelor 12:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


That was my first template mod (and only to date), and I believe I requested comment/help on its talk pages. Will look at it shortly - Amgine 18:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Destiny Deoxys[edit]

Check [1] and you'll know that Tooi's name in the English version is Tory. Don't make the admins block you temporarily as a troll.

Wikipedia behavior[edit]

As I saw when studying RC, even registered Wikipedians do bad things (such as creating auto-biographies) sometimes. I, in contrast, always try to do good things to Wikipedia even though I'm not registered. 21:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussions[edit]

Where did the discussions for and Phan Lien suddenly spring from??? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK well I'll move Phan Lien back again - it is there under ongoing discussions, we're waiting for some agreement to take place elsewhere in the 'pedia. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hello. I saw your note on my talk page about Chaka. I don't know why the vfd discussion would be deleted, it was probably just a simple mistake. I see you undeleted the vfd discussion. I've deleted Chaka. Thanks for noticing the problem. I think it's all squared away now. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)