User talk:Fieari/Archive 1
Welcome!
[edit]- Hi, Fieari/Archive 1, Welcome to Wikipedia!
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.
Additional tips:
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Happy Wiki-ing. -- John Fader 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
More welcome
[edit]Welcome also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Feel free to add your name to the list of participants there. Its talk page is also a good resource and a board to ask questions.
Thank you for your contributions to Nullity. Oleg Alexandrov 16:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I did not ask that you add yourself to the list of participants, I just suggested. :) On Wikipedia, everything is voluntary. :) Oleg Alexandrov 20:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Noted. :-) Fieari 22:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: Japan vandalism
[edit]You did it exactly right. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I kept looking for a "revert" button to no avail. Copy-pasting an older version in seems to be the ticket. Fieari 06:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- For adminstrators, there is a "rollback" link that can be used for one-step reversion. This feature is not available for users in general. Even administrators are supposed to use it for reverting vandalism only, where the reason for reversion is self-evident, and not for reversion of something like POV material or such. For those reversions, and for all reversions by non-administrators, you can revert pages by following the steps at WP:RV. Take a look there and ask me if you have any questions, OK? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]I made a basic user page for you. I hope you don't mind. Nice to meet you by the way, my name is Guardian of Light and I'm also a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Mathematics.
Guardian of Light 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
PeeJ
[edit]Hey Fieari, good editing at Perverted Justice. You've made it flow a lot better. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
DualDisc Article FAC
[edit]Hello! I made note of this on the FAC discussion for DualDisc, but I thought I'd tell you here as well. The ASCII art has been replaced with an actual image. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 18:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Additional points on DualDisc
[edit]All of your additional points have now been addressed. Thanks for the constructive criticism. It has definitely made the article better. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hummingbird speed
[edit]I replied to your question at talk:hummingbird.
Gaming Collaboration of the week
[edit] |
You showed support for Gaming Collaboration of the week. This week Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/current was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
Grumpy Troll (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC).
DualDisc FAC
[edit]Hey Fieari. Thanks for all your feedback on the article. The nomination failed the first time around, but I have re-submitted it as an FAC. I was wondering if you'd consider supporting it this time around? Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The spellbot
[edit]It seems that the bot finds any word that has a comment after it a misspelling. Might want to find a way to exclude that. Fieari 22:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. I wonder, could you be a bit more specific. I would be interested to see any bugs by the bot. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops! I double checked, and it seems my error report was in error. I was looking at the logged changes, and noted a lot of listings that included <!--, and I recognized that most of my spell checkers for my programs here treat those as mispellings, so I assumed that this was what I was seeing. Actually, I was just seeing the words that your bot didn't recognize, and was ADDING the comment that it didn't know the word to the article. That seems fine to me. Fieari 22:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- That was me being too lazy to fix the formatting on that log page. I will try to do it now. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Done, see User:Mathbot/Logged misspellings. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Awesome. Much clearer now. Fieari 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Done, see User:Mathbot/Logged misspellings. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- That was me being too lazy to fix the formatting on that log page. I will try to do it now. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops! I double checked, and it seems my error report was in error. I was looking at the logged changes, and noted a lot of listings that included <!--, and I recognized that most of my spell checkers for my programs here treat those as mispellings, so I assumed that this was what I was seeing. Actually, I was just seeing the words that your bot didn't recognize, and was ADDING the comment that it didn't know the word to the article. That seems fine to me. Fieari 22:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I've attempted to fix all your objections. Let me know if you have any more, or please update your vote. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 22:05
I've extended the Initial section so it reads more as a summary of the whole article. --Barberio 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Spikebrennan 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC) noticed your comment on the Mao (game) talk page. What were your rules?
- In no particular order... Talking allowed, swearing allowed, no touching your cards before the introduction shpiel has been declared and the top card of the deck flipped over (and saying the shpiel wrong gets you a penalty card), 7's "Have a nice day" gives two cards, two additional on repeats, knock the table for playing the same value card, knock additional times for each additional repeated value card, say "Mao" when you have one last card, say "I win" when you play the last card, anyone can start or stop a point of order, no touching your cards during PoO, jacks skip next player's turn, 3's reverse. Fieari 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made several changes that I hope answer your objections to this article as a fac. Pinkville 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
1996 campaign finace scandal (nomination)
[edit]All issues have been addressed. I look forward to your support. :) --Jayzel68 04:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
==Parapsychology is a strange puppy== Emotions flare easily. I have found from past experience (See Constantine the Great) unless there is an immediate reference; material is deleted without hesitation. Even at that if the material upsets the reader it will still be deleted. If you look at my user page you will see I have a knack for upsetting people who have skimmed over things to get a happy answer. I try not to do that. I was once challenged on the amount of reference books written by Milbourne Christopher on parapsycholgy. I was told it was unfair to have more than one. User:Kazuba 15 Feb 2006
- Because it's so easy to have emotions flare on the subject, for that very reason, we need to be rock solid in our referencing. We need to make statements that neither side of the issue can at all reasonably deny, and then back them up with the strongest references we can. Right now, the page basically consists of a bunch of people shouting "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" back and forth across the room. At the moment, the "Is not!"s seem to be dominant, but I've seen both versions, and the page fluxuates. The problem is, people are writing from their own head knowledge and from their own research... this includes both pro and con. The skeptics just repeat all the skeptical arguments they've heard, and don't reference them. The believers just repeat all the things they've heard as well, and don't reference them. With firm referencing, FIRM attribution for every statement, I think we can move towards a good article.
- The problem is... I don't have a clue where to get the best references for this subject. I just don't know enough about the field to get references. But I can tag where references need to be found...
- I'm of the opinion that the article needs a complete rewrite, to be honest. Fieari 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
1996 campaign finance scandal (nomination)
[edit]I've added a new section that I believe address your concerns --Jayzel68 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like the edits you made... but... ummm... your article seems to have been removed from WP:FAC... Fieari 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still nominated, but for some reason it was moved to the archive. I don't know how to challege this move. Perhaps if you gave support to it it would help. --Jayzel68 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Esperanto
[edit]Just wondering what it is about Esperanto that led you to taking a stand against it on your personal page? I can understand either being interested or not... but actively stating that you're opposed puzzles me a little.
Waitak 08:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was going down the list of languages... and saw the template for that one, and felt it fit my opinions well enough. It's there for a similar reason that 1337-4 is there... humor. I'm not on a crusade against it or anything. It's a mild dislike.
- On the other hand, that mild dislike basically covers the principles it was created on. By attempting to make a language that's easy to learn and simplistic in structure, you end up with a language that is somehow not quite human. For an international language, I find it best to simply pick a natural language and use that. French used to serve that purpose, now english does. Now... "Simple English"... that I can get behind, as a lingua franca. Similar principles as esperanto in terms of being easier to learn, but it's understandable to speakers of a natural language, and can even act as a lead in to learning english propper. Much more useful, in my estimation, where esperanto I see as a waste of time, really. Fieari 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose, but (for example) I've been reading the Bible lately in it, and find it quite... natural! I can see that it might seem not quite human in the abstract, but when you really actually learn it to the point where it's usable (and that doesn't take long!) you find it has a "personality" just like any other natural language. Just like any language, there are things that "feel right" in it that are more awkward in other languages, and vice versa. For example, Cantonese has a very natural way to say "how manyeth" - i.e. "which number in order"? Similarly, in Esperanto, it's natural to use adverbs where other languages wouldn't. It just "feels" right...
A lot's changed since your original comments. I've added a much more detailed history section and almost ten references, as well as changing the reference format to the newer "Cite.php" markup. Would you please reevaluate and/or change your vote?--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Similarly with the above, I have removed the reference of Brian Osaughnessey's website, as well as Serena Dawn, and Fortunecity. Is there anything else requiring changing? KILO-LIMA 13:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
re perverted-justice.com
[edit]Oops sorry my bad! Yeah sure take it out. I just ran into it vis-a-vis your article while researching on the Michael Cook AfD and threw it in, sorry, wasn't thinking. Herostratus 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Main page redesign vote barnstar
[edit]Thanks, Fieari! I sincerely appreciate the sentiment. :-)
Redesign
[edit]Hi Fieari,
No need to apologize, I was not offended. No, really. ;-) I was a tad annoyed, after I saw the comments to two others, but I quite understand. You're passionate about the redesign, and passionate in defending it. Sincerity and ardor are good things—I only make the case that temperance can be a good thing also. ;-) But things are looking good for the redesigned version, and I daresay it will pass! On that cheery note, see you around the wiki, Fieari —Encephalon 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
RE: Article count in the main page redesign
[edit]Just to let you know: I have changed my vote to support. Thank You for informing me about the recent developments on the main page redesign. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for review
[edit]Thanks much for reviewing the Judaism and Natural disaster pages for the WP:GA list. Funny how paths can cross multiple times. I think we crossed paths last week on the main page redesign. I commented to you in the Common_objections string about an option to drop rule lines around the featured boxes (with example). Cheers, Vir 20:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
US Bill of Rights
[edit]Hi. Many thanks for your thorough and helpful comments at WP:FAC. If you would be so good as to strike through any of the objections that I have subsequently met, I would appreciate it, since it helps to keep track of what needs to be done. Kaisershatner 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I made the revisions on the FAC and I would appreciate it if you could return to your entry and change your vote on the FAC. Jtmichcock 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) I did the revisions on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Michigan State University per your request with the addition of cites in the referenced paragraphs. Jtmichcock 18:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Simpsons FAC
[edit]Hi, you objected to the The Simpsons FAC on grounds of missing reference section, please note that this has now been fixed. Poulsen 18:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Simpsons is no longer a FA Candidate, so I can't exactly change my vote for it. (crossposting to your talk page) Fieari 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see, the article did not have a FACfailed template on it so I got a little confused. Poulsen 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Minor Oppose - Not for the reasons above, but rather, I'm a stickler for WP:LEAD sections to be of the appropriate size. In this case, it should be three paragraphs. I'd support otherwise. Fieari 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Three paragraphs is what it now is, would you reconsider your vote? --Bob 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- It has been recondensed and reduced to three --Bob 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fieari. Would you mind withdrawing your featured picture candidate, Image:Dollarbill4.jpg? It will surely not be promoted, and we'd like to try to reduce the number of currently active nominations. If you choose to withdraw it, please move the nomination into the Nominations older than 14 days, the maximum voting period, decision time! section at the bottom and leave a note. Thanks! ~MDD4696 15:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I wasn't aware the nominator was supposed to do that, or I'd've done it days ago. Now I know. Fieari 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- We're actually discussing this on the talk page... it was never really specified anywhere, whether you could or couldn't or whatever. Thanks though :). ~MDD4696 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
With the images now fixed, I wondered if you could look over the article again. Soo 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't want to review the article again then you can just retract your objection, even if you don't want to support. It's frustrating when an objection I resolved five days ago remains on the page. Soo 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
MotUS FAC
[edit]Do you think you could look over Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of the United States again? I've made the image switch you suggested, and some trimming has been done on the article, though with some minor additions the total size hasn't gone down. Tuf-Kat 00:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for defending against various POVish editors, I haven't really noticed your notes until now as from a single user (bigger problems you see) and I just wanted to thank you for your efforts. I noticed your current position in the debate is Neutral and I was wondering if that had changed either, or if you had any comments to improve the article. Thanks again and cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Someone deleted a bunch of them! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Tetra.jpg
[edit]
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Tetra.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ReyBrujo 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hello there. This is a gray area in Wikipedia as some think that, to source an image, you only need to tell who the copyright holder is (thus, the "original" source comes from the holder), while others think you always need to add the URL to where you have uploaded it. I have been sharing this last group's thoughts, where it is necessary to add a source in order to be able to verify not who was the original creator, but instead the source from where we picked it, in order to understand whether the source got it legally or not. Taking into consideration what Sherool thinks, and seeing you have tagged the image as promotional, since the original publisher was surely Nintendo, the image would have already been sourced. A quick Google search reveals a similar image in the Nintendo forums. Anyways, I am removing the tag and explaining in the image's talk page about this. -- ReyBrujo 12:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fieari, I'm looking at merging Game tree and Extensive form game. You contributed a section to Game tree that describes the backwards induction algorithm for solving extensive form games. Do you have a reference for this? It would be really useful since backwards induction doesn't always work in extensive form games and it makes me wonder if the two articles ought not to be merged. Perhaps the two come from different traditions and really need to be made more clearly distinct from each other. Pete.Hurd 14:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Alpha Phi Alpha
[edit]Hello, I believe that all your objections have been addressed for FAC for Alpha Phi Alpha, and a massive copyedit has been performed by a neutral contributor. Can you review the article and cross out the objections that have been resolved? thanks for your time and valuable input. Ccson 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Raul has removed the article from FAC, however; hopefully all your concerns have been addressed. Can you strike thru the corrections on the subpage so that we can resolve your issues before renominating the article in about 1 week? Ccson 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A favour
[edit]Hey there, Fieari. Could you do do me a favour? I notice that you have been doing some good work on FAC, and I was wondering if you would take a quick look at "We Belong Together". It has failed a couple of FACs, and I think that it may be ready soon. However, I want to make sure that it will succeed this time, and currently, Peer Review isn't that much help. It would be appreciated. Thanx. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Responded in Peer Review. Fieari 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Pashtun people
[edit]Made changes to correct problems you brought up. Let me know of any other issues. Thanks. Tombseye 09:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your constructive comments
[edit]I replied on the featured article nomination for rapping. I plan on implementing your suggestions. Thanks, --Urthogie 08:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Torchic FAC
[edit]I replied to your comment, hope I solved the problem. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
tag
[edit]I wonder if you might clarify your position on Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy? It's helpful to get more specific commentary with a NPOV tag than the general claim that an article is slanted. Otherwise, we're not sure how to go about fixing it. In other words, the bias that is obvious to you, may not be to others; so being more specific would help us clear it up. Thanks. Derex 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Perverted-Justice.com
[edit]It's a minor issue at best, the AKA. Let's not edit war and warn over such things, come to an agreement. Teke 03:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, we've been asked to come to an agreement, which I'm not sure is reasonable considering it's a simple question of wether a specific piece of information will be included or not. This is not a case of "interpreting" phrasing and such. Therefore, I ask this question, since you don't question the accuracy of the information, how does omission of relevant information improve the wiki?
Boy Scouts Membership Controversy FAC
[edit]A couple months ago, you commented on FAC that the article "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America" seemed too Anti-BSA in its POV. Since that time, we've done a lot of work on it to try implement the suggestions you've made. We changed the title of the article to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies so as to focus on the membership controvery, so that the article doesn't become a clearhouse of BSA criticism. In line with that, we've moved criticism of BSA over other issues into other articles. We've also done more research on Support for the BSA, and added alot of quotes from its supporters.
We're thinking of putting it up on FAC again, but since you're already familiar with it, would you take a look and see if you can spot ways it still needs to be improved and maybe see if you think we've addressed your earlier concerns? --Alecmconroy 05:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fieari, thank you SO much for doing all the "Fact" tags-- it's so helpful to have a fresh set of eyes. We've spent today doing a whirl-wind sourcing campaign. We've filled in all the references you asked for and filled in quite a few you didn't ask for-- we've almost doubt the total number of references. Could you take [[another look at the article and see if you see any more holes or anything else we should address before trying FAC? Also, let us know what you think about the images we've added. --Alecmconroy 07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, we've put the BSA article up for FAC. So, drop on by the discussion and add your two cents, if ya want. :) --Alecmconroy 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :NikoSilver: 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Full citation for everything and a lot more prose has been added. TOC too. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I was about to post that in the FAC talk, but I guess it better stays between us:
- I can understand you may get lost in the lengthy debate above, so here are some key points:
- Your previous comment was: On request, I relooked at the article. I'm still uncomfortable with it as an article as opposed to a list, although that concern is admittably less now. I've seen no explanation for the lack of ToC. Additionally, the referencing still needs to be completed. I might go neutral once the referencing is done, but I'm not comfortable enough with this entry to vote support. Fieari 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- All issues you proposed were taken care of more than adequately.
- The version that you considered listy then (23.9Kb) was almost half than the present one (36.2Kb), and all additions were in prose -not lists.
- Please compare lists vs prose in the article:
- I doubt you will find the LIST part informative, while I am certain that the PROSE part, explains most of the situation.
- Six users above have already retracted their opposition regarding the "list" issue (User:Zafiroblue05, User:Huntster, User:UberCryxic, User:Smurrayinchester, User:Jaranda, User:TheGrappler) in view of these large scale modifications.
- The Macedonian category desperately needs a well-sourced, comprehensive article, as a reference for all the rest. Please reconsider your reluctancy to accept that bulleted paragraphs must not be considered mere lists. We formatted them (those that remained) this way only to illustrate confusion. They could have been without the bullet mark next to them, and the article would still make great sense.
Please reconsider.:NikoSilver: 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see you've hardly edited anything the last four days since this message... Well, the article has improved even further. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) :NikoSilver: 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Xavier/Eide
[edit]Well now I feel guilty for not noticing you were gone for a month. =) Glad you're back. The effort to get Xavier's birth name in the article appears to have died down, fortunately. No one has yet presented an argument about why it's relevant beyond the simple fact that it's true, and no one ever made an effort to adjust the wording ("aka" being misleading given that no one calls him that). Considering all that, it's easy to maintain the minimal level of civility. =) Powers 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oceanic whitetip shark FAC
[edit]Any chance of revisting it? We've done some work on it since you last checked and Peta is no longer opposing. Cheers, Yomangani 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some to the lead of this per your suggesion. Thanks for helping. If you feel more lead is needed, please advise what you feel is missing. Thanks.Rlevse 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)