User talk:Argon233/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with Argon233. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

All Pages:

1 - ... (up to 100)

This is a Wikipedia user talk page archive for Argon233.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon233/Archive_1 .

WikiProject Gaelic Games

Hi, i have noticed that you have previously edited articles related to the subject of Gaelic Games. Several users, including my self, have start work on a WikiProject to collaborate and pool our work on the subject to create, expand and improve listings about Gaelic Games and related subjects. With your previous edits i was wondering if you would be willing to join us and help out in this project. Their is no commitment necessary, and you can assists the project as your time permits. If your interested you can check out the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic Games, and if you have any questions about the project feel free to drop a line on the project talk page, or you can drop me a line directly. Thank you, and i look forward to your assistance. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boothy443 and thank you for the invitation. I'd be happy to help with your effort, but I don't really have any specific knowledge about Gaelic Games; I was just editing those articles because they showed up on one or both of these [1] [2] lists. Mostly what I did with my contribs on those articles was help with fairly mundane formatting & cleanup task. I'm not sure what more I can do to help with this category of articles, but I'll take a look at the project page and see. Thanks again -- Argon233 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just dropping in to say keep up the good work! T K E 04:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TKE and thank you for adding this nice note. -- Argon233 ^T _@ ^C _¶ ^U _∠ 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi there. I was just wondering, could you possibly reduce the number of things in your signature? It is really hard to edit a page (AID maitaining) when I have to try to decode which part of you signature is causing the problem with our bot. Thankyou --Steven 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to cause anyone difficulties; I was just looking for a way to eligantly display several elements on the screen in a small & compact area behind my screenname. The only way I found that I could make this work was to use what you ran across. The "coding" to make the sup & sub text appear over each other is especially long, but it is as short as I know how to make it and still display as you see it. I'd be very happy to learn a better/smaller/cleaner way to display the same elements in basicly the same way. I’ve spent hours on the sigs found at User:Argon233/sandbox1 trying to make this work better, but I'm still learning how to make the markup work the way I want. Feel free to added a better/smaller/cleaner version there, but please leave my current experiments too, if you don’t mind. Thanks,

-- Argon233 ^T _{_@} ^C _{_¶} ^U _{_∠}

I was thinking maybe you don't need so many different links on your signature? For example, you really don't ened another link to your userpage, or a link to a random page. I don't know, just a suggestion. --Steven 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I kind of like the elements I have in my sig (which is why they are there). I reworked it this evening. I'll go & replace my former sigs on the (AID) page with this new (hopefully) cleaner version. Please let me know if this version takes care of your maintenance bot issue. thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C U _{_@ ¶ ∠} 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after I gave this more thought, I decided that you were right; I really don't need the random article link (though it was one on the features that I credit with my early addiction with Wikipedia), and the userboxes link was just redundant. Thanks,

-- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ¶} 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link in Poison

I see today you reverted the article on Poison, removing what you identified as 'linkspam'. Can you tell me why you thought that link was a spam? I did not place it, but it struck me as an appropriate link for an article on poisons. It was a link to a US government statistical page where many poisons were listed along with the number of deaths by year they had caused. Pzavon 03:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pzavon, I'd be happy to explain what I did & why. On on 2006-04-14 between 18:15:37 and 18:54:42 UTC, an anonymous user (62.1.125.94 (talk · contribs)) placed one or more link to the allcountries.org website on the following articles: Medicare (United States); Cancer; Cardiovascular disease; Accident; Firearm; AIDS; Alcoholism; Poison; Abortion. This anonymous user has not made any other contributions to wikipedia before or since.

I examined the site being linked to in all of these cases and discovered several things:

This is not an official US Government website
- It is actually produced by "Photius Coutsoukis" and "Information Technology Associates"
The site includes google ads and links to other websites created/maintained/promoted by those listed above
- The site appears to have either have been created by a hobbyist, a self promoter, &/or in order to provide a revenue stream (the google ads) by reproducing the US Census data
While the site claims this material is from the US Census data, they do not clearly document how they obtained this data
- The site does not properly cite their sources
- The site does not properly describe how the accuracy of the material found there was/can be verified

My conclusions:

For the site to qualify as a link from Wikipedia, I fell that the website needed to do a better job of demonstrating the accuracy & verifiability of the material
For the site to qualify as a link from Wikipedia, I fell that the website needed to be more obvious that their page is not a official government website
US Census data is freely available at http://www.census.gov/ and a more appropriate link would be directly to the source material, instead to a derivative website of questionable value to the Wikipedia project

After reviewing the appropriate Wikipedia guidance, I removed the link you are referring to as part of a more general cleanup effort, which removed the links to allcountries.org placed on all of the articles listed above. I then placed a message on User_Talk:62.1.125.94. Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C U _{_@ ¶ ∠} 04:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now ran across linkspam for allcountries.org in several articles from another anon user ID who seems to have the same modus operandi. This second one also came from the same ISP in Greece. I added a spam-vandal message on the user talk page for that one too; I can only hope that whomever is doing this will eventually get the message. -- Argon233 ^T C U _{_@ ¶ ∠} 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have found and removed even more linkspam for allcountries.org that was added to Wikipedia by 193.92.83.105 and 62.1.126.73 even earlier than the other entries above. It looks like one of these IP’s was also adding linkspam to occupationalinfo.org too. Both of those sites are connected with the "Information Technology Associates", per the web pages themselves. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ¶} 00:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to the info below. Not being an experienced Wikipedia editor, I am not sure how else to respond, so I used edit. Forgive me for not knowing otherwise, and go ahead and delete this if you so wish:

Dear Argon233,

This is a response to all the nasty talk about the external links to US census data that I placed on Wikipedia articles.

Please consider the following:

1) My US census data web site has the exact data that I obtained from the US Census Bureau on CD-ROM.

2) I programmatically produced the web pages from the data, exactly "as is". Not an iota was changed, so, there should be no doubt about its authenticity.

3) There are significant advantages of my web pages over the official government US Census web site, but in terms of the ability to deep link to specific data, there is the obvious (and huge) advantage that you cannot readily do so on the government site. Theirs operates by means of presenting search results. That means that, whereas a link to a specific type of statistic is a click away to my specific US census web page, whereas in the case of the gov. web site, the link takes you where you have to do some work before you even find out that there is such a statistic.

4) The links that I placed in Wikipedia articles are only to pages that, as the editor of the POISON article pointed out, are totally relevant to the topic.

5) The fact that I have google ads on the pages should not be a deterrent to visiting or linking to my pages, because the content matters more than the ads. The ads help pay for maintaining those pages, just like ads help pay the bills in all sorts of excellent web pages and other excellent publications.

6) The notion of wholesale removal of the links to my US census data pages reminds me a bit of Senator McCarthy's wholesale persecution of well intentioned artists. The whole idea of a Wikipedia police motivated by such nastiness is somewhat frighteing.

7) Regarding the quality of my web pages and my own qualifications, I will just mention advanced age, long experience and exceptional education, and invite you to visit my page at www.theodora.com/wfb/about.html in order to see what I do, and to also let you know that there are thousands of unsolicited links to my web sites from universities, schools, government and corporate web sites, because they are so rich in useful content. All my web pages are absolutely child-friendly, without even a hint of anything that is adult-minded. Finally, you may want to do a search on Google.com for "Photius Coutsoukis", which may help you realize that perhaps I am a better critic of web page quality than yourselves.

Greetings from Thessaloniki in northern Greece.

Photius Coutsoukis

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Photiusc (talk • contribs) 2006-05-01 05:10:57 (UTC).

Full disclosure - I moved this contribution down into chronological order, but I have not modified the wording at all. When the origional contributer of the comment mentions "the info below", he appears to be refering to my original response, currently listed above.

Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 17:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Photiusc, given that you are admittedly a new contributor, for now I am going to temporarily defer commenting on some of the unfortunate characterizations that you chose to include with your post. Likewise, I will not yet question if you are in fact Photius Coutsoukis, or possibly someone posing as him. Similarly, I am not currently going to engage in a debate about how Mr. Photius Coutsoukis apparently runs his website, what his qualifications are, or whither the material presented on that website is useful in other settings.

The heart of this matter is whether (1) links to the website in question belong on articles here at Wikipedia, and (2) should they have been added in the manner they were. Initially limiting the conversation to those two specific issues is the only way I can see that this discussion will be of any real value. I am going to start with the second issue first.

Since I have previously explained why I did what I did in my post above, and given that you (Photiusc) might be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia standards and guidelines my actions were based on, I am going to ask that you first review the following articles and then re-read my response above, before we continue this conversation:

In the post above, you (Photiusc) state that you are responsible for adding these external links. I'd like your response about how you complied with the guidance articles I have listed above when you did this.

Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photiusc, since you mentioned that you are not familiar with how we use talk pages here at Wikipedia, I have added a section at the very top of this talk page where you will find links to the official policies and guidelines for talk pages. I would respectfully request that you carefully read each of these articles before you add your next post to my talk page. I will not accept a claim of ignorance of these matters after this point.

Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 13:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Argon233,

Pardon my noncompliance with your exacting guidelines. You are questioning whether the links I had added to the POISON and other articles properly belong there. Also, you characterized me as "a hobbyist, a self promoter etc.". So, first, let's make it clear, that I do not need Wikipedia to promote my web sites, which are viewed by hundereds of millions of visitors, and to which there are thousands of unsolicited links from the web sites of libraries, universities, government, etc.

Second, if I am a hobbyist, I must be very good at this web site hobby, having produced many reputable web sites, including the oldest continuously money-making web site in the world, and I have been at it since before most of you proud and strict fellows became aware that there was such as thing as the Internet.

You question wheter I am Photius Coutsoukis. You are welcome to call me on the telephone for an in-person verification at +30-23920-23920, while keeping in mind that we (in Greece) are 7 hours ahead of you.

As for the links, given that presumably you want to serve Wikipedia users, do you think that having removed the link, for example, from the POISON article to the related statistic page of my US Census web site makes your page better for the Wikipedia users?

The fact that I have not had the time to familiarize myself with your way of doing things does not change the value of that information, or lack thereof, to your web visitors. There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia, added by many "hobyists", my links certainly not being in that category, and I challenge you to find even the slightest hint of misinformation on any of my web sites.

More greetings form Thessaloniki.

Photius Coutsoukis www.photius.com

I'm sorry if you took offense when I included the word "hobbyist" in the list of possibilities for the type of personality behind the websites in question. In the end it really makes no difference to the point I was trying to make, and so it is extraneous, and in retrospect did not need to be included. If you prefer I can call you a business man, and refer to your websites as businesses.

Additional discussion about your identity is really not that critical; for now I'll assume you are who you say you are as a matter of good faith, but please remember you had the option to save face by declining to establish your identity. As the owner of a website who is taking credit for adding links to Wikipedia that point to his own websites, there are rules that apply to you here on Wikipedia. Also I will not be calling you, and anyone that calls claiming to be me is trying to deceive you.

I would like to emphasize that all of my comments about the websites in question have been narrowly focused specifically on the question of whether the websites are appropriate links for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have not and will not discuss how useful the websites are outside of that context. That broader issue is not my concern at this time.

I'm glad that you say you don't need to have your links in Wikipedia, because I believe the inverse to be true, and this would seem to be the closest that we are likely get to agreeing on that topic. If I had believed that the links were useful where they were, I wouldn't have removed them. Please keep in mind that my definition of usefulness also includes consideration you have indicated you have not yet be interesting in educating yourself about. Please see the guidance links I have mentioned in my earlier post for more details. One that you might find especially instructive is Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer.

Wikipedia is about building a online encyclopedia, and of necessity there are rules and cultural norms that have developed around that. I would gladly continue discussing that with you but please note that intentionally uncivil remarks on talk pages here at Wikipedia are counter productive to that goal and should be avoided. Both of us should bare in mind that we really have know idea who else is paying attention to this discussion, and what the future consequences of this might be.

Until you do review that material I have suggested, and as my attempts to engage in useful discussion based on deductive reasoning appear to have failed so far, I will make use of a different method to address the material in your posts, this time using less exact and more problematic symbolic reasoning. I offer the following imperfect parable:

A distinguished professor of English Literature from Oxford visits Japan for a series of lectures at a prestigious university there. He has been there many times before, and has a good reputation for how well he teaches his specific subject of expertise, but he rarely goes beyond university grounds and the western style hotel he is so comfortable with. He has given this some though, and decides he needs to see more of the "real" Japan. Late one afternoon, after concluding one of his lectures, this professor mentions to one of the university staff that he wishes to visit a sento that evening, and needs a translator to accompany him.

The regular translator the university provides for his lectures is unavailable, so the professor is assigned a graduate student as a courtesy. Unfortunately the student has many of the common pronunciation issues that the professor has grown to dislike during his stay, and so when the student begins to describe how a sento works, the professor cuts him short. "Why do you presume that you can tell me how to behave? I've been bathing myself since before your mother was born. Now show me how to get to the bathhouse!" The student silently gestures for the professor to follow, and when they arrive, he for pays for the professor with the money that university provided.

When the professor realizes that the student is following him into the bathhouse, he warns him to stay out of his way and keep silent. The professor figures out where to disrobe by watching the student, but when he sees the student quickly beginning the traditional clean process, he mutters to himself "This is ludicrous; why is that boy washing oneself from that bucket and that ugly spigot on the wall when there is that big Jacuzzi at the far end of the room?" Shaking his head and grumbling about how the university has provided him a complete idiot to guide him, and to a third-rate bathhouse that is too cheep to even install proper shower heads, the professor makes his way over to the "Jacuzzi" while attempting cover himself with a towel that is not quite big enough for the job.

As the professor reaches the far end of the room, sets down the soap and other items he is carrying, and gestures as if to get in, he hears a voice cry out "Professor, STOP!" Startled, he glances over to where his guide is busying himself by vigorously scrubbing himself, pretending to not notice what is going on. The professor makes again as if to get in and again hears someone call out "Professor, stop, don't get in!"

The professor spins around to face this voice, and in tones straining under the angery load that had been building through all the perceived slights he had received today, he demands, "Who are you, and why are you bothering me? Can't you see I am trying to take a bath. What possible business is this of yours. Were you never taught proper manners, or are you just rude by nature?"

As the face attached to the warning voice comes into the professors view, he is somewhat amused to see the face of one of his students from his lecture earlier in the day. He knew this student as one of the Americans who was studying methods of teaching English as a second language, as well work on their Japanese language skills.

"Boy, what is your name?"

"Sir, my name is not important, and you really should keep your voice down and try not to attract too much attention to yourself. You were about to make a embarrassing mistake."

"Who you are and who I am are very much an issue here. Where did you learn to think that way, some Corn-fed University in Iowa? Don't you know how to treat your betters?"

"Sir, any mistakes in my thinking are small in comparison to what you are trying to do here. You need to wash before you get in the bath."

"Child, that is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard. In every civilized society a bath IS where one washes himself. Are you trying to tell me I need to find a river somewhere to jump into for a ritual cleaning? This isn't India. I am a well traveled man of the world, and I won't be taken in by your foolish little attempt at a prank. I am a important man in my field; do you really thing you can treat me with the disrespect you're shown here and get away with it? Who do you think you are?"

"Sir, I never said that we were in India, and I'm not trying to pull a prank on you or show disrespect for your professional standing. You are taking this all wrong. You just need wash at the spigots over there like your guide is doing BEFORE you get in. That's all I'm really trying to tell you."

"I don't need your help, or the help of that silly little twit over there. If what you are saying it true then this place is insane. Besides, why should I follow the example of a bunch of unwashed heathens who are sticking their head under facets on a wall, and openly displaying what only God, their mother and their wife should see?"

As the professor chuckled to himself about how witty he thought the "unwashed heathens" part of his comment had been, the stunned American student stood there frozen, unsure what to do next. Not wanting to be involved with additional displays of disrespect to either himself, or to the students, teachers, and University staff who the English professor had failed to recognize were also in the bathing area listening to the exchange, the American decided to try one last thing. Since the professor was a well educated man, perhaps he would be more accepting of persuasion using symbolic truth imbedded in a made-up story, with enough exaggeration to highlight certain important points.

The youth looked up at the wizened English professor and started, "There once was a well known internet entrepreneur..."

Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 08:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Argon233 for the nice lesson and this great story. I also like the story that was in the news, about the American diplomat John B. Bellinger III explaining to the United Nations Committee Against Torture about how the US for sure and beyond any doubt does not practice or condone torture of any sort, while Xuexian Wang of China asked "Where would you put 'waterboarding' or other forms of inhuman treatment?", while the Senegalese delegate, Guibril Camara, said it was the committee's interpretation — not that of the United States — that would set the global definition of torture. "One of the parties is going to have to give way," Mr. Camara said. "And I think it's probably going to have to be you." and the Greek chairman of the committee, Andreas Mavrommatis, stated that "the very fact that you are asking (the Americans) for diplomatic assurances means you are in doubt". Perhaps one would want to consider that certain peoples tend to be rather suspicious of others, paranoid and fearful. The Germans gave us a glaring example in the past. There are other peoples who tend to be more trusting. As a general rule, they do not tend so much toward minute rules and regulations as they do toward common sense. They do not focus so much on punishment as they do on sympathy. There are so many combinations and variations in between, but the chasm between the extreme poles can cause baffling behavior, just like your Japanese example, but also extreme cruelty.

So, people are different. Some go by the book, others do not need so many rule books to know right from wrong. Some assign great importance to things that others consider superficial, ephemeral and trivial. Some people overlook things that to others are as important as the essence of their own existence.

I thank you again for taking the time to give me your parable, which I enjoyed reading, and from which I learned, and for taking the time to read my little news story above. I must now go finish the Chinese language version of my China statistics web site, which, barring the discovery of some error, I will hopefully upload this weekend. You may wish to check it out, if you read Chinese zh-CN (if not, then click on the ENGLISH VERSION link): www.zhfacts.com/china_statistics

Photius

London Steverson

(moved contribution made to User:Argon233/To do by 199.173.226.231 to this talk page)

[3] contains some new images of London Steverson as a Coast Guard law specialist (ie Judge Advocate General officer)02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know this, but as I do not own the copyright to those images I cannot do anything with them here on Wikipedia. In the future please add this kind of information as a post on this talk page, rather than editing one of my personal userpages. Thanks again, -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ¶} 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Lists

I see you nominated a whole slew of RAF articles for deletion a few days ago with the "reasoning" that they are non-notable subjects. There are two articles out of those that you nominated that, in their current state, I could perhaps agree with deletion. The No. 249 Wing article was in terrible condition and little more than a personal ramble masquerading as an article so that's one thing. The No. 51 OTU article was potentially a copyvio which is a separate issue to AFD so you actually went through the wrong channels on that one. I would also point out that non-notability in and of itself is not a criterion for deletion despite what many on AFD may think. The text on non-notability is an essay not an official policy of Wikipedia.

As for the lists that you nominated, which I have the personal stake in, I see that again you claimed they were "non-notable". I say again that in and of itself is not a criterion for deletion. It would also have been nice of you to let me know what you were doing since I am the author of the vast majority of the material contained within those lists. With the balloon squadrons there was perhaps a case for dewikifying them but with other units there are decades of history that are represented there. It is not a glamorous topic and it is not a topic which has easily accessible resources, so it is hard to write about, but it is a worthy topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. David Newton 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be clear here; while I did nominate using the common shorthand of non-notable, the assessment that the article should be deleted did reach rough consensus in the following discussions:

In all of these cases, after a rough consensus was reached on the AfD, an Administrator who is not known to me and with whom I have no relationship did the removal the articles per their guidance.

My AfD was just a nomination. The community at large had their input using the standard AfD process (I have always used AfD up until now, even when I could use a 'Speedy' or a 'Proposed deletion', because it seems possible that someone, somewhere will object to the deletion). Excerpts from those discussions included the following comments made by others not previously known by me:

1. "The proper course of action, as I understand it, should have been to build it in user space so it was up to standard. Of course, this being a list of links, that may never have happened. Perhaps if some of the individual wings had pages that met Wiki standards, some sort of category or list might be in order"

2. "Delete current list; move links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article requests. Once the articles exist, this list would be entirely redundant with the related category, as it only orders the wings alphabetically (well, numerically, but it's the same thing)."

3. "I see no need for these lists - maybe in the distant future if we do eventually have lots of articles on, in this case, RAF Regiment Squadrons, but not now."

4. "I really want to give the author the benefit of the doubt, and give them a chance to populate the red links, but effectively this is just a list of the numbers 901-999."

5. "These Squadrons were formed during the second world war and didn't last long. Maybe an article covering the RAF Balloon Squadrons as a whole might be possible, but I doubt there's enough history behind each Squadron, nor are any that notable. Therefore no need for a list of them."

6. "If there were articles on many of the units, then keep, but I don't think there ever will be. Maybe if they appear, then create the list again, but until then..."

7. "With no internal or external links, there's really no content in the article."

I have looked and cannot find any contributions by you to those discussions, though I would have welcomed them.

I am just a common user, not an Administrator. If you want to make claim that the lists were valuable and should be reinstated, or if you feel that material should be restored because the proper processes were not followed, I am most certainly not in a position to assist you with that. Please see the undeletion policy for more information. However, before you begin that process, you may want to formulate replies to the types of comments I included in excerpts above, and you may also find it useful to review the following material.

Best of luck. Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

AFD help

I tried to nomiante a few articles for deletion today (Alex 'Ace' Dringer being one), but I don't think I'm doing it right. They just show up on the log page as a red link attached to another nomination. Am I missing something? --cholmes75 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I do a AfD, I always added the {{subst:afd1}} message to the article first, then use the text that displays in the box on the article as a reminder of how to finish the process. One good reference currently found in that box is the link to Template:AfD in 3 steps, which I bring up in another tab/window (depending on what web browser I'm using at the time) and copy/paste from there as needed. More information on the AfD process can also be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Hope this helps & keep editing!

Thanks, Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eye tracking

Thanks for the note. I cleaned up the external links section of Eye tracking a bit. Cheers! -AED 04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Savings Accounts

Thanks for the votes of confidence. I'll be working on some of those other topics too but right now I'm doing one thing at a time. :) Sonria 01:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help on Ancient Egypt

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Ancient Egypt was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Removing red links

Hello, I question some of the red links you are removing, and I think you might misunderstand WP:CONTEXT. For instance your changes to speech recognition directly contradicts WP:CONTEXT's rule that technical terms should be linked in articles. Your changes also seem to be arbitrary, why delink the Saskatchewan health system but no the Ontario one from Medicare (Canada). We don't delink items just because we don't yet have an article. - SimonP 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CONTEXT (current version as of this posting)

What should not be linked

Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere) ... unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.

I look forward to you "promptly turn those links into real ones" in reguards to the redlinks you reverted. I couldn't agree more that that Wikipedia needs these articles and I admire that you have personally accepted that challenge to add these articles. When will you have them ready? Do you have any idea on a timetable or a schedule?

Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and reverted a number of your edits. You do seem to misunderstand WP:CONTEXT. A subarticle is not the same thing as a related article. The Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Plan is not a subentity to the national medical care, but a separate, if related, programme. Similarly a lexical unit is not a subtopic of speech recognition, but rather a related concept in linguistics. Red links are not a negative thing to be hunted and removed, they are in fact one of the main engines of Wikipedia's growth. - SimonP 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified WP:CONTEXT to make clear what that section actually means. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), which clearly states that one should link "all words and terms that are relevant to the article." - SimonP 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP,

Thank you for correcting me (though the mass reverts were a bit painful). I was reading this guidance as if it said:

"What should not be linked - Redlinks (links that go nowhere), unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one."

It's obvious from the modifications you made that this was not the current intent, so thank you for the clarification.

I still dislike redlinks (a opinion apparently shared by other users, based on the talk page for this guidance) and I strongly disagree with using redlinks in articles as some kind of a to-do list (though this may have been more beneficial in the past when their were fewer articles). Unfortunately my position is not currently supported as a matter of policy, guidance, or with any kind of consensus, so I will abide by precedent until the precedents change.

Thanks again, -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the dispute in Health insurance, so I created a stub for Fee-for-service if you guys would like to check it out. Cheers! -AED 23:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health care related reversions

I see that you reverted removals by User:Scottrox. Good work. Please feel free to warn the user or if particularly malicious, bring it to admin attention by posting at the admin noticeboard. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Health Care Procedure Coding System; Professional development; Medicare Australia; Underinsured; Medical debt; United States Court of Federal Claims; Health profession; Health Resources and Services Administration; Estate planning; Fair Credit Reporting Act; List of nursing specialties; Care in the Community; Tom Rush; Health care informatics; Guide dog; Certiorari; Right to health; Trepanation; Patient

Cleanup: E-carrier; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; Parenting
Merge: Health care; Electronic Health Record; Variable universal life insurance
Add Sources: Subincision; Charity care; David Brailer
Wikify: Keith Douglas; Shlomo Moussaieff; Yorkshireisms
Expand: Court; Ryan White Care Act; NCLEX-RN

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Father's Day

I noticed you were a father, so here is something other than a necktie. Happy Father's Day 2006.

―Linux|erist 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help on William Shakespeare

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week William Shakespeare was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau^T 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.[reply]

Article Improvement Drive (WP:AID)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Epic of Gilgamesh was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

AfD

Hi, Argon. In that it has some applicability to Universal health care, which you have edited recently, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Craig? Thanks! -AED 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busking

Sure, see WP:PR/A#Busking. In fact, you can do it yourself - add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js}} to your monobook.js, and in editing mode click on the peer review link that appears next to your log out link. The comments will appear in template form - see User:AndyZ/PR. AZ _t 13:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - My opinion about the busking zealot pretty much matches yours, I suspect. I don't have the energy to get embroiled in an edit war on the busker page, although I'll to add my voice to the discussion if no-one else steps up to the plate. He's obviously unsuited to contributing to Wikipedia, but there's likely no convicing him of it. Feel free to drop me a line if he doesn't drop the issue in the next couple days. Cheers, and thanks for caring about the quality of this great project. --RobHutten 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Woodrow Wilson Center

"It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Center establishes and maintains a lively, neutral forum for free and informed dialogue. [...] The Center is charged by the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act with symbolizing and strengthening the fruitful relations between the world of learning and the world of public affairs. The Center encourages contacts among scholars, policymakers, and business leaders and extends their conversations worldwide through its publishing, broadcasting, and Internet programs." (www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.about )

Your messages saying "Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia" might be mistaken as an indication that you are deleting blindly. The center is a valuable resource. While wikipedia is not a mere collection of links, this site deserves better than blindly deleting any link to it that you might run across. That said, external links need to be pruned with a hatchet at regular intervals and I find no fault on your part with helping with that. Thanks for helping wikipedia be a better encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I did not leave this message at your talk page, I can only assume that you are referring to the standard 'spam1' template generated messages I have left today at others talk pages, regarding wilsoncenter.org edits. If you look at the edit history for 66.100.89.251 (talk · contribs), Globalhealth (talk · contribs), and Mredheffer (talk · contribs) it is clear that an effort is being made to 'place' external links pointing to wilsoncenter.org on a wide variety of articles. Also by the edit history of the 2 named accounts it is easily inferred that these users are very likely associated with the Woodrow Wilson Center, as I would think that CSC22 (talk · contribs) is as well. They should not be adding external links on Wikipedia articles to websites run by their own organization, regardless of the standing of that organization, or the perceived value of the link. For more information please see information found at WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, and WP:WPSPAM. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that I am not "blindly" removing external links to the wilsoncenter.org website. If I had wanted to remove them all, I could easily have done so using this list. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia" is an incorrect message for a noncommercial and nonprivate website. WAS 4.250 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, the message wasn't a perfect match, but then again template messages often arn't, but we still use them here at Wikipedia anyway. I simply do not have the time to write a custom worded message to each person I run-across that is contributing spam. The message I used is one of the standard message used by the WikiProject Spam group, and in conjunction with my edit summary it is close enough to get the most important points across. If I might ask, which of the templates currently at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace would you suggest would have been a better fit? Perhaps a new template is in order or a change to an existing one? In either case, it would be more valuable for you to share your opinons on that issue at the WikiProject Spam's talk page, as it would be unwise to modify an existing spam template, or create a new one without that group's input. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 23:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unpaid task for both of us and I have no doubt that we are both helping wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia as best as we know how. I am not suggesting that you "write a custom worded message to each person [you] run-across that is contributing spam". I am suggesting that "Perhaps a new template is in order or a change to an existing one". I suggest that to you rather than elsewhere because this is an encounter with you. Please do not insist that I join some group in order to talk to you. WAS 4.250 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask that you join WikiProject:Spam in order to talk to me. I simply suggested that it would be more useful to contribute any commentary about the inadequacies of the standard spam templates on the talk page for WikiProject:Spam, instead of here on my talk page. I did not create the standard spam templates, and I have not been involved with their evolution; I am just one of many people who use that template, and WikiProject:Spam is a better place to find a wider audience of users who have a very active interest in those templates. It seems reasonable that they be involved with any effort to modify that template, or in building an alternate version that is a better fit for narrow particulars of this situation. As with any WikiProject, you do not have to sign on as a 'member' in order to edit that talk page. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉}

This conversation is getting odd and I no longer wish to participate in it. I thought it made sense to suggest saying accurate things to people you are trying to give information to. You respond as if you have no choice but to communicate thru a limited number of templates; as if you can't copy and paste any message at all of your own choosing. I don't get it and I don't care anymore. WAS 4.250 07:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry if I have been unclear - let me try this again in case you ever become interested enough to look at this again.

When I left the messages about the wilsoncenter.org edits, I used the standard Spam1 template (please click on the link to see what I am talking about) - I did not copy/paste anything from anywhere. A short explanation about why/how this message is used can be found at Wikipedia:Spam#Warning_spammers (please click on link to see what I am talking about).

I think that the Spam1 template was adequate for the situation you are taking issue with, though admittedly it was not an absolutely perfect fit. I am personally not interested in making unilateral changes to the Spam1 template, since anyone that modifies this standard message does so for the entire Wikipedia community, and there are a lot of users of this template. Also, I support the use of standardized Wikipedia template messages in the User talk namespace for common issues (like spam), and so I do not wish to create & track a set of my own custom messages to copy/paste onto talk pages, as you seem to be advocating.

Since it appears that you are concerned with how well the Spam1 message works for noncommercial and nonprivate websites, I would point out that you are certainly able to change that template yourself to whatever wording you think is better, or you can create an alternative as you see fit. If you would like to consult with wider audience about the wording of the Spam1 message or about creating a new template, you can find a large group of Wikipedia editors who actively use the Spam1 message at the WikiProject Spam talk page here at Wikipedia. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 00:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic medical record edit

With your recent edits to Electronic Health Record and Patient safety, you may be interested in this edit on Electronic medical record. Thanks, -- Argon233 T C @ ∉ 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that edit. I posted the original reference, apparently incorrrectly, since when I reviewed the reference it didn't support the "90% of NHS general practitioners have access to EMR". Ouch! I must have mixed up the quoted reference with another article, since I know I read this fact. So I have changed the same reference on CPOE, Patient safety, and Electronic health record, which had similar statements. When I find the correct figure, I'll re-edit. Regards--Ryanjo 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo Clinic and Mikeyt931

I'm a tad confused about your deletion of all links that Mikeyt931 has added to the Mayo. I followed this from Brachial Plexus, a page I watch due to my carrying a chronic injury in my BP. The pages at the Mayo Clinic are (in my experience anyway) some of the best and clearest describing this part of the body and the various injuries and treatments available. They run rings around the WP article. Internationally the Mayo is regarded as a leading medical institution, with highly regarded research and education programs. I'm not qualified to judge the other pages that had links to Mayo, but on that particular page the external link added to the article. Please note I appreciate the effort you goto to tracking down spammers, but I'm adding that link back into that page purely due to it being such a good resource. Johnpf 13:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street theatre in India

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Street theatre in India, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.aict-iatc.org/documents/congress/seoulsymposium.pdf. As a copyright violation, Street theatre in India appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Street theatre in India has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Street theatre in India. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Street theatre in India, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. .

I note that you copied this from the Street Theatre article so you didn't original copy it but I thought I'd leave this notice anyway just to let you know.--NHSavage 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate Forum

Argone233,

Your recent activity regarding this page is inexplicable. How does one define notable? An organization with more than a 1,000 members at colleges and universities around the US and in Germany, does not qualify as "notable". Does an article in the Wall Street Journal suggest notability? I wonder. I have noticed, though, that half of your deletions are challenged by respectable users, somewhat concerning to all I think. For the good of this website,I obviously will have to take this deletion up with Wiki and propose you be sanctioned. Please feel free to justify your actions. All the best, Christopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Andrade (talk • contribs) 2007-02-13T13:43:38

Agreed Chris!!! Argon I mean come on, you have to admit that some of your deletions are a little questionable:) The Wilson Center for instance, it has an even larger budget than CF's. I'm sure you mean well but I can't help but laugh a little. Oh and Chris, I will second any appeals to Wiki, and then I will get CF's page back up.MrsCAMEB 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)MrsCAMEB[reply]

I also can't help but ask, Argone, did you even bother to search for info on the organization??? There's a wonderful search engine that you may have heard of, www.google.com, you should definitely try it. Have a good day. MrsCAMEB 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)MrsCAMEB[reply]

Given the (lack of any significant) edit history by Christopher Andrade (talk · contribs) and MrsCAMEB (talk · contribs) (which gives the impression of sockpuppets at work) I have a hard time taking anything said in the above messages by very seriously, but I guess I'll invest a few word on this.

I could have added a speed delete tag, but I used a PROD message instead, since I prefer to have a more open discussion on article deletions than speedy's allow for. An admin who is not known to me (User:Mel Etitis) saw fit to change my prod to a speedy delete, and he explained his reasoning here. As I didn't do the deletion and I am not an admin, if you feel it was in error, please make your appeal to someone that can actually overturn it. As for me, I believe that all I did was to spot someone trying to sneek an article back in, which previously had gone through the proper deletion processes, and that is not the right approach to take if an article should be restored.

As for notability, there were fairly clear guidelines listed in the PROD message. As far as 1000 members in the organization somehow qualifying it for notability, I have been in local church gatherings with more that that in the congregation, I have worked in an office building with more than that in that building, and I have worked for corporations that had more that number of people employed, and that church, building and corporation do not meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please also keep in mind that the world is a much bigger (and generally better) place than the narrow confines of the college experience might lead you to believe. In the end things made up at school may not be as important to the world at large as you might think they are, even if they are as apparently solid as your organization may seem to you. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉}

Proposed deletion of List of busking locations

The article List of busking locations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very weak list; what makes a particular busking location 'well known'? Not referenced, and completely subjective

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _Talk Islander 00:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

file:Gilbert AZ 2011-10-02 4901.jpg

FYI: You need to follow the Commons:OTRS process for file:Gilbert AZ 2011-10-02 4901.jpg regarding the authors permission (ie Tashaila Nichole Meyers's parents). Other wise someone will come along and tag it "DB-no permision". If you need help, I am more than willing.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can contact you off-wiki in order to discuss this more privately? As you may notice I have a link to an external email account included on this page; if that is convenient for you, please drop me a note. -- Argon233 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knaphus

I noticed that you were working on creating an article about Torleif Knaphus. I thought you'd be interested in a couple of photos that I recently got permission to use from a member of the Knaphus family. (1, 2) The high definition handcart bronze is probably not very interesting, but the old black and white has a picture of the man himself. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Argon233 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]