User talk:GrundyCamellia/Archive 1

Hi, GrundyCamellia/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 &#126&#126~. 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.

Matani2005 | Talk 19:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Holiness

It is his Official, Diplomatic title as Pope. I hope this clears things up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

Well, notice 'Her Majesty' appears here. Its the same sort of thing. Mr. is not an official title like Her Majesty, His Excellency, or His Holiness is.

Hey, I remember you were part of the controversy about whether or not the current Pope should get his style before his name. There is a fairly substantial number of people opposed to the inclusion of the style. As such, I would strongly urge you to vote, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles, and let your voice be heard. It is a very close vote right now, so your voice would definitely make a difference. Titanium Dragon 11:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you jumped to the defense of the anon IP who has been ignoring talk pages for so long. I have left you the explanations on the talk pages of these articles and look forward to your comments.--Fenice 06:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quasipalm. In a recent edit summary for Interstate 5 you say:

I5 isn't even in the photo -- why should a mormon temple be on I5's page? It's a fine photo, but it should be on a more apt page.

Not that I'm particularly bothered either way, but... If you've ever driven along that section of the I5, this disney-esque building is a pretty dominant feature. The main reason I added the photo to this article, however, was that this is the view from the start of an I5 on-ramp. I urge you to look at the sign in the lower-left corner of the photo! Stewart Adcock 10:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you deleted the image for the composition of the 65th United States Senate. Could you tell me what was wrong with it? Eweisser 20:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No worries--I went ahead and replaced the image. I'm glad at least someone besides me is seeing what I work on! Eweisser 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed you added the non-existent {{Oceanography stubs}} to Astorria Canyon. Nice try, but the correct name (for future reference) is {{Ocean-stub}}! :) Grutness...wha? 03:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Oy, that's POV? Taboo picked up three or four Olivier Award nominations in 2003, and won one of them. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

Thanks Quasi for handling this shit with the anonymous lifer nut. You can't really trust any edit by a guy who adds 'stabbing babys in the head with scissors' into an encyclopedia article. Even if he does seem to be a much better writer than the average vandal. Other people might have completely missed the subtle ones.

--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have delt with this user before, and often and usually on the other side. That having been said please rember to WP:AGF. It IS possible to work with her if you try hard. Discuss the edits on the article's talk page. --Tznkai 22:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quasipalm, I noticed your vote on the VfD for Ajax (Declarative Programming), and thought you'd be a good person to run this by. The user who created that article, the CEO of Backbase, seems to be using two user IDs, his own (Jouk pleiter) and an IP address (62.58.16.163). In looking at the latter's contribs today, I noticed that there was another article created, Bxml. Remembering that term from somewhere, I looked at the article and saw that it was another ad of sorts, for the proprietary language that Backbase has created to be used by their product. To me, this is clearly a POV issue, so I tagged the article; after doing a little research (see the talk page), I have since learned that the language isn't even nearly notable enough to deserve an article no matter who the author was. I didn't want to be the person to flag the article as POV and then VfD it, though, without seeing what others thought. So I guess I'm asking you to take a look, and then to do whatever you think is right. I dunno... the whole thing just seems dirty, and I've tried to engage the user on the two talk pages to no avail... Jason t c 01:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I made the minor modifications to the VfD subpage that were needed to get it listed on the main articles for deletion page. It was easy to do; the three steps that need to be undertaken to officially list a page for deletion are on that main page, at the bottom. Thanks for taking a look, though; I felt like another opinion was definitely needed on that one! Jason t c 14:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the stub category on William R. Maples to a stub tag that both inserts the category and places the stub notice on the article. Please use stub tags rather than categories in future. Thanks DES ^(talk) 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's now over 6 hours since you put the AfD template on Placeopedia without creating a discussion page under WP:AfD to contest your nomination. Would you please create the page so that your grounds for nomination can be stated, or preferably remove the template altogether since the placeopedia.com site is now receiving favourable comment on the Wikien mailing list, and the article is indeed encyclopaedic? -- Arwel 23:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking policy place probably isn't the best place to bring this up - try WP:AN/I, if you think it's that serious, or Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct if it's less urgent - Guettarda 14:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for your revert on my Heading change in Talk:Atheism:

Calling my edit "editing the comments of others" implies that headings are some kind of personal property that shouldn't be touched.

The guideline saying that you shouldn't edit other people's comments is intended for people not to change the meaning of what the initial contributor wrote. This is inapplicable in the case of headings because those are not signed or otherwise attributed to a precise person by the readers.

Headings are meant for clarity and organization of the talk page, and as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Headings on talk pages they should be neutral and inviting. It is perfectly legitimate to edit them in that sense.

I agree that the word Conjecture does not intrisically mean that it is true or false. Nevertheless, I have personally encountered many situations where it denoted falseness and I gather that it may be used so in other places. Even the slightest ambiguity is unnecessary in a heading, so I consider it legitimate to replace it with the more neutral proposition. Why would you object to that? Jules LT 19:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since you're interested enough in the matter at hand to make an edit, would you be so nice and constructive as to put in your opinion on it? With only Adrigo and me, we seem to be going nowhere. Jules LT 19:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:F Dorothy2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Bash 21:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user page; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user page? Thanks. --fvw* 23:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to respond to your comments on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI regarding the Catholic Church and its teachings on sexuality, but it looked to me as if the conversation had become very offtopic, and I figured I'd be better off doing it here. The Catholic Church teaches that all acts of sexual intimacy are prohibited outside of sacramental marriage. She makes no distinction between this teaching for homosexually or heterosexually oriented persons. The Church teaches that all persons are called to chastity (see that article under Abrahamic religions for a fuller description of the virtue). Husbands and wives, although bound in sacramental marriage, are not permitted to engage in many kinds of sexual activity either (see Humanae Vitae). The Church is absolutely welcoming of all homosexually inclined persons.

The Church has not released any document which would prevent a homosexually inclined person from entering the seminary as of the present time. There has been much rumor and hype in the media about this. But as it stands, it is only rumor and hype. The Church does, however, expect every seminarian to be able to demonstrate his willingness to be chaste. For an unmarried man, this means he must be willing to make and keep a vow of celibacy, and for a married man, to keep his vow of fidelity. --Mm35173 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any objections if I added your category Category:Skyscrapers by height to the actual article? For example I would simply include a [[Category:Skyscrapers by height|508]] in the body of each tower. For example Taipei 101, the resulting Category:Skyscrapers by height page would automatically look like:

Subcategories

There are 4 subcategories to this category.

2

• category:Skyscrapers between 200 and 249 meters
• category:Skyscrapers between 250 and 299 meters

3

• category:Skyscrapers between 300 and 349 meters
• category:Skyscrapers over 350 meters

Articles in category "Skyscrapers by height"

2

• 200m+ tower get automatically added here

3

• 300m+ tower get automatically added here

4

• 400m+ tower get automatically added here
• Petronas Towers

5

• Taipei 101

etc...

Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC) hi, i think that's a great idea! When adding buildings to these categories in the future, I'll use this method. Cheers, --Quasipalm 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, will do it now. Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 23:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I updated all the buildings, it seems to work nicely, but there seems to be a User:whibot that removes articles that appear in a cat, AND appear in a sub cat. whobot as already removed all building heigher then 288m. My suggestion/preference is that the building sorted by height remain (as height are automatically sorted), but you delete/CfD category:Skyscrapers between 200 and 249 meters.... Over to you really as I cannot resist a wiki bot/borg.

Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 13:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you placed the AfD template on Live From The Haunted Candle Shop but didn't follow through with adding it to the AfD log. I just wanted to make sure you still wanted to put it up for deletion. --Locke Cole 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using subst to insert the afd template into the page, you could edit the article aftwards and point it to the Damn Skippy AfD page. But I'm not sure if that's the right way to handle a group of deletion... (but given lack of guidance to the contrary, it seems more reasonable than creating a bunch of seperate AfD nominations and only seeing a few get deleted and some not). --Locke Cole 17:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you planned on adding info about the Civ4 soundtrack to that game's article. I just wanted to inform you that I did some impromptu research on the modern era music. The full results are listed on the Talk page, but the main gist of it is that all of the modern era music was composed by a single man, John Coolidge Adams. Thought you'd like to know about that for when you add it to the article in more detailed form, since I'm not sure how much you wanted to include on this. Baryonyx 06:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Quasipalm.

The same folks who didn't like the books critical of Islam are now trying to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term) which has over 500 Kilogoogles (in various forms). Perhaps you could take a look and share your input. Klonimus 00:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have listed yourself as an atheist Wikipedian. You will probably be interested to know that Brian0918 has nominated Omnipotence paradox as the front page article for December 25th. You can vote on this matter here. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how correcting an obvious inaccuracy in an article can be considered "vandalism" or "making edits in bad faith". The lease-owner of the building SAID on NATIONAL TV that they demolished it with explosives. So, how is it a conspiracy theory? The word theory generally implies at least a partial lack of evidence or proof. I am returning the page to it's correct form, if you have a problem with that, then I would like evidence to show how the collapse of that building would have been possible by any other means. Thank you for your time. --NickABusey 18:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quasipalm. I've rolled back your edit here. I suppose you edited somebody else's archive by mistake? Also, you seem to have missed the point of the "overlinking" you corrected--it was deliberate, and made a point. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind removing the links from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACloudsplitter&diff=30249375&oldid=20760279 . Making an edit to someone elses comments is actually fairly close to Wikipedia:Vandalism - perhaps if it's part of a project I could understand. Seeking clarification. Megapixie 01:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that Quasipalm has a bit of a problem. First, she come to pages of people who have advanced in their career and have a strong biography. Then Quasipalm uses a form of self-justified vandalism and false copyright accusations to justify her bullying; and if you revert back to correct material, Quasipalm threatens with all types of admin actions. She is what I would call a "Wikipedia Bully" and makes me understand why the media cautions about Wikipedia. This person is not emotionally mature enough to have "admin privs" here, in my opinion - however, since we obviously have "Wiki Bully" I'm not going to waste my time and will file a complaint with Wikipedia management. --WikiJunkie aka 68.100.99.160

I'm pretty clueless as to why you're so upset, I've never talked with you before as far as I know. So if you could let me know exactly what’s bothering you, I’ll be more than happy to help rectify the situation if possible. However, I do not apologize for my edits of Tim Bass. I stand by those edits. If you think Wikipedia is the place for self-aggrandizing, self-promotion, advertising, career advancement, not to mention copy-right violation, then I’m afraid you’ll have to get used to having your edits rolled back. If you’re uncomfortable with someone editing your work, Wikipedia is not for you.

Oh, and I’m not an admin. And I'm a man with plenty of self-esteem. If we can work this out like gentelmen, please feel free to leave me additional messages. But don't leave me anymore ad hominem attacks on my talk page, I'll delete them on sight. --Quasipalm 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what exactly are these pages for? I ask because they can't really be linked to, so I wonder what bug you're trying to fix? sjorford (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]