User talk:Arthur3030

Sorry, I meant no disrespect; I couldn't find the email. Is it resolved now, then? Best, Koyaanis Qatsi ... It does sound dismissive, I see now. I apologize. I'm a bit absent-minded, but I hope not patronizing.

Hi, I visited talk:evolution to check it out; it's not protected and it allows anonymous edits. I've also email user:Brion VIBBER about this and a related subject to ask if it's possible to block a certain user from a certain page. I've never heard of it, and I think it might be a bug. At any rate, I hope it gets resolved soon and I'll post back when I hear from Brion (if he doesn't post here directly). Koyaanis Qatsi

You sure it isn't the fact that the page is so big? I know my talk page often gets too big for some people to edit since I stubbornly don't delete anything and only make monthly archives. Try to edit my talk page (which is bigger than talk:Evolution). --mav

You might be right, Mav. I can't edit your page. Perhaps the talk:evoluton page just happened to exceed this limit right at the time of my second attempted edit. Can someone fix this? Whose problem is it? Mine? My web browser? Wikipedias? This should be dealt with!

Some browsers can't handle editing longer pages, though I never heard of one failing but giving an error message about it. Usually they just truncate the page. What browser are you using? IE 5.5 and Mozilla 1.2 can both handle long pages. Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm using Netscape 4.75. I assume, then, that my browser can't be the problem. Nevertheless, I can't edit the evolution page--nor Mav's page. Can anyone figure this out? I still want to fix that studid page. :-)

The response I got back from Brion reads in part: " if the IP of a proxy was banned for being used by a vandal, then other people using the same proxy would see the ban message. ... If the ISP has a number of proxy servers and rotates among their use, it may well be that _sometimes_ you'll get the ban message and _sometimes_ you won't. Bad proxy-side or client-side cachine might also make those ban messages stick on particular pages if you try to reload them." In short, it's a problem with AOL and the way it handles things. Let me know if it happens again. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Eh, Brion said it might affect other ISPs as well. Frankly, I'm confused about it. Have you written him directly, or posted on his talk page? Maybe you could explain that what we thought was the cause is probably not the cause. Brion's a friendly person, doesn't bite. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Curiously, I am allowed to delete anything i want on talk:evolution. But not allowed to type or paste. (Nor have I seen any messages about being banned.)

If you're not getting a message that says "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by $1. The reason given is this:
$2

You may contact $1 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block." when you try to save, then you have not been banned. From the above description, it sounds like the page is simply too long for your browser to properly handle editing, and it refuses to let you enter more characters. Talk:Evolution is presently 42,500 bytes; some browsers crap out around 32k. It should probably be broken up into archives or separate sub-topic discussion pages. --Brion 23:04 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I've broken up that page; if you have any more trouble with it, let me know. --Brion 23:37 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, Arthur. I merely took the information about the album out of Christmas card and moved it back to Christmas Card, where it was originally. Wikipedia recognizes case differences. -- Zoe

I don't understand why you think I've done anything wrong. We have two entries, Christmas Card, which is a proper name and the name of an album, and Christmas card, which is an article about a generic thing. There is no reason why they shouldn't be separate, since Wikipedia allows us to disambiguate by case. "Christmas Card" is the proper name of the album. Let's leave them separate. You'll notice, in fact, that Christmas Card actually has a link to Christmas card. -- Zoe

Arthur, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate it. -- Zoe

Hi, and good wiki to you. Yes, the talk pages on Manual of Style are overfull and I guess I should do something about it. You make a very good point about Buddha and Jesus. I will try an alteration. Ortolan88 Fixed both, I think.

Hi Arthur. See my talk page for a response to your dispute of my change on the Jesus Christ page. BTW, I never said the Trinity was the same thing as the Godhead. ;) Regards, -Frecklefoot

Arthur, concerning Talk:Jesus Christ -- some browsers have a problem with very large Talk pages, and tend to truncate them or delete them altogether. It could have been yours, or it could have been the browser of the person who made the change just before yours. -- Zoe

Arthur, I really like the merge/changes you did on Te[mn]pura page. Way to go. synthetik

Hi there - can you please make sure that you search for a subject before you start an article on it. Sometimes you'll find that it already exists under a slightly different name. I'm thinking of gloves, which you just started, when there's already an article at glove. Those two pages now need to be merged. But otherwise, keep up the good work, and have fun! --Camembert

Hi Arthur - I've responded at Talk:Glove. The more I think about it, the more I think you should be brutal with the 1911 text and delete. It might be an idea to leave it there for a day or two, though, so that others can speak up on the talk page first. --Camembert

Arthur, I just don't understand why people complain about Americocentrism but then don't do anything about it. You did something, you rewrote the Japanese cuisine. But people like KF would just rather complain than do something about it. -- Zoe

Hi Arthur, I saw your piece on Zoe's page about Americocentrism (did I get it right?). I haven't seen the article in question, but I do agree that some people on Wikipedia do tend to see everything from a Yankee Doodle perspective. If it ain't in the US, it ain't real. Be careful about cutting a lot of American stuff out, though. The best idea is to move it to a paragraph with a headline, saying 'the US view on . . . ' or whatever. That usually encourages non Americans eventually to add in the British view on, French view on . . . etc. Eventually over time a balance will emerge. I've recently been in a bit of a fight over a page on 'football' which was written from a British perspective, in that it refused to accept the use of the word 'soccer' even though that it how that sport is referred to in the US, Australia, sometimes in Ireland, etc. Eventually after a mini-WWIII we renamed the page [Football (soccer)] and after some sulking by some of the original authors over the change, everyone now is happy and love-bombing each other with compliments, having warmed to the solution (which I am more than happy to take credit for, even if I find it bizarre that I (as an avid sports-hater) of all people got dragged into the row!) So whether it is seeing everything largely from an American perspective, a British perspective (in my case an Irish perspective) or whereever, it will happen, but eventually a logical balance that suits everyone else on the planet too tends to emerge. But don't be afraid to tackle such a bias if you see it, with a bit of re-writing. (Another row I had involved the Irish Famine, which I wanted to write from an Irish historical perspective, while some Irish-Americans wanted to burn it into a Brit-bashing neo-marxist rant of the sort that makes Irish people cringe. But eventually peace was restored and most of what I wanted survived. So things do work out in the end.)

Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading some of your stuff. JTD 02:17 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

About Talk:Glove... Fwappler is, erm, (how do I put it without offending anyone...) unconventional. Toby and I have both tried communicating with him last month, and as you can see form his talk page, every question we put to him came back quoted with extra {{}} and other whatsits and links to pages whose relevance escaped us. He seems to have settled down a little, but if you find his responses incomprehensible, I think you can safely ignore them :-) -- Tarquin 23:48 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Wilco, Arthur. Tannin

Hi Arthur, just a quick note re the controversy over the naming of the Japanese emperor. I cannot for the life of me see where you get the idea that the J E is being 'singled out'. There is a clear naming convention for monarchs. It applies only to monarchs. Taku wants the japanese emperor to be exempt. I am saying that would be a mistake. The automatic formula for monarchs is {name} {ordinal} of {state}. taku says no one will confuse the Japanese emperor with anyone else, therefore why bother with the name. You cannot be sure of that. Leaving it out risks causing someone confusion if they don't know the politics of the asian region. Keeping it in rules out any chance of confusion. But what is being proposed is not a change, simply the application of the current rules for all monarchs to one monarch, the Japanese emperor. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:15 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi,

I just made a major revision to the article Attachment. Since you perhaps know more about psychology than I, would you mind reviewing my change? Look at the last version edited by Stevertigo, and then the last version edited by me, and you will see (if you have a few minutes). Thanks, Slrubenstein

reply for you on Wikipedia talk:Use short sentences and lists -- Tarquin 20:26 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I dont know... Im thinking its "No" that sounds inbetween "no" and "nu" but im not very familiar with nihongo... -&#35918&#30505sv

Arthur asked "I need input from someone with a little Japanese knowledge. I'm trying to describe a donburi simmering sauce. NImono refers to simmered dishes, and I've seen "donburi NI shiru" refer to donburi simmering sauce. But now someone tells me that it should be "donburi NU shiru". do you have any advice?"

First, let me give rough translations of the four words you are questioning, in the context you are using them.

* donburi - "bowl of rice with food"

* nimono - "food cooked by boiling"

* ni - "in" or "for"

* no - "of"

* shiru - "soup" or "broth"

So "donburi ni shiru" means "soup for bowl of rice with food" or "sauce for donburi". --º¡º

P.S. I am glad I could help. Please know I am only a gaijin, and I defer to the nihonjin who understand better than I. I attempted to translate the words as best I understood them. You asked me about "donburi nu shiru", which meant nothing to me, but I agree with Taku that "donburi no shiru" makes sense too, along the lines of "sauce of donburi".

First of all, do not presume I know nothing about Japanese emperors. Number 2, Wiki is not about Japanese emperors or for Japanese readers. It has to have a structure that is understood the world over by everyone. Monarchical titles are a minefield and were such a mess that there used to be 9 different versions of recording royalty on Wiki, many of them so messed up that you couldn't work out who they were about until you entered the site to find out. (And even then they were so badly written (with wrong names, wrong countries, wrong dates, etc) as to be absolutely useless to readers.) A few of us got together and devoted weeks and weeks and weeks - and many entire nights! - to doing nothing else but trying to sort out the mess. We circulated suggested to solutions and questions on talk pages, on the wiki list. We checked with academics, embassies, royal and imperial palaces, etc etc to get all the information we could on naming standards. We all put a proposal to wiki, circulated it, held it as a draft while we asked everyone for opinions. The unanimous opinion we got was that in modern monarchies, because there in most cases monarchs don't have surnames, names on their own should not be used, especially as even those with surnames often have obscure surnames that 99.9% would not recognise, eg, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is Prince Charles' name (not as numerous wiki pages said, Windsor) Queen Victoria's surname was Wettin (not Saxe Cobery-Gotha, which was the Royal House name, the Romanovs weren't actually Romanov, French royals can't agree among themselves as to their surnames, others like Japanese people don't have a western style surname. The recommendation of everyone consulted on and off wiki was that the most straightforward version to use, and which should be used as a standard template, was {name} {ordinal if they have it} of {state}.

Monarchies are different to republics because a page on a republican head of state you (a) can rely on the use of surnames; (b) the person will have led a varied career before and after their couple of years as a head of state. But monarchs are lifetime office-holders largely defined by their state and lack the alternative surname to be used. So you can't simply say 'Anne', and 90% wouldn't know her surname if she had one, so there is no alternative to 'Anne of Great Britain', 'Juan Carlos of Spain', 'Haile Selassie of Ethopia', 'Humbert II of Italy'. But flexibility is a must for monarchs from long dead monarches who existed before the modern concept of the nation state. I can see the problem with Japanese emperors, but the point is Japan is a modern nation state and the term Emperor of Japan is used in english even by the current emperor when he issues statements. The battle of the 'emperor of Japan' with cancer was covered by media outlets worldwide. The embassies of Japan use the 'of Japan' designation. So does the Japanese government. When Akihito visited Ireland some years ago, the invitation issued in his name by the Japanese government invited me to a reception to the 'Crown Prince of Japan', so internationally, of Japan is widely used by Japan and its emperor. It isn't a case of me imposing a western designation. It was again the consensus agreement that that should be applied to all modern 20th century monarches still existing now even if that was not the form used in native cultures, because while you and I know the varying versions used worldwide, not every reader will and will initially be able to understand it, plus there is no guarantee that every contributor will accurately know the correct local details and so you would then have the appearance of pages that were half right or even 100% wrong (like calling Victor Emmanuel of Italy 'Victor Savoy'. Local variants could then be explained with the correct local form of title contained in the article text and perhaps in disambigulation pages. (The same is true of courtesy titles; one British prime minister was called Lord John Russell. He was down as John Russell, which not a single historian would recognise. And Lord Frederick Cavendish is never Frederick Cavendish anywhere, let alone Fred Cavendish! So we have been working on standardising the use of courtesy titles so as to avoid confusion.)

I am not trying to be alkward. I simply don't want the whole thing to unravel back to the mess it once was. As China is no longer an empire, and so has not existed as a modern state with an emperor, it was thought safe to allow it to be the exception. One or two exceptions are ok once there is no danger of any confusion and they are very much in the past, not modern functioning states. But having both Chinese and Japanese emperors, both located so close together, both with massive lists of emperors, with no formal state-designation risks leaving hundreds of pages with no clear definitionary identity, meaning that people who don't already possess sufficient local knowledge to recognise who the person was, won't have a clue who or where they refer to. And if you don't have definitions in two sets of emperors, that risks creating a situation where people would think that emperors by definition don't have to have a definitionary identity added, further adding to confusion. To avoid confusion is the whole reason why the naming conventions were adopted and the reason why so many of us put so much of our time and effort into creating a workable structure in the first place.

I am sorry if I was rude earlier. When this was all being worked on, two individuals went out of their way to be alkward. They refused to take part in discussions even when emailed, then when people agreed the naming conventions and began changing hundreds of titles to follow one agreed house style, they kept reverting, screw up changes, sending messages saying 'I never agreed to this' or 'why are we doing this again?' (even though it had been on the wiki-list a number of times, on eight talk pages, and they had even got personal emails asking their views every step of the way. One of those two ended up banned and is now back again under a false name doing the exact same thing again.) I suppose that made me unduly touchy. I was also pretty exhausted. The point is simply that with 100,000+ articles and contributions of varying standard, a source like wiki needs to have basic standard approaches on some issues that can be recognised worldwide and applied worldwide. I think it is important that people in Capetown and Canberra, Dublin and Dubai, Moscow and Tokyo can see a consistent style that tells them in a title such elementary facts as, when it comes to monarchs, what their name is/was and where they reigned. If you know that there was only one Hirohito, etc there is no problem but in putting together an encyclopædia, you cannot presume that every reader will know.

I don't mean to take up your talk page and I am sorry for my rudeness. As I say, your well meaning questions were simply almost identical to the manner in which two particular individuals tried to sabotage the work of a lot of people> Please accept my apologies in wrongly tarring your with the same brush. I hope you can see my reasoning. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:50 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've been discussing this all with Roadrunner and I've made a suggestion for an amendment to the wikipedia naming policy. It is on the talk page there. I agree. I just don't want to end up with a total of 100+ emperors from the far east that just 'exist' without saying from where (not in the political sense, but in the geographic sense). Especially when people still have to add in Vietnamese emperors, etc. One suggestion is to facilitate local naming alongside a standard name redirect page (so everyone can follow it) with a geographic (not political) designation added in brackets, just to give people an idea as to the ballpark information. That would simply work as [local form of address] (Japan) /(China) or whatever. have a look at it and see what you think! Cheers. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:42 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I HATE JAPANESE EMPERORS!!! :) Only joking! The 'problem' has now been put on the wiki-list by Zoe and I have added in some info. But it shouldn't fall up to you to sort out all the links. We all help out with mistakes, but when one person creates pages of double, treble and quadruple links, he should be responsible for at least contributing to the repairs. It isn't even clear whether Taku thinks an emperor should have a capital or small e, as he has created different versions. So I think the best thing is just to sit back (reach for a bottle of vodka!) and wait until the wiki-list reaches a conclusion on the whole mess. Take care. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:01 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I see Taku removed a lot of stuff from the Japanese naming conventions page. I don't know why, but it may be that he was adding to the page his own stuff unilaterally. Normally what you do is to put suggested changes onto the talk page, have it debated, maybe put it onto the wiki-list for further debate and then where there is consensus, put the final draft onto the formal naming conventions page. Taku might have realised he had made a mistake in unilaterally putting things on without getting agreement first, and so took it off. If so, he should have moved it to the talk page. Or else there may be some other reason. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:02 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Everyone presumes Mao is his surname, and his first name is 'Chairman'!!! :) What you could do with the naming page is go an earlier version where the information is, copy the relevant package, then exit (don't save), then go into the talk page and paste it there. That way, it would be available to be seen, but you could put a note over it saying 'disputed information originally on article page'. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:05 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Arthur - if you do decide to ask for sysop status, there's no reason that I know of why you shouldn't get it - you seem to have been contributing well and regularly for a while now. Of course, that's just me - one never knows what other people will say - but I should think you'll be OK.

By the way, you think I've got broad interests - what about yourself?! Knitting and the Black Panthers - I don't know what it is, but that combination is just a little surprising :) Camembert

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Nativity scene

Nativity scene has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Wizardman 02:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]