User talk:Zantastik/archive1
i was trying to make a point that your article about israel is by far not a political and only considers the arab point of view. puritanicaleuphoricmisanthropia@hotmail.com
VfD
[edit]Don't worry too much about the VfD, mistakes will happen. Welcome to Wikipedia! --fvw* 14:32, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your edit! Here's the comment I left on the article's talk page. Please get back to me if you object to what I've done, so we can work something out. (Comment follows.) User:Zantastik's addition about Bingham's statements is right on, factually. (Indeed, it was precisely those statements that Hugo Black relied on when making the case for total incorporation in Adamson v. California.) However, since the Bill of Rights has been incorporated not through the Equal Protection Clause, but rather through the Due Process Clause, the statement doesn't belong in this article. What I shall do, therefore, is transfer Zantastik's addition verbatim to an appropriate position in the incorporation article. Hydriotaphia 08:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind comment. You're absolutely right: there should be more information on the legislative history of the Equal Protection Clause. I'm studying for law school finals right now, though, so I probably won't have a chance to do that until January! Best, Hydriotaphia 08:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I have reverted your change to the above article, in which you deleted a block of text. Your explanation for the removal in your edit summary was "absolutely no place for such weird little rants here". With respect, we at Wikipedia do not usually delete whole blocks of text just because we find them weird. As for your claim that the text in question was POV, well that may well have been true. I have edited the re-inserted text to reduce this. In future, I ask that when you encounter material you find to be POV, you refrain from deleting it outright, and actually make an effort to restore a neutral point of view to the text.
I noticed you also removed the same paragraph from trousers. I have not reverted that change because I don't feel content should be duplicated within Wikipedia. - Mark 14:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
These are links to the thing i was trying to write about and it is a valid thing to write about:
PMA 13:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My point is that in the past there would not have been these efforts not to wear dresses - it is true that alot of girls and women feel that they shouldnt wear thm - look at this (scroll to the bottom) where a girl said about her school's new uniform policy at least we don't have to wear dresses. I asked female aquantainces both in real life and on Wiki before i wrote the passage in the S & D article - if i erred i am sorry - i thought i was doing the right thing. PMA 12:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I left a note for you on the Talk:Jewish_ethnocentrism#Some_critics page. Make sure that "some critics" aren't "you." I know that some things seem obvious and if so they need careful treatment. It's easier in the long run, and more appropriate for an encyclopedia, to have references to sources that can back you up. It looks like you're making valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and thanks for doing that. But you should know that some pages are so controversial that editors are suspicious of uncited additions (while other pages are so rarely edited that the bar is lower in practice). Anyway, you're going great. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Table
[edit]| Pale présent | |
| Mou — pale | Nou — pale |
| Ou (To) — pale | Ous / Zotres — pale |
| Li — pale | Llo / yo — pale |
Best I can do. - Vague | Rant 22:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
...and in nine lines ... Noisy | Talk 20:01, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
| Pale présent | |
| Mou — pale | Nou — pale |
| Ou (To) — pale | Ous / Zotres — pale |
| Li — pale | Llo / yo — pale |
Table resources
[edit]The best place for information on tables is m:Help:Tables. There is alternative information on Wikipedia itself at Wikipedia:How to use tables, but that is only the secondary place to look. Noisy | Talk 12:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm about to shift this to the archives. Are you still working on this or actioning it? I haven't seen a comment in a while! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know of any area... however, my suggestion is to place it on WP:FAC. Trust me, you'll get more feedback than you can poke a stick at. Right now we're trying to change the situation at peer review, in the meantime try seeing if you can get it to featured article status! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Funhistory
[edit]I received your message full of compliments for a contribution I made, but in the week since I became active on this system, I don't know which contribution you were referring to--probably LMLK seal since it was featured in Did You Know yesterday. In any case, thanks for your encouraging remarks. Last night I created a new page for the enigmatic MMST inscriptions, & thought that maybe it contained too many references, & I did not have time to list the publishing companies. I felt just the opposite about my Biblical archaeology page, since I didn't have time to list any references. I hope to make many improvements as time goes on. Thanks for your help! Funhistory 18:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Diane Mela and Robin Gabrielli
[edit]I noticed you voted keep on the last VfD for these two actors. Well apparently there is a second VfD. I'm voting keep again. You may want to have a look at it on the VfD page. Megan1967 09:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fathers' rights NPOV tag
[edit]I've left the tag you put in the article in place for the time being. Please indicate any instances within the article that you consider NPOV, being specific. Perhaps if you think the whole thing is NPOV, then it might help to identify the 'worst' offence, and I'll do what I can to correct/ameliorate/provide citation for whatever you mention. This will save you the effort of identifying every bit that you might have a problem with in the first instance. Also check out Wikipedia:Peer review/Fathers' rights/archive1 posted by me about 9 months ago, whence a constructive editing process might be developed, possibly along the lines I proposed then. I'll remove the NPOV tag from fathers' rights shortly if I don't get a response from you. Matt Stan 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fathers' rights VfD
[edit]The previous VfD for Fathers' rights is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fathers' rights. Please remember that the VfD page isn't a vehicle to get articles cleaned up or fixed in some way. Rhobite 21:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my post was really in response to the first stubbish version of the article, which I was quite surprised did not mention New Paltz. Good work on your expanding it quickly.--Pharos 23:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help much with Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States, my 'specialty' with Same-sex marriage in New York is really New York.--Pharos 23:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
SPLC
[edit]FYI, while you and I may not consider the Southern Poverty Law Center to be controversial, there are quite a few people who do. In the past, mentions of the SPLC accusing some organization of being a hate group have resulted in various derogatory details about the SPLC being added to whatever article was involved. Rather than fight each and every one, I developed this formula for adding to articles of organizations that are on the SPLC's hate list with the hope that it would forestall criticisms of the SPLC intended to blunt the impact of being listed as a hate group.
- The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group, has added the League of the South to its list of watched groups.
So far I haven't noticed anyone complaining about my formula or your revision of it. But I thought I'd let you know the background. Personally, I don't mind seeing the word "controversial" removed, as long as it doesn't produce controversy of its own by adherents to the various watched groups. And by the way, thanks for your many contributions to Wiki. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
useful link
[edit]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama
backup
[edit]Nous devons tous faire un effort ici! Le wikinews français est en danger de devenir inactif! Si chacun fait son propre effort, nous finirons par réussir! Allez sur le site anglais et traduissez un article. Je suis très occupé en ce moment, mais je commence à faire ça. Si 20 gens font la même chose là, le Wikinews français verra le jour
Un peu sur moi
[edit]J'écris des articles pour Wikipedia (la version anglaise surtout, bien que je fasse un peu pour la version française) et j'ai pensé à essayer un peu ici aussi. C'est excitant de pouvoir participer dans un projet qui vient d'être créé. Je peux faire des traductions anglais --> français, mais l'inverse m'est beaucoup plus facile. Avez-vous besoin que je traduise un article? Dites-moi. Je peux faire de très petites traductions de Wikinews d'allemand en français ou d'allemand en anglais.
Contactez-moi soit en anglais, soit en français.
Video game stubs
[edit]Would it not be better to use the {{cvg-stub} template, as opposed to the {{game-stub} template? Rad Racer 05:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you, Zantastik. :) WhisperToMe 06:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Moore v. Dempsey
[edit]Hey Zantastic. Thank you for your nice comments, and huge thanks for the table; it's actually something that I wanted to add, but had no idea of how to go about it. You and an anonymous user has already done quite a good job of filling most of the information in the table; I will do my best to fill in the missing information, and see if it's something that I can insert by myself without having to bug you to do it - if, however, I end up breaking the page, I'll just send you the relevant info.
If you are ever in the mood to add a similar table to any of my other recent SCOTUS articles (i.e., Weeks v. United States, Wolf v. Colorado, or any of the other articles listed on my user page), please feel free to do so. I believe that every SCOTUS case in Wikipedia should have such a table for easy reference, but unfortunately, I haven't had much luck in trying to use that particular template.
On a semi-related note - how did you spot this particular article so quickly? I think I only added it less than 24 hours ago ;). Thanks again, RidG (talk) 18:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)