User talk:Ssbohio/Archive 20061231

Archive 20061225

←

Archive 20061229

Archive 20061230

Archive 20061231

Planned Archiving

I plan to archive most (or all) of my current talk page after 31 July. Please contact me if you want something kept here, or be bold and copy it back. --Ssbohio 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My plan has changed slightly... I'm going to create subpages:

• User talk:Ssbohio/Justin Berry for discussions about the Justin Berry article
• User talk:Ssbohio/Userboxes for discussions relating to userboxes, the German solution, and the deletionist attacks

These topics account for about 2/3 of my talkpage traffic, which should put off any need to formally archive for a good long while. --Ssbohio 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft Sockpuppetry

I left your vote under "Soft Sockpuppets" because of--

1. Your low number of total edits.
2. This was the first AfD you'd ever voted/participated in.

Both of those seemed highly suspicious to me. As for what you can do to avoid it in the future, it wasn't really your fault. Just continue to participate and vote for nominations in AfD and, for me, that'll remove the misgivings I had. =) --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I assume good faith in your actions. After all, we don't know each other. However, I don't think I can assume the assumption of good faith on your part. The approach you took seemed to be that I was a sockpuppet until I proved otherwise. It's only now, as I've been around this community more, that I'm seeing that that approach is not the community standard. I feel bad that I went away from this feeling that I had to earn the ability to have my opinion considered on AfD. Also, it wasn't totally clear from this comment, but it seemed to imply that I should vote for deletions. THis whole approach just doesn't seem like the best way to lay down the welcome mat. Ssbohio 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. When new users join the site, it's tough to tell whether they're sockpuppets or actual users. Just continue to make good edits, as Locke Cole said, and you'll be fine :) Ral315 (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

John L. Simon

John L. Simon , better known as Jack Simon, has coached 6 US national teams, been part of the U.S. national coaching staff for over 20 years, past president American Swimming Coaches Assocation, coached > 75 swimmers into the top-25 in the world. The current Harvard swimming coach finds him notable enough to mention him as a mentor in his Harvard bio. So, while the article is definitely a stub, he is notable. (same note to be placed on Simon talk page)—ERcheck @ 05:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Selecting images in PDF files

The way to select an image in a PDF file is to use the Image Select tool. It looks like a camera, and it's usually on the toolbar with the Text Select (I-bar) and Hand tools. If copying an image into Wikipedia, be sure the image is not restricted by copyright, or that your use is fair use. Let me know if I can help further. SteveB 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, i had just found that method a few days ago, and it took awhile because the image select tool doesn't let you save in image formats, jpg, png, etc. Only in clipboard extensions, which you then have to open with an image editing program and resave in the format you want. I was trying to extract the text, and the graph-lines that it was in to save on file size, but the image tool worked, and the final files weren't too large.

Happy belated birthday

-Daemion

Iran

Hi Ssbohio,

You're welcome to make a comment at Talk:Iran and ask what others think, but to me personally the paragraphs looked to squashed together. Cheers, Khoikhoi 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't hurt, if no one reverts perhaps I'm wrong.

I tried that, but it made all my comments look really weird. --Khoikhoi 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re. your edits

Looks mostly good to me. Ral315 (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Ssbohio, thank you very much for the barnstar. :) I really appreciate your kindness. The rollback automatically marks reverts as minor. If you notice whenever admins use their rollback it's minor as well. This is because when someone checks "view major edits only" on the history page, it is supposed to only show edits that stay in the article, which excludes vandalism. Anyways, thanks again! --Khoikhoi 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not an admin, I just have a script that does it. Cheers, Khoikhoi 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes & MarkSweep

I don't presume to speak for ArbCom, but it seems like User:MarkSweep's discipline from the committee is a result of how he went about the deletions, not about the merits of the deletions themselves. In their decision, ArbCom specifically singled out the disruptive nature of some of MarkSweep's actions, such as wheel warring, misusing rollback, edit warring, and other issues.

Disruptive userboxes vs. disruptive warring

Can userboxes be disruptive? Certainly. However, I feel like the constant fighting over the deletion or creation of userboxes, the constant stream of reviews & discussions on the same, and the lengths people on both sides have gone to to make a point, are even more disruptive & divisive than the problem that these actions were originally intended to solve. I (so far) haven't been involved in the discussion on userboxes, primarily because it's the kind of debating society merry-go-round that Wikipedia should not be.

Cost-benefit analysis

That said, the argument that Wikipedia is not mySpace is good, but, taken to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the Userspace entirely. I find I understand editors more (both for better & for worse), when I can know what motivates them & what they're passionate about. It's easier for me to assume good faith when I can see that edits, even those I think ill of, come from the sincerely-held thoughts & beliefs of their contributors. Even if the benefits of userbox removal outweigh what would be lost, I don't think the benefits are large enough to outweigh the ongoing arguing & warring about changes to the userboxes.

Why am I telling you all this? I wanted to show my perspective on this, in good faith, in the hopes that we can both learn from one another & focus on improving article space instead of either advocating for userboxes or advocating their deletion. I don't want to fuel the fire, so I'm bringing this up on your Talk page. While I'd like to discuss this on my talk page, just drop me a line there if you'd prefer we talk here. Ssbohio 04:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the overview. Seriously, I appreciate it. I understand MarkSweep has gone about things the wrong way, but I think his *intentions* seemed good, and points to the correct solution to the Userbox problem. (i.e. taking them out of Template space and stop their categorization, which leads to social networking and political tribalism.)

I completely agree that the massive amount of discussion and warring over Userboxes is counterproductive. That's why I've written that it's time for Jimbo to step up and make a final decision on them, since he certainly has heard all the arguments at this point. As founder and president of the foundation that runs WP, he has a responsibility for setting ground rules, just as any site owner or message board creator does. My personal view is that Userboxes, if in the Userspace only (and not categorized) are fine. I also agree that some personal expression - within clearly stated guidelines - is perfectly acceptable on Userpages, although if the boxes disappeared, that would not end the project. People could simply write out their interests and language preferences on their Userpages in some creative way (see mine). Thanks again for these comments! Nhprman 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble I see is that, in simply deleting the userboxes, the identified needs/wants of the wikipedians are ignored. I think a better soultion, respecting both users' wishes & process, would be to move the userboxes out of Template space amd into User space. Deleting them wholesale will be seen as inflammatory by the partisans. As for categorization, it can be the tool of the meatpuppeteers, but we already have means to combat that. I like the idea that I can find other Wikipedians who share an opinion or characteristic with me. It makes this community feel more like a home for me.

Also, it comes down to whose ox is gored, as well. In the name of deleting userboxes that are "divisive," userboxes were deleted that put forth unpopular opinions, and opened the way for allegations of viewpoint discrimination, both where it happened and where it didn't. If we sow seeds of dissension in trying to police userboxes, I can't see any circumstance where the benefit would be worth the cost. WP:BOLD is great, but it has to be tempered. Ssbohio 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree that moving them out of Template space is a solution that would solve the ongoing community battles. I guess the bottom line is Jimbo needs to speak and speak clearly on this issue. He has said (and WP:NOT indicates) that this is not a place for people to come to find others with the same interests, that it's not a place where we vote on Userboxes (or any other issue), that it's not an experiment in anarchy or democracy (or mobocracy) and that it is a place where we only edit a NPOV encyclopedia. Clearly, that's a Utopian fantasy, since all of those things have been allowed to happen. My point is that Jimbo has every right to set things right, even if that's accepting that his original ideas were a bit too optimistic, given human needs for social interaction. As for the Userboxes themselves, as I said, deleting them isn't the end of the world, and I think it would be a strong signal that we're going back to only editing the encyclopedia. If they stay, however, some basic rules about them must be created and enforced, even on the User pages, which after all, are not our property and are (supposedly) not personal webspace. Nobody's ox should be gored, in my opinion. Deleting boxes arguing one side of an issue but failing to delete the other is POV and something that need to stop. Deleting all but location/language boxes would solve the problem decisively, even if it hurts some feelings. The problems caused outweigh any hurt feelings that would be caused, I believe. Nhprman 19:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Paul Laurence Dunbar NewRuleSets.Project Generally recognized as safe John F. Kennedy Library Import duty MS Marco Polo Black Jack (the horse) Supper club Markazi Province Yazd Province Henri Marc Brunel Rhizopus nigricans Old State House (Boston) Saline (medicine) Ziconotide Treaty of Nerchinsk Commercial broadcasting Silicon nitride Starcross

Cleanup Purchasing power parity 2-1-1 Politics of Iran Merge Cardassian Intact dilation and extraction Oceanic climate Add Sources Medicare (Canada) Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia Serotiny Wikify Stanley Tomaszewski NFIRS Plasmapheresis Expand Chimney starter Cedar Ridge High School Fire and maneuver team

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 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision Userbox

You may find a userfied version of the deleted box in my user space at User:Tomyumgoong/ubx/nocirc, feel free to subst or transclude it if you wish. Tomyumgoong 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review requested for Deconstructivism

Hey there, I was wondering if you would be at all interested in peer reviewing Deconstructivism. We have got it to a stage where some criticism would be beneficial and we'd be very grateful for your input. Many thanks --Mcginnly 12:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on having both the "Sumofpi" and "Sumofpi2" userboxes on your page simulateously. That was quite a feat, and you deserve some accolades for it. --Cyde Weys 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. Like I asked you on your talk page, are you joking with or laughing at me?--Ssbohio 03:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A few responses about Cyde

Well, I just speak my mind, espcially on talk pags. I think he needs to cool down with this whole Userbox war. I may just take it to the Abration commite if it gets any worse.

As for not responding on his talk pages, probably just practicing the whole Don't feed the Trolls thing, which we should all do.

As for the bot, I honestly hope they don't make one, but I would rather have substed userboxes than no userboxes at all!

Talk to me about any more complaints. The Gerg 03:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of what bothers me is this entry from his request for adminship:

I'd just like to make one thing clear: I've never deleted a userbox and I don't forsee myself getting involved with that in the future. Why? Because I now realize that my actions weren't helping matters, so I've decided not to get involved with that anymore. There's plenty other stuff to do on Wikipedia. I'll leave the userboxes up to other people. --Cyde Weys 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's leaving the userboxes up to other people, what is he doing effectively mass-deleting them, albeit one by one? So far, I've been counselled to take it to WP:AN, but I really think Cyde is trying to do the right thing. It's just that his perception of the right thing is clogging TfD with userboxes & short-circuiting the consensus-building process going on elsewhere. Once he chops down all the userboxes, it'll be a moot point what we, as a community, decide to do.

Lastly, as for trolling... I sure hope my comments on his talk page didn't look like trolling. I don't want to debate the merits of userboxes outside of the process for setting the policy. I just want him to consider stepping back from the path he's currently on in the interest of respecting the process.--Ssbohio 04:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image misnamed, no obvious fix

While reading the Greenwich Village article, I looked at this image. The text explains it as being from ca. 1760, but the filename of the image identifies it as ca. 1860. It's obviously from the 1760s, and I figured I'd just move it & either fix the links or redirect. However, I can't see a way to move it. What can be done?--Ssbohio 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way is to delete it, re-upload, then change all the links. Frankly, it's not worth it. Just leave the title and explain it's circa 1760. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a correctly named version of the image and orphaned the incorrectly named. Will get it deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate TfD entry

Just so you know, you had a duplicate entry at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User activity, so I crossed out the bold part to prevent confusion. --AySz88^-^ 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So many userboxes being TfD'd these days, I'm surprised I only had one dupe. I try to be careful, but the mass of deletions makes it tough.--Ssbohio 20:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rhett Lawrence: article subject editing his own article

I'm not sure how to proceed on this, but I did some research and found that User:205.147.32.157 appears to be Rhett Lawrence & has done quite a few fawning & aggrandizing edits to his own Wikipedia article, perhaps creating a no original research or autobiography issue.

I checked WHOIS and got this response, which points back to "Rhett Lawrence Prodcutions." I've (apparently) previously accidentally taken things to the wrong forum, so I'm going to post this here, asking for help & advice on how to proceed. I have little knowledge of pop music, so I'm not sure I'd be much help in rewriting the article, but I'm happy to pitch in any way I can. I just worry that self-written articles will not contribute to the encyclopedia.--Ssbohio 03:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major problem, but it's not ideal. It doesn't really matter if it's Rhett himself or a staff member or whatever (so don't pursue that), I would just ask them (on the IP's talk page) to read WP:AUTO, and WP:NPOV - and point out that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Hopefully someone will re-write the article in a NPOV way soon, and the matter will be resolved.--Commander Keane 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the advice. I knew what was there wasn't very encyclopedic, but I felt that I didn't have the knowledge level to edit it into anything but a near-stub. --Ssbohio 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Just to say that I'm broadly sympathetic to your approach.--Runcorn 20:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your approach to userboxes? —David618 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My approach while there is no consensus is to let the userboxes stay as they are, except for userboxes which are clearly against policy no matter where they exist, like copyvios. As far as the long term, I see no problem with leaving them where they are. Templates exist in omni-space, along with articles. That doesn't make them articles. They don't need to be encyclopedic, nor do they need to meet any policy other than that applied to userpages. Content restrictions should apply equally to all items on user pages, regardless of what technical method puts them there. I know that the consensus solution will be a compromise, so I don't expect my view to be the final result of the process. I do, however, think that the way some admins (Cyde, Tony Sidaway, and others) are deleting userboxes one-by-one is unncessarily disruptive while the jury's still out on userboxes as a whole. We need a userbox "cease fire" while we work on a userbox "peace treaty."--Ssbohio 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Substing....

"Important Note

I consider the substitution ({{subst}}ing) of userbox code for userbox templates to be a form of disruptive editing of my userpage. To do so is highly antisocial. I already have what I want on my userpage, OK? Thanks for not editing it!"

Didn't see that, before. I was simply attempting to userfy that one so people who wanted it (i.e. still had it on their user page) would have a suitable replacement. I agree subst-ing sucks, but the anti ubx crowd has left most of us ubx addicts little choice. My apologies if I messed something up by accident. Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing messed up, and definitely no problem. I would rather have the scar from a deleted userbox show on my userpage than have a crippled userbox.--Ssbohio 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay Bar

Thanks for the POV-removal it the Gay, Michigan story. The truth behind that phrasing is that I had no idea how to indicate (without using overly casual language) that it is, in fact, just another bar. Good job. :) -- dcclark (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{db-bio}}

You nominated Diogo Jorge Moreno Valente for speedy deletion. I previously did the same [1] and was unexpectedly rebuffed by User:Blnguyen for doing so. Whether you should be concerned by this or not remains to be seen, but I wanted you to have a heads-up. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the warning. I just didn't see anything in the article marking him as notable. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Portuguese who have played football/soccer at his level. I'm sure he's great, just not sure he's special.  :-) --Ssbohio 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:24.192.44.141

If you would look into the user's block log you would see I have unblocked him half an hour ago.

I received an E-mail from the blocked user, where he provided some prove that he really owns the car as well as his real name. At the hindsight the story appears to be a complete over-reaction from my side. On the other hand it was almost a complete real life reproduction of scary stories we both heard from the media, so I decided to be better safe than sorry. abakharev 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see the logic in putting up a block in such a sensitive situation until a determination can be made. It's much like the use of the temporary restraining order in American criminal law. As someone heavily involved in editing the Justin Berry article, I know the kind of scary stories the media runs. The sad truth is that most victims of child sexual abuse are victims at the hands of family members or acquaintances, rather than strangers. Even though this situation might not have been handled the same way now that we know more of the facts, I nonetheless appreciate the good intent of your bold block.

As an aside, one of the best experiences of my life was a two month student trip to the Soviet Union that I took in 1990. Looking at your work and your bio, I see that we share an interest in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Perhaps you'd like to see my collection of pins from my trip? If so, let me know where to email a picture, or I can upload it here. Anyway, thanks for getting back with me so quickly. --Ssbohio 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I want! I even collected pins, when I was a schoolboy. My wiki-email is enabled, or you can upload it here if it has a compatible license and you think the collection may be somehow useful abakharev 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmation (WP:TGS)

Why thank you! I'd figured that change would just slip under the radar, which would have been fine with me. (A good NPOV wording shouldn't get any rational users riled up after all, so going unnoticed shows it worked.) But to actually be singled out and thanked for it is a nice ego boost.

Personally, I think the German userbox solution is basically hiding the Picasso behind the coatrack, and in theory should never work. (I intended to write a criticism of the GUS at one point, but by then, it was already being implemented, so I decided to see how things turned out.) But, if it's going to work in practice, and it seems like it just might, it will only be due to mutual collaboration. Having an admin and a respected contributor war over a quantifier is just the sort of thing that will doom any such efforts. --tjstrf 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First, you're very welcome. I've edited some contentious articles, like Justin Berry, and finding the elegantly simple turn of phrase that bypasses the conflict can be tough indeed. As far as GUS, my feeling is that the doom is already upon us. Please see my userpage for an uncharacteristically impassioned plea to keep userboxes as they are. The userbox "vampire hunters" like Tony Sidaway & Cyde don't seem likely to be deterred by a mere namespace change, since it doesn't address their fundamental objections. --Ssbohio 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't address anyone's problems. The POV userboxes still exist, only now they're obfuscated to really weird locations, which just further frustrated the people who like them. In one of the weirdest debate resolutions ever, we spent 4 months arguing over userboxes, and the end decision was that the best way to deal with it was to make a semantic distinction.

Like I said, it's "hiding" the Picasso behind the coatrack, not mentioning it, and saying you solved the problem. It was also an example of some really screwed up priorities, especially in the case of User:Christian and the like. Myself, I think POV userboxes can stay, and I don't care about the namespace at all, but joke ones need to go as being nonsensical drivel. I mean, we have a psuedo-babelbox "language" template called User:Dolphin, which no-one can honestly place on any page! Does no one else find this idiotic? But I digress, we'll see how things are in a couple months. --tjstrf 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes/beliefs

• <Cross posted reply to this ForestFire> If someone would like to have this page german-ified| to their userspace to maintain the index, preserver the history, and/or work on box replacements; let me know and I will restore it to your userspace. Emerging consensus (in many places, including the last mfd on that page) are to userfy all of this stuff. I disagree with the last speedy deletion, but not to the point of reversing it. (The last time I reveresed it it was still full of active boxes, this time it was links to box soft redirects). Any sysop can overturn the speedy deletion, and then anyone can relist this on MFD, (although it was there recently, it has signifigantly changed since last time). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Clairsville Page

Thanks for the help on the St.Clairsville page, I would like to know what needs to be cleaned, and if nothing major, how would one go about removing the ugly editing notice on the page. 24.23.108.15 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd remove it just the way Stephen_P334 did. The {{copyedit}} tag was applied because there are issues with the grammar, spelling, voice, tone, or related characteristics of the St. Clairsville, Ohio article. It places the article on a list of articles in need of copyediting, and lets other editors know of the need for editing. Please consult the Wikipedia manual of style & the guide to editing for further details. --Ssbohio 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am both 24.23.108.15 and Stephen_P334. I apologize for removing the comment, I figured I'd solved the problem, so no need to clutter your Talk Page anymore. Thanks for the advice, and again, for the work on the page.

Subpages of my talkpage

Message left on User talk:Cyde: Please return User talk:Ssbohio/B & User talk:Ssbohio/BB to their condition before being deleted & moved. I hadn't finished my work on B, and BB doesn't belong in its place. Since this entirely concerns my talk page, please direct further discussion there. Thanks. --Ssbohio 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(After the move was revesed, but the deletion wasn't...)

My apologies if I was unclear, but I'm asking you to undo both your move and your deletion of subpages of my talk page. You've undone the move, which I appreciate, but I'd really like the pages back the way I had them before your work on them. Also, I'd ask you to be careful with edit summaries. The move wasn't made because I wanted a different name for the page, but because I wanted you to revert your actions taken with regard to both affected pages. Thanks again. --Ssbohio 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

After all that, Cyde refused to restore the pages back the way they were. I've asked for the help of another administrator, as shown below. --Ssbohio 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of process deletion

When I first discovered Kelly Martin/B, I copied it to a user subpage, Ssbohio/B (history logs). I also created Ssbohio/BB (history logs) to do more work on Kelly Martin's concept of listbuilding. Along comes Cyde who deletes B and moves BB to B with the comment (Proper naming scheme). I raised an objection on his talkpage, and Cyde moved B back to BB (where it started), leaving the comment (User wants another name). I asked again on his talkpage that the original B be undeleted. He responded that he wouldn't undelete the page because he didn't like my attitude.

Cyde cites no policy in support of his action. Can you restore these pages as they were before Cyde tinkered with them? If not, what am I supposed to do? Thanks for your attention, & I'd appreciate a reply on my talkpage. If not, I can check back here. --Ssbohio 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix your userpage?

Your main userpage is broken in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera. All your userbox tables are stacked on top of each other, and make the page basically unreadable. You really might want to change that. --tjstrf 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. It's been one of the lower priority items on my to-do list for some time now. I've looked at it on MSIE & it's especially badly broken there. What I'd like to do is create a columnar layout, with most of the userboxes moving below all other text, or even to a subpage. I'm stymied by not necessarily knowing how to accomplish the changes I know are needed, and spending time working on other things in the project. Is there a good way to restructure them while keeping them grouped hierarchically? --Ssbohio 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you can nest tables. In other words, put all your boxes inside of <table> code. If you want an example, there's User:Ynhockey#Userboxes, which I believe has them the way you described. It's not that complicated, your HTML-1 skills should be sufficient. (Or do you have to be a level 2 HTML mage to use tables?) --tjstrf 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A recommendation

Since you seem attached to useerboxes in general (which I understand completely), and since the Wikipedia userboxes are being moved around right now, why don't you use userboxes from this generator instead? You can use up to 200, they are fun and humorous, and it will format them to your desire, so they won't collide like yours do now. Additionally, you'll never have to worry about them being deleted. What do you say? --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The main reason is that the graphical box is only part of what makes userboxes appealing. I've written on my user page about my feelings toward userboxes as demonstrative of an increased acceptance of diverse communities within the Wikipedia universe. Take a look at it & let me know what you think. I left a msg for you on IRC offering to dialogue, if you'd like. --Ssbohio 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking back, I think my answer was somewhat lacking, so I'll revisit it. I couldn't give a fig one way or another about userboxes themselves, to be quite honest. It's what they represent that makes them important to the project. To me, the fulcrum of this controversy is whether the diverse user communities within the larger project community will be able to continue. Userboxes are powerful tools for building communities based on common life expereiences, viewpoints, beliefs, skills, & interests. They obviously touch a nerve with some people, or they wouldn't inspire such fevered opposition. To my mind, that's OK. As I say on my user page, "users are not like you." Add the usefulness of userboxes to the pointless Sturm und Drang that's gone on over deleting them, and I can only reach one conclusion: leave them alone & let's go edit an encyclopedia. --Ssbohio 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:You wanted me to keep you updated on Cyde's actions

Well, here I am... Cyde deleted a user subpage of mine & moved another over the top of it. To my mind, he had no business doing either. Another admi, who asked not to be identified, emailed me the contents of the deleted page. What can I do about Cyde, as he seems entirely recalcitrant with regard to acting within policy? --Ssbohio 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When I first discovered Kelly Martin/B, I copied it to a user subpage, Ssbohio/B (history logs). I also created Ssbohio/BB (history logs) to do more work on Kelly Martin's concept of listbuilding. Along comes Cyde who deletes B and moves BB to B with the comment (Proper naming scheme). I raised an objection on his talkpage, and Cyde moved B back to BB (where it started), leaving the comment (User wants another name). I asked again on his talkpage that the original B be undeleted. He responded that he wouldn't undelete the page because he didn't like my attitude.

Cyde cites no policy in support of his action. Can you restore these pages as they were before Cyde tinkered with them? If not, what am I supposed to do? Thanks for your attention, & I'd appreciate a reply on my talkpage. If not, I can check back here. --Ssbohio 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated with the Cyde issuse. I had been thinking about taking a long semi-break (take a wikibreak, but poke my head in every now and then to edit some articles and be updated in the community) due to troll comments I have been reciving, but if Cyde is back to his old ways, I'll stick around for a little while. I do not know of any policy in which his actions are justified.

If you have the page code, than good. Restore it. I would confront Cyde about the issue if I were you, though he has a tendancy to revert negative comments about his actions. You might want to get some help from higher powers in Wikipedia (such as User:Essjay, a very good user). If Cyde keeps up his couruppt actions, such deleting and blocking out of policy, than take a look at WP:DR for further help.

P.S—Sorry for taking so long to respond. The Gerg 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

International Masters of Information Technology Institute

This pages appears to be a copyright infringement, with most of its content coming from the company webpage cited at the beginning of the article (which is also not recommended in Wikipedia). If you are going to edit this article or you know something about it, please re-write it so that it isn't eventually deleted. Chris53516 15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I know nothing about this article. I just happened by while reviewing stubs & new articles. I tried to do some cleanup on it, but that's about it. --Ssbohio 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... this works with my claim that it's a copyright infringement since only one user added content and it appears to be from the webpage. Looks kinda fishy... Thanks anyway! Chris53516 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsung SPH-A900

The reversion was to remove this bit of vandalism: [2]. An anon user later changed "zettabyte" to megabyte and "pornography" to "photos". ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus

Merhaba,
Why does Category: Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus constitute POV and Category: Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus does not? The UN recognizes that Turkey is occupying 33% of Cyprus using its troops? Only Turkey does not recognize it. So one country's disagreement with the UN makes everything the UN says POV? --Kupirijo 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merhaba,

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. The reason I see the title as POV is because it endorses one of the two competing views of the situation in Cyprus. You, I, and the UN all agree that Turkey is occupying part of Cyprus. However, like many territorial disputes, there is an opposing view, mainly held by Turkey and its supporters. When considering POV, the primary concern is not whether the POV assertion is true, but whether it maintains Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view. If Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus were renamed Category:Places in Turkish Cyprus, it would be closer to a neutral point of view. Obviously, no solution is perfect, but by leaving the word Occupied out of the title, it avoids the contention over whether to characterize it as an occupation which, rightly or wrongly, is not universally accepted. For the same reasons, articles about Northern Ireland don't refer to it as British-occupied Ireland, for example. Not making reference that way doesn't make the fact of the occupation less true, but rather makes the title more neutral and thus more likely to be accepted by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. --Ssbohio 06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks, for your reply. But North Cyprus is different than Northern Ireland because there has been an invasion and people were displaced. Greek-Cypriots are not allowed to own land in the north. In Ireland is not the same, both countries are in the EU. Also the borders of the UK are recognized by the UN. Places in Turkish Cyprus almost sounds the same as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nobody says Places in Greek Cyprus. However, philosophically speaking there isn't such a thing such as a NPOV (i.e. anything that is universaly accepted), just like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. So can you explain to me what is the reasoning behind me accepting Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Does that mean that I more tolerant? --Kupirijo 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • To draw the parallel more explicitly, England imposed itself upon Ireland in 1172, building upon the titular authority of the Pope over Ireland, itself an inheritence of previous invasion of Ireland under the Roman Empire. While originally controlling an area called "the Pale" (where the expression beyond the pale comes from), England, over the course of centuries, steadily imposed itself over the entire island. Those who opposed English rule were deported, imprisoned, or executed. Their land was seized and divided by English nobles, in what became the plantations of Ireland. The native Irish who weren't pushed out were forced into near-slavery, kept in poverty & near starvation. In the 1840s, the Irish Potato Famine occured, not because potatoes were the only thing grown in Ireland, but because the British exported the other grains to feed England, and saw no reason to alter this practice when the potato crop failed.
    • Getting back to Cyprus, it is clear historically that the Turkish presence is in violation of UN resolutions and established internation precedent. I support the reunion of Cyprus under its lawful government, and the abolition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The issue here is one of achieving a common denominator of terminology to avoid the continual edit wars that have been seen in topics relating to Anglo-Irish relations and in topics relating to the current divided status of Cyprus. In answer to your questionj above (swhich I regrettably missed answering before), there is a category called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus because it has found consensus within the Wikipedia community. Discussion of whether it should exist under that name can be carried out at its talk page or it can be proposed for deletion, though I think such a proposal would fail, given the result of previous discussions about Cypriot article names. Begging your indulgence, if we were to assume for a moment that both Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus and Places in Turkish Cyprus are unacceptably POV, is there a middle ground you can see? I don't want you to feel you have to swallow a POV statement for the other side, but neither do I want the title of the page to be the target of a dispute, if it can be avoided. --Ssbohio 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Keeler & Tate Management

Hi Ssbohio. The article's deletion discussion was closed as no consensus. Frankly, the state it was in right now, it could have been deleted for having no context, or as attempt to make contact (due to the address stuff). I have used the info you provided in the AFD discussion as a starting point for a rewritten article. If you could clean it up as discussed, that would be great. Regards, Proto::type 11:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the state the article is in, it could have been deleted. The facts about the aircraft are not checking out with the FAA, so I'm probably going to look for a better source than indymedia, as its accuracy is now severely compromised. If I can't make something credible out of it, I'll tag it for speedy or prod. This is a notoriously secretive company. I probably won't do much until after the holidays, but I'll at least stubbify it the first chance I get. --Ssbohio 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc / Haiduk

Hi Ssbohio, Thanks for flagging the misspelling. I was amused to see that I had done it twice. I do not know the rules, but if you think it to be an infraction of some sort then I'll change it right away. Otherwise, it's all the same to me. As for Justin Berry, all I can say is, poor kid. Seems that he has been manipulated by everyone he has come in contact with, including the NY Times reporter. Haiduc 13:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Haiduc. I don't think the Haiduk pages are any infraction whatsoever. It's just that when I looked, it looked like you were using both Haiduc & Haiduk as Wikipedia usernames. It's clear that that's not the case, but it might appear that way to someone else. Also, if some user eventually does take the name Haiduk, where does that leave the subpages you created? My main concern is that (in one of the above ways) having the two spellings in use may sow confusion. --Ssbohio 15:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

There's no need to stick your neck out for me on the abortion userbox. Everyone else is cowed by the ArbCom member. Xiner 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, but no worries: I'm firmly convinced that process is important, and I'm commited to defending that principle. --Ssbohio 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)