User:Silence/Archive0009

These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are not original with me,
If they are not yours as much as mine they are nothing, or next to nothing,
If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are nothing,
If they are not just as close as they are distant they are nothing.

―Walt Whitman

I wear a necklace, cause I wanna know when I'm upside down.

―Mitch Hedberg

Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the notification. -Silence 01:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You moved the spherical earth thingy - tut tut - but you are a true nutter I like your style.

hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oy. How terribly obnoxious. -Silence 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed your comments on DRVU and wonder if you'd take a gander at Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't planning to get involved, but since you asked, I'll voice my thoughts on the proposal there. -Silence 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Doesn't seem to be much doing on Germany, but being partial to, and well disposed towards, good looking virginal maidens, I followed you home anyway! <leer><G>

Ah, biz: I'd like to get an upgrade onto an EN from wiki DE. Anyone you can suggest to do translation?

re: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%BCringer_Wald vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuringian_Forest

(So if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a noise, or should I say, break Silence? <g> Guess the jokes on me— you're evidently cross-dressing!)

Thanks for your time, and nice to meetchya!

Best regards, FrankB 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the color scheming! I'm sort of a bit of a monochromatic-man, but I'm extremely pleased with the improvements you made. It's everything good about Wikipedia, in a nutshell! Fake User 10:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are going to do the exact same thing with user boxes as User is Christian or User is roman Catholic? Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if possible, but {{user christian}} has already been deleted because it hadn't been changed accordingly, so such a move is impossible. A brand-new template, {{user christianity}} ("This user is interested in Christianity."), will have to be created if it's not undeleted. At this point, the only two options that seem to be available are (1) your template will be rewritten so as to express a Wikipedia-relevant interest or specialty, or (2) your template will be speedy-deleted. Assuming most people would be happier with a slightly reworded box than with a broken link, I'm making the change where possible. If I had more time, I'd prefer to subst the old version to the userpages of everyone, send them talkpage messages explaining the situation and what the available options are, etc., but it's looking like if there's anymore delay, there won't be anything left to move within the week. There's just noone willing to discuss this anymore. I apologize for any inconvenience. -Silence 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not object the changes, but I was just wondering whether this would be done for all equivalent templetes as well. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why change the Baha'i Faith userbox, but not the Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, and others. The Baha'i Faith is not more or less controversial that those others. -- Jeff3000 21:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I did change all of the examples you mentioned, except the Buddhist one. It's just that I got to the Baha'i one first. And the reason I didn't change the Buddhist one is because it was deleted before I could get to it. Which is the explanation you need for why I bothered with the others: they'd all have been deleted imminently too, if something wasn't done. I've been extremely hesitant to take such action, asking for months in failed attempts to gather lots of people's opinions on this compromise proposal, and I know it'll be bound to upset a few people (who I'll gladly help with switching to raw-code versions if they prefer their old userbox info), considering how many hundreds of people use these 'boxes, but at this point it seemed to be either that or let hundreds of users' pages be mass-broken by hasty implementation of a new proto-policy, so I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the needed changes if it means less grief for people. Since it sounds like noone objects specifically to the move, only to the fact that it's not consistent yet, I'll continue the transition for other 'boxes. -Silence 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for detailing your explanation. You convinced me.--M@rēino 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also thanks for the answer. It makes sense. My only concern was that it seemed initially that you had edited some of the supposed "more controversial" userboxes like Scientology and others (not that I'm singling out Scientology, but I'm just using it as an example), and left a lot of Christian and Islamic userboxes alone. Thanks for the effort you put in to fixing the userboxes. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes more sense to start with the more controversial ones since they are the ones in danger of being deleted. looks to me like a work in progress. David D. (Talk) 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, perhaps I was confused on this template (pun intended). I was trying to get it to dodge T1 myself, but it looks like I was misguided. Anyway you don't think someone could interpret it the wrong way? Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I think someone could misinterpret it: you just did, for example. :) But isn't the solution to misinterpretation clarification, not deletion? Simply rewording the template as "This user is bisexual, not 'confused'." would clear up most possible misinterpretations. -Silence 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I screwed up and maybe I got caught up in the mist of the userbox war more then I wanted to. I like your proposal, but in this case is it better to be more precise, i.e. "this user dislikes being labeled as confused" or something - or is it better to simply do the minimum required to avoid confusion while remaining pithy :)? (and thanks for your comments and not attacking me :)) Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to go into a legalistic level of specificity. Just a little clarification should be sufficient to avoid significant misintepretations; brevity is a virtue. I see no reason why I would have attacked you: you're acting in good faith and making reasonable suggestions, and your confusion is understandable (I, too, was initially confused as to what the "notconfused" template was implying: it requires specific cultural knowledge to accurately interpret). Moreover, it may be necessary, after all, to delete the box in question at some point in the future, depending on how T2 evolves and is interpreted. It's best to avoid that firestorm for now, though: there will always be time to that issue out in the future, and it's always best to be consistent in such implementation, to avoid accusations of bias or unfairness. In any case, I'm glad we were able to resolve this so peacefully. If all the people involved in the userbox conflict were as reasonable and open-minded as you seem to be, I don't think the boxes would be a problem at all. :) Good talkin' to ye. -Silence 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought (after seeing it in action), that looks pretty good. Nice job :). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -Silence 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

could you please capitalize (Roman Roads)

Thanks. Most people just say T1 or some crap, and can't be bothered to make it FINDABLE. The way all these damnable rule pages and votes are setup, its a wonder anyone can find anything. Zotel - the Stub Maker 22:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Now you know where to complain about it, too. :) -Silence 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I see no reason for why to remove the ‘User Elitist’ template. Please provide me a reason, as I was using that template. --Hetzer 14:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you talking to me? I've never even edited that template. -Silence 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Silence, I was wondering if you can give me a rough estimate of when you think you will put your next response on the Talk page for the Vestigial structure article. I see from your User page that you love to debate. I was hoping that when you do respond again, that you would make your thoughts more concise. Thanks. (Diligens 01:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

It has been about a week now and I am looking forward to your response. I wish to remind you of something you wrote on your User page where you say to the public, "Instead of just telling me I'm wrong and stopping there, explain to me why I'm wrong so I can see whether your criticism has merit, and, if it does, change my behavior accordingly."

So far it appears you have a problem with the biological description of something being "imperfect" and you therefore prefer to use the term "rudimentary" instead, even though the very definition of the latter expressly includes the description of the former anyway. Apparently the concept of "imperfect" is offensive to your ears. Though you may not be able to discern it from what I have written so far, I think your intuition is a praiseworthy one because I believe that nothing in nature is imperfect, and I think the biological definitions are wrong because they are based on the theory of evolution. My previously posted arguments, therefore, are purely ad hominem (in the legitimate and classical sense), meaning that I am arguing based on what evolutionists believe, not on what I do. Truth must be consistent and logical, so if someone believes something is true, it cannot entail a consequent inconsistency. --Diligens 14:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are the ones that have been deleted being discussed? Ardric47 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Posted by Pruneau 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

I thought you had forgotten about us or had gone on to greener pastures. I hope you stick around and help with many of the H5N1 and flu articles. WAS 4.250 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Based on your discussion on User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian at TfD, I listed Template:User satanist at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I thought you'd like to know, as it was your idea. _{e.g., I'm not trying to advertise here} --Disavian 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Silence,

It's a matter of historical fact that these changes were made to preserve the network of marked users from justified deletion. "This user is interested in so-and-so" contributes nothing legitimate to wikipedia, and in practice only serves to virtually maintain and perpetuate the original purpose of the userbox.

That's my take, anyhow. {{User Muslim}} ought not be redirected, but deleted. Any feedback?Timothy Usher 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

{{user Muslim}} is only a redirect; there is no purpose in deleting it. Presumably you mean that {{user islam}} should be deleted, since you're railing against "interest" userboxes; if you feel that way, then simply nominate it for deletion at TfD. It is nonetheless the case that interest userboxes are actually very valuable for Wikipedia, however: knowing that someone is interested in architecture, or Judaism, or Renaissance history, or communism, is both clearly innocuous and potentially very useful, and userboxes are a popular and efficient way for users to identify such interests (for people like you who don't like them, obviously you are entirely free to not use them :) win-win!). The current main problem causing conflicts with the transition from 'belief' to 'interest' is twofold: first, because WP:CSD is in a state of flux and T2 keeps getting added and removed back and forth, it's impossible to determine whether belief-expressing userboxes are permitted or not, and it will remain ambiguous until the problem is cleared up; second, perhaps even more significantly, no users have taken the time to bother to mass-subst the original versions of these templates to the userpages that had them to begin with. That was a key compontent of my original recommendation to switch belief userboxes for interest boxes, and one that's consistently gone ignored: there's no point in such a move if we're not going to subst the original versions of the userboxes to people's pages, then make the switch! As soon as we do so, the change will become much more meaningful and useful, as it'll clear out the users who had the old version of the template and leave things open for people who don't share the ideology but share the interest (which is much more important for Wikipedia's purposes; you don't have to be a communist to be interested in editing Wikipedia's communism articles!). See my Talk-page comments at the various UBX pages for more details. Certainly your assumption that "interest in Christianity", for example, equates to "Christian", is profoundly mistaken: I'm interested in Christianity and have never been a Christian in my life, or even close to it. :) What matters for Wikipedia much more than one's POVs is one's expertise and interests in various topics, and this is an excellent method for shifting the focus of many of the userboxes to such a beneficial theme. -Silence 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to nominate you for adminship? I see that Encyclopedist offered a while back, but he's been vaporized. I promise I could write a really cool nomination, especially for such an interesting Wikipedian as yourself. Oh, and I have a perfect record for adminship nominations. (Two out of two have succeded with nearly unanimous support.[1][2]) If you want me to, I bet I could sucker those fools over at WP:RFA into letting you get your hands on the sysop tools. What do you say? --TantalumTelluride 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you ever decide you need sysop rights, I'll be glad to nominate you. You're doing a great job as a regular user. Keep up the great work! --TantalumTelluride 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay! I'm honored by your offer. After thinking it over, I suppose adminship would let me help out with a lot of things I've been wanting to for a while, and even if the RfA fails, I'll probably get some very useful criticisms for the future. So, if it won't inconvenience you, feel free to send up a nomination whenever's best for you. Should be an interesting experience. :) -Silence 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'll let you know when I get it ready. --TantalumTelluride 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my edit is that, IMO, the template looks ugly with the table cell containing the fish having a different background color than the fish itself. I'm not overly concerned with it, though and I won't revert the changes if you prefer a different color. I just thought it looked weird.

There is one thing I notice that's kinda interesting:

• [[Image:Ichthus.svg|44px|]] =
• [[Image:Ichthus.svg|45px|]] =
• [[Image:Ichthus.svg|46px|]] =

In other words, when displayed at a size of 45 pixels, that image has a gray background. For any other color, it has a white background. Do you have any idea why that is?

BigDT 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Side note: I asked the same question on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and apparantly, it's only on IE that these images have background colors ... unfortunately, the 45-pixel version just looks plain ugly. BigDT 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I send you a big thank-you for taking care of Voodoo. --BorgQueen 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but all I did was make a revert. :) -Silence 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said to the other users I've nominated, if you need a template to tell you how to accept an RfA, you're not ready to be an admin. So, I'll simply give you the link: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Silence. Now go do your thing. Good luck! --TantalumTelluride 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Funktastic. Thank you very much! I'm glad you were able to look through my lack of country-music-love and see that I nevertheless still have some shred of humanity left within. :D I'm also amused that the fact that I've randomly edited a portal-talk page in the past impressed you. :3 Good times, good times. -Silence 11:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your copyediting at Iranian peoples. It's not easy to edit my own work so your efforts are appreciated! Tombseye 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. Glad I didn't screw the article up too badly, then. :) I guess I'll do a bit more. -Silence 18:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look mostly okay to me. A second set of eyes is always appreciated. Just keep in mind that the words used are accurate (such as Indo-Europeans etc.), but otherwise your copyediting looks good to me! Oh and, if you don't mind, take a look at Watchmen. We've done most of the copyediting, but another look by someone who didn't write the article would be most helpful as those of us who wrote the article are trying to get it to FA status. Thanks. Tombseye 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen! What a fortuitous request. As soon as I've the time to focus on that page, nothing would please me more. -Silence 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Si, what up? I liked your work on Iranian peoples and I'm finishing up with Azeris and was wondering if you might do some copyediting. I would do it, but frankly I'm a little strapped for time after I finish the article, plus it speeds things up when someone else reads it and catches mistakes I might overlook unless I freakin' read the entire article aloud a few times or something. Anyway, let me know if you can help out with it. Ciao. Tombseye 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll have time to work on that article much, as I've just taken on a new workload of Wikipedia endeavors (like Watchmen ;)). However, I'll do what I can. If you have any other articles that need copyediting, feel free to send them my way too; it's always nice to have a list to go through for when I've got some free time. -Silence 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few months since you made the comment, so I thought I'd let you know that I changed goal 2 in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Goals: To alert members to articles that are biased or that exhibit prejudice against religion or spirituality. Care to join us now? --J. J. 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts, but it seems that some of the other members (such as the founder) do not share your even-handed views on the matter. I'll gladly work with you on any religious article you want any help with, but right now I don't think I can add myself to the project's roster in good faith. I wish you guys luck in improving those tricky religious articles, though. -Silence 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence, can you give us your esteemed opinion on which version of this page is better? The current version or my edit [3]? RomeoVoid 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either version is definitively better than the other. They both have plenty of faults (like colloquial phrasings and a lack of sources), and also certain advantages over one another (yours seems more expansive, but theirs tends to be a smoother read). Rather than simply labeling one version as better than the other, I recommend (as some of the users on the Talk page have) synthesizing the best qualities of each into a new and improved article, while also making new fixes to errors that occur in each. -Silence 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem very skilled in Latin, so I was wondering—what's your background in Latin? I'm also interested in learning Latin, though I'm only starting college next year. J. Finkelstein 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm mostly a Latin hobbyist. :) I've taken courses on it, but most of what I've learned has been self-taught. I've found that it's great practice to do things like work on Latin games, translate passages back and forth (for example, from/to the Latin Wikipedia), etc. I'm still nowhere near fluent, though. -Silence 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work and the excellent editing job. I'm new around here, and still finding my way.

Cheers, --Michael Johnson 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! I had fun with the changes. For me, there's probably no easier satisfaction on Wikipedia than the simple joy of merging and splitting multiple articles. :) If you ever need any help on Wikipedia or have a question or anythin', feel free to give me a call. Helping new people out is another simple pleasure of Wikipedia. :) -Silence 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The outcome no longer seems in doubt, so I figured the best way to be the first to congratulate you would be to jump the gun! Best of luck wielding phenomenal cosmic powers.  ;) Kasreyn 07:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! Wow. Thanks for your blessing. :) I hope I can be of more use with these new tools—or "phenomenal cosmic powers", if you prefer. :D I am both deeply honored and slightly disturbed at how many votes I got; Wikipedians are an interesting group of people. Much fun. -Silence 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

After an impressive showing of community support, you are now an admin. I'd recommend being conservative with the admin tools, especially at first, and re-reading the relevant policy before taking action. Have fun using the new tools to improve the place. Again, congratulations - Taxman ^Talk 14:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice going. I'm happy to see from your answers that your focus will remain on the encyclopedic content. :-) David D. (Talk) 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Don't worry, Taxman, I'll be careful not to break anything. :) And yeah, David, I expect most of my edits to continue to be content-related, though I look forward to all the new things I'll be able to fix up now. I think I can sum the whole thing up with "Neato". -Silence 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I saw someone oppose an RfA one time becuase the nominee didn't have any portal talk edits, so I thought I should let everyone know up front that you had one. Now, what are you waiting for? Go delete something! Oh, and don't forget that you can now protect articles in the state that you prefer, especially if you have any personal financial or political interest in the subject. And, most importantly, you can block anyone who opposes you. With your new tools, you will find it much easier to push your own point of view and suppress the opposition. Good luck! --TantalumTelluride 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I've seen some odd and amusing "oppose" rationales on RfA in the past. I'm actually slightly disappointed that I didn't get any; I was expecting dozens of opposes, and lots of critical feedback for ways to improve for a second try at RfA some months down the line. (I'll have to apologize to User:Andrevan now; he was really looking forward to nominating me, but I told him I'd probably fail the first try or two so it'd be better to have him nominate me later. I can be dumb sometimes, yes.) This outcome was a crazy surprise; I have you to thank for most of it, for presenting a very kind and well-written nomination in the perfect style. I'm amazed you even remembered my name since those Victor Hugo days; it's been a while. Anyway, I don't need any more encouragement. Thanks again! I look forward to letting my new tools go to my head and horribly abusing my adminship for personal gain. ;3 Good times. -Silence 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I expected you to get a few oppose votes, too, since you're so outspoken. Your overwhelmingly successful RfA suggests that you handle tense situations very well, without holding grudges against other editors or giving them reason to hold grudges against you. I'm afraid my more recent RfA nominee isn't sailing through so easily. --TantalumTelluride 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking: I'm not one of those pleasant, uncontroversial, "everybody-loves-'em"-type people, at least in my experience. I'm always willing to listen, and usually to compromise, but I have lots of strong opinions on lots of issues. I was sure I'd made some enemies over my time on Wikipedia. Strange stuff. -Silence 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Heh. :D -Silence 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, man. Andre (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, may I ask if your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Lost:_The_Journey is a comment or if it expresses an overturn and delete/overturn and relist/endorse "vote"? — Mike • 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Lar seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that those two paragraphs are distinct comments by two different users, when in context, it's clear that they're a single comment that I simply divided into two paragraphs to improve readability. My vote is "overturn and either delete or relist", and my advice to Lar is to simply make a comment to the AfD when you have an opinion on it that noone's yet stated, rather than unilaterally closing the discussion with whatever preset opinion you happen to have about it, completely disregarding the entire discussion, which is pretty clearly what happened here. Lar's opinion was a valid one, but he should have explained that point in the AfD discussion and given others a chance to respond and comment, not simply closed it in accordance with his personal views on the matter, despite the obvious contents of the discussion. His responses to the DRV comments are also in extremely poor form, as he repeatedly ignored the comments and criticisms in the DRV, regardless of their merits, based purely on whether or not they randomly happened to use the word "vote" at any point or not. Very counterproductive conduct. -Silence 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you agree that the list is a bad idea, I suggest one of us reverts it. I went to the GAD (Good article disuptes) and I had it re-reviewed. One person commented, saying that while the list was a good idea (which I still think it is), the Controversy paragraph used weasel words.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 02:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion one way or the other on the issue; I can see advantages and disadvantages to each option. I do think we should worry more about expanding the "non-human vestigial structures" section, though, especially since many of them are much, much better examples of biological vestiges than human vestigial structures are. -Silence 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured I should alert you that the article has passed GA and I have put it up for peer review.--SomeStranger^(t) 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey wiggly-poos, you never got back to me on my talk.

MSTCrow 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that! I've been pretty busy over the last few days, with graduation and setting up a few things. Hope to reply soon. -Silence 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, so I read up top that you're an admin. now. Well, gotta say given your diligent editing skills, sounds cool to me. Congrats by the way. Say, could you take a look at Azeris? I know you got a backlog, but it's on the verge of making it as a Featured Article. I just need another set of eyes to go through it one more time to catch the minor things as I've already got some good input from other folks. Let me know as I'd appreciate it. Ciao. Tombseye 07:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Template_talk:WPCD#Why_the_ambiguous_wording.3F. Shout if still unclear. --BozMo talk 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The most popular sport in the world not a core topic!? That must mean then that there are no sports related topics at all then I suppose. 08:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct. There are none. "Core Topics" is exceedingly selective: only 150 articles total make the cut, meaning that we end up leaving out even articles as important as Adolf Hitler, Middle Ages, Beauty, Genetics, Recreation, Photography, God, Christianity, Nation, Mountain, Military, Craft, and Space; I'm afraid individual sports and games don't even come close, regardless of popularity. -Silence 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also how come if it's been selected for 0.5 it isn't selected for 1.0? Jooler 08:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no selection for 1.0 at this time. 0.5 is a "prototype" selection process, and none of its decisions are final. If you're curious, feel free to read their pages on the subject. -Silence 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you recently posted a "core article" template on the talk page for Color. The template lists the article as "B-class", which according to the classification, indicates that it needs a lot of work. Can you elaborate on how you (or the project team) came to this conclusion? I've just started looking at it to improve it, and would appreciate the informal "peer review". The really glaring thing is that it needs inline citations; what are some of your other comments? Thanks! -- Laura S | talk to me 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we haven't given the page an in-depth review, but the most obvious problem with it is that it lacks references. With some inline references and a little cleanup, this article has a good shot at reaching A-Class, especially since it's already quite expansive (as I noted at the WP:CORE page). -Silence 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Ancient Rome

We editors must just not be very observant

What does that mean? Why did you put back the cleanup tag? — Donama 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See the Talk page. -Silence 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly sorry about that -- I thought I had it all fixed. Glad you were observant enough to notice it still. Cheers — Donama 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Biotechnology is a candidate for the 1.0 core topics collaboration of the fortnight. But recently it was removed from the entry list of Core Topics. What should be done with its nomination for COTF? Thanks. --Victor 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to remove it, they can, but I don't see any reason to do something that might prevent people from collaborating on an article they want to work on (especially one that does, in fact, need help, like biotechnology). Although we should certainly remove articles that are added to the Core Topics CoTF when they aren't Core Topics, we might make an exception for articles that are removed from the Core Topics list while they're in the middle of being voted on at COTF, in order to avoid too much fluctuation in the listings there. On the other hand, another option is to simply list biotechnology at other Collaborations where it's more appropriate, like WP:AID and WP:SCOTW, and notify the people who voted for Biotechnology at the CTCOTF so they can transfer their votes to the new nominations. Depends on what the people prefer. -Silence 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't resist and started reading your Eye evolution article. The argument you make in the first paragraph is flawed; there couldn't simultaneously have been an arms race in extant species and monophyletic eyes. I've heard the arms race argument for hard parts (producing the Cambrian explosion by allowing fossilization) but never for eyes. Graft 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but it's not an "argument I make": I took that section verbatim from the current eye article. I'm building the article based on what's at Eye#Evolution of eyes; if there are any errors in the original article section, they should be fixed first. (By the way, feel free to make any changes you want to the in-development page at User:Silence/Eye. I plan to move it to article-space as soon as I've effectively summarized the current "Evolution" section of the eye so that it's a better two-to-three-paragraph summation of the whole process.) -Silence 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved the new article to articlespace: Evolution of the eye. Feel free to make any changes you feel necessary. However, I believe that you've misunderstood the meaning of the "arms race" concept: the idea is not inconsistent with monophyly because the evolutionary arms race is not postulated to have originated the earliest eyespots, only to have accelerated the development of those eyespots into full-fledged eyes. In other words, the earliest, rudimentary eyes had already become widespread, and the "arms race" merely drove those competing species which had undeveloped or underdeveloped eyespots to extinction, thus rapidly, through natural selection, causing most animal species to develop effective eyes. However, those eyes developed in many different directions (compare arthropods and animals, or vertebrates and invertebrates), despite their common origin, hence their diversity. -Silence 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Hi I've been working on an article on Pakistani opposition leader Wali Khan and I was hoping for your input on it before I nominate it for featured article status. Any help will be appreciated! --Zak 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Where was it discussed that a new image should go on this template? OzLawyer 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:FACfailed. -Silence 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be considered "Filbuster" in wikipedia. This is obviously my POV but the proponents of CP does not appear to have wikipedia legal argument. I would like to have the debate arbitrated by someone who can direct participants to make relevant (policies) argument. Vapour

The page move is not a final decision. Feel free to continue to make your arguments for moving the article to "death penalty". But you should have built consensus for such a tricky article before attempting to move the article yourself; while discussions are still ongoing, the default name will be the original, and it will be moved (or not) only after the discussion has come to a reasonable conclusion or compromise. This is the best way to avoid edit wars. -Silence 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. your comment about cooperation and consensus: Me too. It would be helpful if you made changes one point at a time with effective edit summary justifying each. Editors have accepted such point-by-point changes many times in that article, and will again. Please understand that if your changes get inadvertently caught up in a POV war in such a controversial subject, it will likely get successfully sorted out in the end. Good regards. ... Kenosis 16:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Making copyedit changes one point at a time would literally take weeks. It's easier (on all sides, since other users would have to read my ultra-detailed summaries!) to simply make the changes, since they're largely very minor ones, then to discuss whichever ones anyone objects to—I'm not psychic, I can't foresee which minor edits are going to be problematic before I've even made them! I did, however, deliberately take the time to make my edits gradually and methodically, and over the course of a number of edits, so that anyone who wanted to could very easily compare the differences in each version. For example, I waited an extra edit to move an out-of-place paragraph from one section to another, and add a new image, because I knew that doing so in the same edit I made my copyedit would mask what specific change I'd made to the article from users who were non-manually comparing the two versions, which I didn't want.

In any case, thanks for the kind comment; you've given me renewed faith in humanity. :) I apologize for any confusion that was caused by my hasty edits; although at the time I made them they were quite minor, I realize that over the course of a number of minor edits, the accumulation can make them seem like one huge, major edit. :) -Silence 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. These things take time, and should take time, especially in controversial subject areas. ... Kenosis 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I just hope to get some constructive, workable responses to my edits in the future. I'm fully willing to compromise and rework any of my changes that are not acceptable—it's just hard to do that when the only criticism you get is, essentially, bein' a dirty stinkin' rotten scoundrel. @_@ Not as specific as I'd like. But I'll try to be patient; thanks for the advice! -Silence 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of today's edits look pretty good. Others I need to think about. (But the pics, well, we really didn't need them.) I still think it might be better if you did ther edits in smaller chunks as it's easier to follow what you're doing that way. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying my best to do from the start, and I'm working even harder on it in this new, second wave of copyedits. I could have made essentially every edit I've done to the intelligent design article so far in only one or two edits; the only reason I've broken them up as much as I have is to make it easier to follow all the changes I've done by comparing edit history entries. I'm also making more of an effort in the second wave to clarify exactly what I'm doing in my edit histories, though it's exceedingly difficult because of the text-limit; I'll have an easier time discussing objections to various changes on the Talk pages, rather than taking twice as long due to having to second- and third-guess myself. Thanks for the advice, though.

As for the images, I've brought up the matter on the Talk page so we can talk them over. I'll agree with you that they aren't absolutely, vitally necessary for the article (but then again, neither is the Time image or either of the two images adorning the creationist and ID templates, so by the same logic, we should remove those as well! in fact, if you think about it, my two new images are infinitely more relevant to the actual article than any of the previous three images are!), but I'd argue that the article is significantly better (particularly in terms of accessibility and aesthetics, but also in turn of usefulness and informativeness) with them than without them. -Silence 10:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't see the images gaining traction.

I'm a lttle puzzled by this, "Then let's simplify it to what we use in the lead section, "intelligent cause". Starting sections with "the" is poor form, and the section doesn't address plurality." Of the hundreds and hundreds (sounds like Sagan as a kid) of book I have, mant chapters and subchapters start with "the". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about beginning encyclopedia articles and article sections with "the" on Wikipedia, not in general. Wikipedia prefers avoiding "the" at the start of section and article titles when it is not necessary (i.e., if it was a section discussing a book called "The Designer", that'd be OK; but when the initial "the" is optional, it should usually be avoided). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) for details. -Silence 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RE the last comment on my usertalkpage: I understand. Mass edits tend to be rejected in a controversial article like that. If you look through the edit history 500 at a time, you'll see that after being rejected on a couple of issues, I began on 1 March 2006 making edits one at a time. I made no more than six or seven individually small, specific edits a day. Most of them were accepted, a few were reverted. If I had tried them all at once I'd have been blown right out of the water, so to speak. And, some of the specific proposals I made were rejected by consensus. There is good cause for editors of a controversial article such as that one, to reject mass edits completely, but that's a dynamic that is too much to analyze fully at the moment. ... Kenosis 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ... Moreover, the article has been stable for about three months now, so resistance is greater to change than in March of this year. Lacking a significant change of available information or another significant legal ruling, seems like that'll remain the case. On the other hand, with a really well received editorial suggestion, who knows? ... Kenosis 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence, got your note. May I suggest striking through your submissions of 14:05 and 14:11 on the basis that they are no longer seen as relevant to the substantive discussion--that effectively gets them out of the way. I'll then strike through my response to them. ... Kenosis 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: this edit

We now have TEN (and counting) messages in a row at the top of that page, with no apparent organisation to them. This is a similar mess to what we now have on edit pages and elsewhere. Why would anyone bother to read them; why would this entice people to join us? Brian Jason Drake 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the messages are relatively short, though. And they're exactly as organized as they were before, just without the even more space-consuming sectioning (which failed to draw any distinction at all between Talk page discussion threads and header templates). If you really want to cut down on the size, why not remove the largest template in the list, and arguably the least important: the "This is a talk page." header? -Silence 03:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They might be as organized as they were before but they look like a mess. On other talk pages I have not encountered any opposition; after this I started using level 1 headings to distinguish between templates and actual discussion. The "This is a talk page." template might not be useful but it is used on a lot of pages so changes (including its removal) should be discussed there. Brian Jason Drake 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In reference to this edit: ouch, it pains me to see someone formatting all of the references by hand. That's exactly what the citation templates are for. Just use citation templates for each reference and you won't have to worry about keeping everything consistent; the templates will do it automatically. As an example of an article using citation templates, see Operation Summer Rain. It's very helpful. --Cyde↔Weys 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's extremely helpful! And yes, I was dreading having to wade through the entire article's references, but I want to get them all consistent so I can start adding a few of my own, as I recently picked up a couple of very useful books for supplementing some of the more poorly-referenced parts of that article. However, though I'll try them out, I'm not sure how successful those cite tags will be: unlike Operation Summer Rain, which has an extremely simple and basic list of references, the Intelligent design article is a labyrinthine scrawl primarily consisting of footnotes of various sorts, only sometimes veering into "references" territory, and even then almost always with a note added in from the general text. That's the main problem with making the references section consistent: there's such a diversity of different kinds of notes and refs gathered there that I'm very unsure of how they could all be fit to one standard, or even three or four standards. However, hopefully the "cite" tags will be a good start! Again, thanks for the help. -Silence 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Something to utilize your amazing ability to type at 500 wpm, copyedit, and rewrite; while waiting for the dust to settle on the ID talk page: Painterwork. It has a merge tag right now, to merge with Painting, but that article is about artistic painting. IMHO Painterwork is not a very good title, and a move might be in order. I have absolutely no idea if you'll be interested in attacking this problem and I won't be the least bit bothered if you don't - its been on my to-do list for months and it doesn't look like I'm ever going to get to it, and no one else seems to be taking an interest, so I offer it as a suggestion to you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, KillerChihuahua no fair! I've been begging for Silence's talents for longer than you have! And a recent (today) PDF from WHO completely updates what is known/confirmable about human infections of asian linage HPAI A(H5N1). Silence, please lend a hand at Transmission and infection of H5N1. WAS 4.250 02:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you added the tag reading "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." The so-called "original research" and "unverified claims" come almost entirely from the links down below (i.e. message boards and user commentary). I read your contribution history, and I've noticed that this is the very first time that you've edited on the All That page much less any other Nickelodeon program! So I'm not really sure if you've ever watched the All That program before.TMC1982 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Additionally, even with the message board posts, there is plenty of original research and dubious claims on the page; this goes hand-in-hand with the NPOV problems. Also, although you are correct that this is my first edit to a Nickelodeon-related page, whether or not I have seen the show is irrelevant here. (Though I have.) -Silence 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the talk page of the article. I've been trying to figure out where the wheels went off the track. You seem to have a good appreciation of how the editors jealously guard hard won compromises on that page. Your edits were, perhaps "bold" considering, but that is, after all, what we are enjoined to do. I see your edits as definite improvements to the article and relatively uncontroversial. The only comment I would make on your talk page style would be to, perhaps, be more succinct. Sunray 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very good advice; I have a bad habit of being too verbose when trying to be as clear as possible, which has the unfortunate side-effect of people skimming over or ignoring what I said, thus making it less clear. :) In any case, I'm delighted we have some new, eager young blood, if only to help take some of the heat off of me. :P Nah, I look forward to workin' with you, and to hearing some new ideas for how to improve the article! I think it's a fascinating topic, and a page with an enormous amount of potential; if we really wanted to, we could probably get it Featured in a month or two, though it sounds like the editors there aren't interested in that, which is fine. I just like improving articles for its own sake (and for the readers'). :) -Silence 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:"new, eager young blood": Well, only as pertains to that page, as you will see from my edit history. I came to that page by accident, and saw some of your edits. Good copyeditors are all too rare around here, (and are usually appreciated), so I became curious. I couldn't believe that your careful edits were reverted and then, subsequently, that you were so ferociously raked over the coals. That "designer or designers" edit was a test to see how fast I would be reverted and by whom. Very revealing. However, your re-wording is vastly superior and will likely stand the test. Onward. Sunray 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was only referring to a blood infusion for that page in particular. :) And yes, I think you can expect that all or most of the reverts of your edits will come from FeloniousMonk. Try making small, well-explained (in edit summary) edits, a few at a time, at least to start. I got blasted almost entirely because of how many changes I made in the edits, and because they weren't spaced out enough in time, rather than because of their actual contents. I actually prefer your version, "intelligent designer", to "intelligent cause", because of the rationale you provided: it's consistent with the intelligent designer article (which, if problematic, should be renamed first, ne?). But a compromise like this is better for avoiding unnecessary fights over little things; best save it for the big things. :) My re-wording to "intelligent cause" was actually implemented a while ago, during a productive editing session with Jim62sch, but it was subsequently mass-reverted by FM, so, back to square one... -Silence 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

- Davodd 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid /SlaveCrixus 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. /SlaveCrixus 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Diagram of eye evolution.jpg

Hello. I noticed you put a request for a diagram of evolutionary stages of the eye on WP:RP a couple of weeks back. Well, I decided to flex my illustrative muscles and put together something that I hope meets the requirements of the article. It's similar in some respects to the Strickberger image you linked to in the request, but I kept it quite simple for the sake of clarity. Of course, I'm no biologist, so if there are any mistakes I've made, or any improvements you can suggest, I'll revise the image to make it suitable. ~ Matticus78 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow. That is absolutely perfect, and absolutely gorgeous. Simple and clear, but informative, is indeed ideal, and you've pulled off the combination expertly. o_o; It's even better than the source images in question, as its use of color makes the parts stand out much better for viewers. Thank you so much!!! The only possible issue I can see is finding the ideal way to make the image large enough in Evolution of the eye to clearly see the text; perhaps we should even consider cutting the image into six pieces and placing them throughout the "stages of eye evolution" section so that enough space is given to showcase each stage and more fully appreciate the detail of the job you did. :D Great work! -Silence 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it! That seems a good idea about splitting the diagram in some way. I wonder, though, if six diagrams might be overkill, or it may be hard to fit them all into the article alongside the existing diagrams and photos in the "Early eyes" and "Lens formation" sections. Perhaps a two-way split with three or four of the stages in the Early eyes subsection, and the remainder in the Lens formation subsection would work better?

Also, I was a little unhappy with diagram E - the article itself describes lenses forming by splitting from the transparent cells covering the eye, while two of the diagrams I referred to illustrate the lens forming from the cellular humor inside the eye chamber instead. Have I misinterpreted here? Is there some uncertainty over how the lenses evolved, or were my reference diagrams out of date? Should there be an anterior chamber in front of the lens, as described in the article? I want to make sure the diagram is as correct as it can be. ~ Matticus78 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you were the editor who added the image to the userbox Template:User abortion. I recently came across this box, and was immiediately struck by the POV of using a photograph of a near-term pregnant woman on a supposedly-neutral template about abortion. What does a woman about to give birth have to do with the abortion debate? I would appreciate knowing your reasoning behind this addition, and I would also appreciate your consideration of using a different image. Please note, for example, the userbox Template:User WikiProject Abortion, and how it uses two images that clearly represent the issue, yet do not take a side. There is also a discussion beginning about your use of this image on the WikiProject Abortion talk page, and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"What does a woman about to give birth have to do with the abortion debate?" - Yes, what indeed. :/

I chose the image because it is a simple, evocative, and free-use image of the focal point of the entire debate and controversy (i.e., woman + fetus), and a much more specific image than a generic medical or legal symbol. I find it a very fitting, compelling, and neutral image, but if you and the others find the image for some reason objectionable (though you haven't explained why, exactly, in your above post), you may replace it with something more appropriate. -Silence 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem I could see is that abortion is not legal or typical at such a late stage. A first trimester image, however, would not be much use for depicting mother AND fetus. A dilema. David D. (Talk) 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is not meant to be a literal representation of abortion (if it was, then even a first-trimester image would be misleading, as it would imply that all first-trimester pregnant women get abortions? and it would only depict the mother, thus fixating the debate on her alone in a way that many people interested in the abortion debate would object to), it is meant to simultaneously draw attention to the mother and fetus in a non-polemic, unbiased way. Such an abstract, symbolic image would obviously be inappropriate on the abortion articles, because it would not be encyclopedic and clinical enough; but it is perfectly fine for userpages, if people like it (and most people seem fine with it at the least, since the userbox has accumulated almost 70 users already). The image is not meant to imply anything as absurdly literal as "this is a woman about to get an abortion", it's simply meant to highlight what's at the focal point of the debate. I think the image does a nice job of humanizing the debate in a tasteful, neutral way, but if others disagree, as I said, you can replace the image, or simply make a new userbox with a different layout. -Silence 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth. i think the image is great. And i understand your reasoning, nevertheless, I assume what I wrote is the angle the critics are taking. David D. (Talk) 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. :) -Silence 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like David, the main problem I see with the image is also that it does not depict anything having to do with the norm of abortions. I don't think that a woman about to give birth has much to do with the abortion debate, because a woman about to give birth has obviously chosen to carry the fetus to term and have the child, and therefore is not a part of the debate as it is. Yes, it is evocative, because it pits a full-term pregnancy against the word "abortion", as if daring anyone to be in favor of a right to choose when faced with this attractive image of a pregnant woman. This is how I viewed it anyway, not that it was depicting a woman about to get an abortion. And, the "focal point of the debate" is not a woman about to give birth, so I'm confused as to your stating that this picture is a good representation. As for it being a neutral choice, I am still confused as to your reasoning. Would you put a third-trimester ultrasound image in here? Probably not, because that is more obviously a tactic of the pro-life movement. Would you put the woman symbol in instead? Probably not, because that is more obviously a tactic of the pro-choice movement. Although slightly more subtle than either of these two, a pregnant woman, clearly near to giving birth, is a loaded image. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the disconnect here. You are interpreting the image on a completely literal, superficial level. You assume that the image is meant to be "evocative" in that it is offensive or controversial, because it contrasts the image of a woman late in her pregnancy with the abortion debate, which mainly concerns women early in their pregnancy. But most other users, myself included, interpret the image on a figurative, symbolic level (because there is no way to literally represent abortion in an acceptable, neutral, comprehensive way). When I said it was "evocative", my meaning couldn't have been more different from how you interpret it—it is evocative because it is stark, because it is subtle, because it is simple yet universally understandable, and because it draws into focus what is actually being debated much more plainly and essentially than a caduceus or weighing scale possibly could. That is the problem, here: the unintended literal interpretation conflicts with the intended figurative one.

By the way, could you clarify what you mean when you say "that is more obviously a tactic of the pro-choice movement"? Are you accusing me of selecting an image in order to further an ideological cause? -Silence 17:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand a bit better where you are coming from here. And yes, I must admit that my first impression when I saw the photo on the userbox was that someone had placed it there to make an anti-abortion statement. I am not accusing you of anything; this was merely my impression and because it struck me so, I decided to find out the reasons for it having been placed there, before jumping to conclusions as to motive. See, it is not uncommon for pro-life groups to use attractive pictures of pregnant women as part of their cause. Please don't act shocked that someone could have thought that this was a similar case. You say the image is evocative "because it draws into focus what is actually being debated". What is being debated here? Whether a woman about to give birth should do so or not? Whether she should have gotten pregnant in the first place? While this image would certainly be perfect for a userbox saying "This user is interested in pregnancy-related issues", I just don't see how it has much to do with the abortion debate in itself. Now, while the caduceus and scale are quite impersonal, they represent that the debate is primarily waged on medical and legal terms. If you want to go into more personal aspects of abortion, fine, but that's a different issue. Abortion and abortion debate are different issue, and that's where it appears to me that we aren't quite connecting. romarin [talk ] 18:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that this was a common pro-life tactic; I apologize if I gave that impression. I'm surprised that "attractive pregnant women" would be used for such campaigns; I'd more expect images of adorable little babies. But, I wouldn't put it past them.

"What is being debated here? Whether a woman about to give birth should do so or not?" - What is being debated is what will happen to a pregnant woman and her fetus, and who gets to decide what will happen. The image is meant to represent pregnancy in general, not "a woman about to give birth". The only reason it depicts late-stage rather than early-stage is because an early-stage pregnancy would be undetectable. The fact that it is a silhouette should emphasize its symbolic, rather than literal, nature: it is meant to be universalized, not specifically analyzed for exactly what stage of pregnancy it represents.

I propose that we have at least two templates: leave the current one where it is, but provide alternatives so that yourself, and other users who agree, can choose them instead. You can even provide a link from each template to the other using noinclude tags, so people who visit one will be aware of the other as an option. Let the users decide; in the long run, less conflict will ensue if we let people choose which image to put on their userpages, and although I agree that blatantly offensive imagery should not be tolerated on a wide-usage template like this, I don't think that this case is blatant enough to fall under that area; it's quite borderline. -Silence 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's why I said that this sort of imagery used in anti-abortion media was less obvious, because it isn't as common as ultrasound images or cute little babies and toddlers. But it does exist, and is not hard to find.

You say yourself that "this image is meant to represent pregnancy in general"; that is why I think it is a bad representation for abortion. "Pregnancy in general" and "abortion" are pretty different issues, don't you think? I understand why it is a picture of a late pregnancy rather than an early one; that has never been an issue in itself. I only mentioned that particular aspect in pointing out that abortions at this stage are incredibly rare (about .04% or something like that), but I understand that you didn't mean it to be a literal representation in this way.

In the end, if people are happy with it (and realize that it might cause them to be pre-judged as against abortion) then they should keep it. But I still think that, even if this is somehow representative of abortion, it is not representative of the abortion debate, as I mentioned in my previous post. Perhaps another suggestion would be to change the wording of the userbox to say "interested in issues of abortion", rather than highlighing the debate. Still, I am very interested in what others think on the matter. Thanks a lot for being open to communication on this matter :). romarin [talk ] 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Silence. I had an idea related to your idea about assigning priorites of importance to articles considered for Version 0.5. I think the general idea of priority levels for topics is good, regardless of how much acceptance or agreement happens at 0.5.

But I'm thinking there might be a more efficient way to do it, mainly by using a larger set of numbers to designate the priorities, and also with a scale that is somewhat less relative. By that I mean that each priority level would correspond to a set of some defined number. Here are a couple of examples.

One option is based on powers of 10.

• Priority level 1 -- The 10 most important items.
• Level 2 -- The 11th to 100th most important items.
• 3 -- The 101st to 1000th most important items, and so on.

Another option is based on doubling.

• Priority set 100 -- The 100 most important items.
• Set 200 -- The 101st to 200th most important items.
• 400 -- The 201st to 400th most important items, and so on.

These could be set up by continuing in the same vein as the core topics or with categories or both. Categories could allow subcategories, such as "the art articles within level x."

Walkerma mentioned a four-level scale already in use. But that only designates priorities within a given Wikiproject. Maurreen 11:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a feasible idea in practice. We'll often have no idea of knowing whether an item is important enough for the top 100 or for the top 200 until after we've finished collecting the top 100. In other words, it's a fine system, but I think it's one that would only practically work in retrospect, when we already have a list of all the most important topics and can further subdivide it by various even numbers. Trying to conform the listing to an arbitrary "maximum number", rather than simplify trying to conform it to a certain level of importance, is needlessly complex, time-consuming, ridiculously difficult to do accurately. And we already have a similar listing in the form of the Core Topics, which experience has shown isn't necessarily a more useful list than if it hadn't been restricted to only 150 articles: inconsistencies tend to accumulate when we are so strict with forcing there to only be a certain number of articles of X level of importance, as that's an unnatural and unrealistic limit to try to place, hindering the scale's actual accuracy in favor of pointless aesthetics. -Silence 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Posted by →LzyGenius 11:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.

hey, I copied your sillygoose userbox (partly to try and figure out how to do it - and I am still only partway there). I hope that is not annoying. if it is, you know where to go to anihilate the copy! Sillygrin 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not annoying. I'm honored you like it, or at least wanted to play around with it. :) Another user borrowed it, too, way back in December, and didn't ask about it here; it's very much not a big deal. :D Let's grow the gaggle! -Silence 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm planning on migrating the userbox you created (User:Tal642/my userboxes/race-0) to my user space per WP:GUS, in order to prevent its potential deletion. Is this okay with you?

Tal :) 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the move is done, I hope your fine with it (if not, talk to me). Personally I'm very glad to preserve this great userbox which I find to be very cool and which also made me think about the "artificialty" of the whole concept of races... Thanks! Tal :)

Heh. I have no opinion on the matter. I only made the box. The people with the box on their page are those whose objections might matter, since they're the only ones affected by it. If the users are OK with it, so am I. Thanks for the kind words. :) I'm glad to have touched on a sentiment so many users share—and, perhaps more importantly, a thought-provoking one even for those who don't. -Silence 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. When someone brings up a dispute and does so rationally, giving reasons, don't dismiss it as "silliness". One revert a day for two days with detailed reasons is not "silliness", even if you disagree with my changes. Be respectful and discuss things as equals, and keep your unproductive disdain to yourself in the future. Happy wditing, Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Silence, an anon edited this article after you. It could be vandalism as the anon subsequently made factual changes in numerous articles. However, since it could have been a different person and I'm not familiar with the topic, I wanted to check with you before reverting. Could you take a look at it? Thanks, Accurizer 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit to Catullus 8 is correct. It takes less literary license in the translation than the original version, which was more concerned with capturing the feel and essence of the passage than with word-for-word accuracy. Although I have a personal affection for the previous version, I don't see any problem at all with the new one. -Silence 22:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. Regards, Accurizer 01:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work making the Final Fantasy X's prose much less flowery. I also prefer the more straightforward, comprehensive approach. — Deckiller 02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

About including the details on the FFX page; it was agreed through consensus that many of the plot's details (since the game is very story-driven) be described in a sub-article that also merges all the "mini articles", including Pyreflies and Yevon. That article, formally Mythology of Final Fantasy X, is now at Spira (Final Fantasy X). Perhaps that answers a few questions as to why the details are left out.

My knowledge of the FFX plot is limited (most of my FFX story/Mythology of FFX edits were prose, which has been rendered obsolete by flowery additions), so I think this should be brought to the attention of the entire project before the main page debut.

Also, have you noticed recent IMs? Those have been from me :) — Deckiller 05:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Davodd 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

May you copyedit the Final Fantasy VIII article? Don't worry, everything is covered in the article, it's just about prose enhancement at this point :-) — Deckiller 08:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Silence, I didn't notice until after I put it up for deletion, but apparently you created this cat after moving it from cat:successful college dropouts. I suppose I should have checked its history and asked you your rationale before CfD'ing it; sorry about that. I'm very interested to know what you think about it. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the article history you'll see that on May 27 Danaman5 rewrote a lead per the FAC comments, which I tweaked; after that it descended into a muddled pile of disjointed sentences added in by various writers. You might look at that prior version and unfiy with your changes.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

hi, saw your post about the page being to lengthy (and I think you were suggesting, uneven in quality, too). I totally agree.

I am currently editing it in hard copy. I have merged "history of evolution" and "modern evolutionary synthesis" (which lengthened it a bit, but some of this could go on to other pages), and was just about to start on "science of evolution" and "distinctions between theory and fact", which will shorten it considerably.

I would like to know if anybody else was doing this, so we could divide it up, rather than doubling up!!!! Sillygrin 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Glad to hear it! I don't know of anyone other than you working on the page at the moment, but if you want any help with any area of the page, like merging parts of "Misconceptions" up, feel free to ask. -Silence 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

cool. I haven't even looked at "misconceptions" yet. what do you suggest there?

what else do you want to do? I have been reverted once so far, and I have repeated the edit with an explanation, but once the edits have been made to stick, and settled down, copyediting would be welcome - the paragraphs are a bit rough now that I have been chopping them up. Sillygrin 12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently Aiden posted yet another attempt to characterise the evolution article as NPOV. I tried out the idea of moving off topic and pointless discussion to talk pages and moved it to Aiden's talk page. Aiden reverted the move claiming that it was "censorship". The post is now developing into a nice little time waster on the evolution talk page. Not sure what conclusions to draw. Perhaps I did this too early. Perhaps Aiden is unreasonable. Perhaps I am. Never the less its an interesting little piece of empirical evidence to consider when thinking of the off topic posting problem. Barnaby dawson 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping improve my growing wikiproject by adding a more suitable picture to the stub template. As a token of my gratitude, I offer you this Mooncake. Thanks again! --Hezzy 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Having attained two years and 10,000 edits, you are hereby given these WP:SERVICE badges. Herostratus 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey! How are you doing? Do you remember me? I read you are now an administrator. Good! I am glad to see that in this wiki (as opposed to some in other languages) they like guys with guts that say what they really think, and show that by naming admins if they are good at what they do, like you do. I was coming here to invite you to use your superb copyediting skills to a recently FAC: Bhumibol Adulyadej. I already notice a few things that could be improved, but I leave it you; after all, you are the expert. Cheers. Anagnorisis 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a recent photo. Pleae review its FU rationale and location where I put it. Thanks for the help with the article and the FAC.Rlevse 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• thank for reverting those two users. I was debating if I should, and now I see I should have.Rlevse 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you are interested in Catullus; if you could, please spare a couple moments for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catullus. We are trying to figure out which of the following poems to transfer to Wikisource: Catullus 9 Catullus 12 Catullus 13 Catullus 29 Catullus 49 Catullus 96 Catullus 16 Catullus 4 Catullus 109

Your input would be extremely valued. Thank you, Sophy's Duckling 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where've you been? Rarr 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response, at least. Rarr 02:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Indiana. -Silence 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware. There are obviously computers in Indiana, as both you and I are posting on wikipedia. You are missed. Rarr 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about your comment: what is the correct grammar for the Wikipedia talk:Unusual articles list? A colon after every entry? Rintrah 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See the manual of style page for dashes: "Em dashes are sometimes used incorrectly to separate lists of items from their definitions. (A colon should be used instead. Wikipedia also has a defined syntax for definitions, which is often preferable to colons. See How to edit for details.)" However, since WP:UA is not in the articlespace, utility and readability take precedence over grammatical or formal correctness. -Silence 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. By the way, which manual of style is wikipedia's manual of style based upon? Rintrah 09:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, finally the type of response I was waiting for.... Muchos, muchos gracias. Gnixon 18:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What is truth? What am I?, my mind wonders about the fact that all is infinate and not. Is there a start and an end? The universe is confusing and marvelous all at once. Language is the essence of me, and all languages are beautifull and colourfull and the ryming is the tune all the seasons. Just as life is given and taken, and no creature lasts forever.Enlil Ninlil 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mdwh, remember that saying "explicit, positive atheism" is essentially the exact same thing as saying "strong atheism", because all strong atheists are by necessity explicit atheists (you can't positively believe that there are no gods without conscious decision), and because "positive" is synonymous with "strong" (just as "negative" is with "weak"). In fact, "positive" is the definition, in this context, of "strong". -Silence 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got your logic wrong - yes, all strong atheists are explicit, but not all explicit atheists are strong. There exist explicit weak atheists (such as myself). Mdwh 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

When on earth did I ever say anything to the contrary? You're jumping to ridiculous conclusions. -Silence 02:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "explicit, positive atheism" is essentially the exact same thing as saying "strong atheism". If you're not saying they're the same, then I guess we agree, but I'm not sure what you are saying? Mdwh 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's essentially the same because strong atheism is both explicit and positive. The definition of strong atheism is "positive atheism", and explicit atheism is a necessary (though not sufficient) characteristic of strong atheism. -Silence 13:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You had once expressed interest in the "Lord Byron" being moved to that very name. I've started a request to move but a bunch of stubborn people are intent on shutting me down. Any support you could bring would be helpful. Talk:George_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron#Requested_move--Lairor 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have expressed criticism of the article, Argument from evolution. After being flagged for 5 months as needing cleaning up, I have proposed it's deletion. Please participate in the discussion of the proposal. Hackwrench 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you have worked a lot on the atheism article, and greatly added to its being sourced. I am interested to know what you think of my latest postings on the talk page there.--JimWae 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have mentioned your interest in the Latin language and so I am wondering if you have any ideas on the revamping of the Greek and Latin roots page. I mentioned in its talk page that I felt it might benefit from a more tabular, organized layout, and the inclusion of English and scientific words which are based on the roots. From my understanding Wikipedia frowns upon pages-as-tables, but I feel the current layout isn't very useful.

Do you have any opinions on the page? Bdrydyk 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Silence—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read your profile after a long time and found it interesting and funny. Somethings are new for me however. Hope you have recognized me. I am the one who gave you tough time one year ago. PassionInfinity 10:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Worldtamilsnationalflag.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your recent high-quality copyedits to the first sections of the Barack Obama article. These types of contributions are rare and much appreciated! I encourage you to continue your copyediting through to the end of the article. I also hope that you will check back from time to time as the article is frequently revised. --HailFire 09:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that a while back you added Category:WikiProject Linguistics to Category:Culture WikiProjects. I've changed it back to Category:WikiProjects, with an explanation on the talk page. —Tox 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)