User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Dec 2003-Mar 2004)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Michael Snow, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• MediaWiki User's Guide
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

—Noldoaran (Talk) 04:53, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

You made the move from Film to Cinema before there was any kind of consensus -this is not how we do things here. Particularly for a subject that appears on the main page. It would be like moving Theater to Plays. Please move everything back and then we have have a discussion about moving. My opinion is that the artform is called film. People study at film school not cinema school of movie school or motion picture school. The go to film club not cinema club etc.. etc.. in addition in Britain and elsewhere cinema almost always refers to the building and not the artform. Mintguy (T) 09:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My concern, as you know full well, is that you are changing very many links that were pointing to film or motion picture or movie (which are redirects to film) to point to cinema instead. Clearly aiming to make Cinema the lead article on the subject. Mintguy (T)

---

Hi Michael, thanks for shuffling all the hat articles around, and for writing a stub for Hats (which is why I listed it on VfD, that's what it needed). I wanted to move the overview article to headgear but wasn't sure about copying and pasting it in like that, hence the creation of hats and headgear. Anyway, it's more logical now.  :) If you're interested in the subject, which is vast!, I tentatively started a wikiproject yesterday (Wikipedia:WikiProject Hats and Headgear) and any contributions would be appreciated. As you can see I suggested a "this article is part of X series" box which I intend should be a {{...}}, but most of the articles I imagine might need to be included are as yet unwritten. fabiform | talk 07:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Main Page

Please see the NOTE at the top of Talk:Main Page and MediaWiki talk:Itn. --mav

Hi. Why are you deleting all of the community information page type links? Secretlondon 21:53, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

back link

Why are you deleting those backlinks? I use those. Kingturtle 23:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not to be a pessimist, but does anyone see anything rather familiar about this username? Pakaran. 23:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nothing personal. It's just that you're making a lot of changes that get you reverted, and a user with a name somewhat similiar to your username has been a problem in the past. No offense meant. Pakaran. 23:48, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hats and Caps

Nice work with creating the stubs for Hats and Caps! However, I felt that a better sollution was to disambiguate them completely from the headgears of hats and caps. Cheers! -- Mic 20:48, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Member Emeritus

Member Emeritus sounds good, makes me feel like I am wearing academic robes sitting on an auditorium stage somewhere and making speeches to parents who are wondering why the institution thinks I am important enough to blabber on (yes, it is a strange fantasy, I know). Unless someone decides to give me yet another title I'll just stick with the one I have. Thanks. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 22:04, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance

I didn't like you making that decision without discussion. I tried to discuss things here and recieved no response. It would have been polite to discuss the matter before deciding how things would be done. I get the impression that we need a chairman for this group, and that they should be the one making such decisions, if any descisions w/o discussion are needed at all. Sam Spade 01:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I actually agree, now that I hear your reasoning. It just made me a bit irritable due to the particulars above, that it was done w/o discussion despite my attempt at seeking discussion of it. Anyhow, what do you think about having a chairman? Sam Spade 03:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As you probably noted, current guidelines would suggest that you not be the advocate, since you have already been the mediator in this case. Anyway, I take it you are asking for somebody else to do the job, not volunteering to do it yourself.

absolutely. I went too far about that, and should not have. I found myself pushed in a role of advocate for 168, and I do not think it is a good idea. Not that I would not wish to represent him in other circonstances, but not in a conflict where I mediated. It could be unfair to Mav and I do not wish that. I strongly see how mediator and advocate role may be perceived antagonist in a conflict.

Do you have any ideas about who should take it? For myself, I am reluctant, because I was involved in a separate dispute with 168... recently, and your request seems like it should be filled by someone the parties might consider neutral.

probably is it best that this be done by someone who never had any conflict with 168 :-) That would be a requirement I think. I do not know people listed very well. I would suggest secret london who I know from IRC and from the ml, and who seems to be a quiet person. Thanks. FirmLittleFluffyThing

I do not think the DNA conflict is over in the least :-(

---

Votre avis

Hi Michael -- I agree with you. In fact, I might have apologized and asked him to change the wording or something if he hadn't responded so extremely. I try not to let his behavior...uh...pull me in, and I certainly wasn't going to revert his change. I think I should just try to avoid the temptation to look at his edits when they come up on my watchlist -- it just happens so often. Anyway, I appreciate the advice -- you're reinforcing something I keep telling myself but occasionally have a hard time doing. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Cinema, film, movies

Hi! Sorry, no I didn't see the talk on film talk, but I was working on the "simplest name in English" premise that Jiang preaches. I also thought that when people link to cinema or film or movies, they aren't really doing that much definitional parsing (looking at the "what links here page")--they just want to reference the moving pictures projected on the wall. And, there really wasn't a ton of content on either page--I think Wikipedia tends to be pretty weak overall on movies, and putting the two pages together seemed to create a reasonably complete page. So that's my rationale... jengod 00:20, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Moved movies to film. I do think the film-cinema merge wasn't a bad idea though--I think the split discussed will be a better idea, maybe, when the page gets a little fatter? Maybe we shouldn't try to start so ambitiously? jengod 00:39, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

good work

I'm glad to see CbU gotten rid of, and you seem to have managed it peacefully. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for doing the work of shutting down that page. RfC does need a steward.... Sadly I was a bit burned by the 168 issue and am generally too busy for that. But somebody does need to make sure that RfC pages are only added when needed (when at least two people have tried and failed Step 1 to resolve the dispute and that good manors are followed). Otherwise I fear that RfC will just become a distributed version of CbU. --mav 06:59, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank You!

I want to thank you DEEPLY for your support in the vote to promote me to a sysop. I promise to do my best to be as helpful, sensible, and neutral as possible. Your friend, Ryan.

[1]

LOL, good sense of humor. When I said what I did I was multi-tasking. I noticed you hadn't expressed an interest in the position, and that coupled with your general Boldness (which has been to my occaisional annoyance, it is true) suggested to me it would be fun to suggest you self-nominate. I would have nominated you myself, but I prefer Alex for the role (nothing negative towards you, wanting him for the role is another bit of multi-tasking). In any case it would prob be best if someone else was in the election, if only to make it more legitamate. Perl has many fine qualities, but I don't predict him to be a strong contender in the election. Please keep the good sense of humor, we need that around here. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK then were on the same page. I suggest that at some point or another (perhaps not immediately) that you officially decline, and present some reasoning as to why you chose not to run. Your really the only other logical cantidate, so once you do that I think were that much closer to voting and getting the show on the road. Maybe you might like to second the timeline I proposed, or suggest another to replace it? Cheers, Sam Spade 01:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Understood - Why by the way was Senor Vlad on the front page for three days in a row? -SV(talk) 02:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AMA Election

Michael, I've taken the liberty of adding links at Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on that the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates is searching for a Coordinator and I have started a new page dealing with the election. See: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election. You editing, comments and participation as an AMA member would be appreciated. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 20:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Kobe Bryant

Michael, saw your email and VfD comment -- the problem is not "famousness" or significance. It's the mentioning of her name, and the privacy issue. So even if folks agreed it doesn't deserve an article, there would still be dispute as to whether there should be a redirect to Kobe Bryant because that would be revealing her name. Fuzheado 07:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Response to comment

Sorry mike I thought it was a place to list things I thought were wrong that a user did. I now understand the specific rules and will follow them from now on. Thanks GrazingshipIV 20:44, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Since you seem to know about this stuff. Is this page Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hcheney a violation of the rule? Is so I will take it down immediately. GrazingshipIV 21:28, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

When will my comment page come down? GrazingshipIV 21:39, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Do you want me to delete the Hcheney page or will you? (you just deleted the link) GrazingshipIV

unkie ed

The situation regarding Bcorr had alot of history to it, so I'd ask you to take it as distinct from my normal behaviours. Yes, I am belligerant periodically, but I also strive for politeness, a sense of humor, and wikiquette generally. Ed is an odd customer. He has signifigant pro's and cons, but over all I sense that he is a valuable contributer here, one of us who does far more good than harm. That does involve ALOT of good tho, since he does a fair bit of harm every now and again. I honestly get the impression he (and a number of others) still (he and others have already suggested it publically) suspect me of being a sockpuppet or banned user, etc.. I'm just a volunteer, who happens to love encyclopedias, and take stuff seriously. I actually care deeply about NPOV, factual accuracy, verifiability, etc.. I get the impression that too many of 'them' are more interested in pet POV's and socializing w their clique here. Anyhow I have to give you my thanks, I know I made a bad impression on you early after we had met, and yet it has in no way interfered with your ability to be even handed and polite in my regards (and otherwise as well, of course ;). Cheers, Sam Spade 06:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Why should I have to play these inane games with Sam Spade? The crap that Sam, Wheeler, and now TDC are posting in Fascism speaks for itself. 172 21:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine then. Though I'm usually skeptical of these processes. Trolls parroting polemics and propaganda tend to be more popular here than historians, so I don't know why I even bother. 172 22:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not brave - foolish. From now on I ought to limit my dealings to only ONE pro-Joseph McCarthy partisan per day! 172 22:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172

Could you please intervene on Wikipedia:Requests for comment? 172 is out of control. He is repeatedly adding me to the user dispute list, even though he did not get two, let alone one, user to try talking to me about the supposed dispute. He is now erasing my response to it, using your words in his edit summary to justify it. (Also, earlier, he was erasing material I had put on his user dispute page.) -- VV 01:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See the VV section at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. --mav 04:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172 has many more edits than I do on wikipedia, but right now he's a bit impatient and going a bit strong say. He went into Fascism and accidentally crossed the dispute resolution process going on there at that moment in time. After I politely told him what we were doing, he continued and even (threatened to) start a revert war with me, which I bowed out of. Looking at his history, he looks like a fine wikipedian otherwise. Perhaps he's had quite a lot of m:wikistress lately, I can certainly imagine why he might have that. I'd hate to see him burnout on wikipedia. I'm just not sure what can be done about it. Kim Bruning 23:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RfC user conduct template

Tell me what you think: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. --mav 20:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)