User talk:Vfp15/Archive003

Thanks

Thank you Vincent for your information. Is this sentence all right:)Tarif Ezaz Bangladesh 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD notice on Yamanote Halloween Train

Please do not remove AfD notices from articles until the AfD discussion is closed by a Wikipedia admin. Thanks! --ElKevbo 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamanote Halloween Train

Have a look at the VfD page and you'll see that the consensus is to keep it. I don't know who deleted it.

Who deleted it? Well, it says so RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. As for the so-called consensus, let me repeat something else on the page:

One other note: when examining the discussion, admins who close these debates give VERY little credence to IPs, and none at all, really, to those who suddenly appear without any history on Wikipedia. Vote-stacking -- especially by anons -- doesn't work, so any more appearances by eyewitness gaijin who happen to logging in from anonymous IPs around the world are just going to drive the final nails in the coffin holding your credibility, is all. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And the official word, from here:

• Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
• Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.

--Calton | Talk 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But that's still 10 keeps to five deletes. Shouldn't be deleted.

What? You only read the first 10 words of a post? Let's try again, in boldface:

One other note: when examining the discussion, admins who close these debates give VERY little credence to IPs, and none at all, really, to those who suddenly appear without any history on Wikipedia. Vote-stacking -- especially by anons -- doesn't work, so any more appearances by eyewitness gaijin who happen to logging in from anonymous IPs around the world are just going to drive the final nails in the coffin holding your credibility, is all. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And the official word, from here:

• Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
• Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, it is a closed debate. Do NOT slap on the AFD tag, because it no longer applies. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamanote Halloween Train

A tag has been placed on Yamanote Halloween Train, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Yamanote Halloween Train is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon (with double brackets), and also put a note on Talk:Yamanote Halloween Train saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.Calton | Talk 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold face is better than all caps, but still no need to keep you're voice at such a raised level.

Given your evident reading-comprehension problems, highlighting things so you could actually absorb their meaning is appropriate.

It is not a closed debade.

Really? That's why it says:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

and

The result [emphasis mine] was Delete

What parts of Please do not modify it, No further edits should be made to this page, and result are unclear? --Calton | Talk 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. Two people saying the same thing does not outweigh one person saying something else, if the lone person's arguments are stronger. That's what happened in this case. Simply recreating the page won't stop it being deleted again, and may get you blocked. There are proper channels through which you can appeal the decision if you still feel the admin got it wrong. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted entries

Hi. Please do not recreate deleted entries. If you wish to contest AfD results, feel free to do so on WP:DRV. I have re-deleted the entry. Thx. El_C 05:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is

In all respect.

What is:

• Ewan McGregor "is a Scottish actor who has had significant success in mainstream, indie and art house films."
• Craig Ferguson is a Scottish Emmy-nominated actor, film director, screenwriter, comedian, composer, and novelist. He is the current host of The Late Late Show, broadcast on CBS.
• Sean Connery (a Scottish nationalist, or "sovereigntist" in Quebec parlance) "is an Oscar-winning Scottish actor and producer who is also well-known for his portrayal of James Bond."
• Jack McConnell (a Scottish unionist, or "federalist" in Quebec parlance) "is a Scottish politician, leader of the Labour Party in Scotland and the third and current First Minister of Scotland."
• Francesc Macià i Llussà "was a Catalan soldier, politician and President of the Generalitat (Catalan government)."
• Lluís Companys i Jover "was a Catalan politician and leader of the Esquerra Party (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya)."
• Josep Irla i Bosch "was a Catalan politician."
• Josep Tarradellas i Joan "was a Catalan politician."
• Juan José Ibarretxe "is a Basque politician."
• Yungchen Lhamo "is a Tibetan singer living in exile in New York City."
• I Muvrini "is a Corsican folk music group who sing traditional Corsican music in their native Corsican language."
• Maurice Kenney "is a Mohawk poet."
• Delby Powless "is a Mohawk lacrosse player from the Six Nations of the Grand River Indian reserve near Brantford, Ontario."
• Zachary Ittimangnaq "is an Inuit actor who portrayed the character Ootek in the 1983 film Never Cry Wolf."
• Paula Gunn Allen "is a Native American poet, literary critic, activist and novelist."
• Ron Karenga, "also known as Ron Everett, is an African American author and Marxist political activist, best known as the founder of Kwanzaa, a week-long celebration first observed in California from December 26, 1966, to January 1, 1967."
• Elizabeth Catlett Mora "is an African American sculptress and printmaker."
• William Kristol "is a Jewish American neoconservative thinker, inspired in part by the ideas of Leo Strauss."
• Joe Pesci, "is an Italian-American Academy Award-winning actor, comedian and singer who is often typecast as a violent mobster or grouchy funnyman."
• WP:MS: "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself."
• Quebecer is the neutral form. In Quebec, show me someone who says they're a Quebecer, I'll show you a Citizen of Quebec. Show me someone who says they're a Canadian and I'll show you a federalist.

What should be, for some:

• A Quebec identity that is ashamed of itself, that is treated differently (thus in a WP:BIASed way) from other cultural, dare I say national, identities, that only expresses itself within its borders instead of opening up to the world. In all respect. --Liberlogos 07:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: the above

Gentle reminder: Please feel free to respond to my rant BUT please post a complete response below my signature. Please don't break up my essay (or rant if you prefer) with comments. I prefer an essay response, and I will revert point-by-point responses interlaced within the text below. Thanks - VP

"In all respect". I'm sure.

What really annoys me about Quebec nationalism is how little nationalists understand history and the appropriate relationship between history and good government. Oh, I don't mean the details of history like who won which battle and why. Quebec nationalists know every detail of every loss suffered by our French ancestors at the hands of the vile British. Our (depressing) motto after all is "Je me souviens" (I remember).

But Quebecois are selective. I don't think my childhood history lessons ever mentioned Marie-Joseph Angélique but my teachers always revered Dollard des Ormeaux. The Hurons were trusted allies while the Iroquois were evil savages. Oh, yeah "je me souviens" very well those unforgivably biased history lessons.

Let's get a few things straight.

• France and the United Kingdom went to war over who would control the northern Atlantic (cod, sugar, rum, tobacco, and other goodies). France lost. France kept her Carribean islands and gave us up. Sure, if Montcalm hadn't bungled the battle of the plains of Abraham (all he had to do was do nothing!) France would have been in a better bargaining position, but they would have on the whole lost the war.

• Aside:You never hear speculations on what would have happened if we'd stayed under France. Personally, I think Napoleon would have sold us off along with Lousiana...

• Of course the British were going to enjoy the spoils of victory. But they did not (in 1759) pillage and loot, or not anymore than any other army did at the time including the French, e.g. d'Iberville's sacking of St-John's and surrounding villages in 1696. The Brits let us keep our courts, our government, our social institutions and our taxing rights. The seigneur and the clergy were able to provide the same services and collect de facto taxes (i.e. milling fees and tithes).

• Lord Durham advocated assimilation but guess what? The British were never enthusiastic about assimilating us and they never went for the full assimilation drive Durham envisioned. They did have assimilation programs in other areas of the world, and we French Canadians turned a blind eye at attempts to assimilate the First Nations.

• If we are going to whine about what the Brits did to us 250 years ago, should we not then feel guilty about what we did to the Hurons and the Iroquois? Yet we don't feel guilty at all instead we glorify the Régiment de Carignan and some of us proudly trace our ancestry to one of these men. Oh, and we try to build golf courses over Indian burial grounds.

• My favourite peeve is that we were supposedly oppressed by the damned English! True, those who ran Big Business were Englishmen and Scotsmen and maybe some Irish. But let's do the math: a few hundred Big Businessmen (all Brits) oppressed hundreds of thousands of French Canadians AND ENGLISH CANADIANS TOO! So the truth is a few rich men oppressed hundreds of thousands of the poor. Welcome to the 19th century baby...

• The Upper Canada Rebellion happened at the same time as the Rebellion Des Patriotes, 1837 and for the same reason: colonial oppression. This means European British officials oppressing North American British citizens, which remember we legally were.

I despise nationalism, at least the kind of nationalism George Orwell described. I do not like flag-waving god-fearing Americans, I don't like Japanese right wingers who demand the return of Sakhalin Island from Russia, and I'd like to know why the Queen should get special treatment if a God ever shows up and decides to go about saving people. So why should I assume my own people are a special case?

I like rational discussion. A government's job is to run the army, run the police force, run the courts, and spend taxes. The debate for staying or leaving should be over how well the constitution works, how well the provincial governments are getting along, and how well the business of government is carried out. History should be read in books and novels, it does not belong in discussion on how to manage a country.

There are in fact plenty of good reasons for Quebec to separate from Canada and plenty of good reasons to stay in Canada. To me the best reason for a split is that it would do away with a whole layer of government. On the other hand the best reason to stay is that Canada works. A Canadian passport is a damn good passport to have. Sure, nothing's perfect (don't get me started on Canada's idiotic immigration policies especially for foreign spouses and adopted foreign infants) but overall it works well, damn well.

Vincent ("a happy and satisfied Canadian passport holder since 1965!") 06:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sulla

See Sulla talk:

RE: "This lesson in supreme confidence, Caesar later ridiculed - "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". In retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed."

I take it that no one disputes the veracity of the first sentence. What we have here is a dispute over the interpretation of that sentence in the light of historical fact...

Caesar was in effect saying that Sulla was a fool for giving up supreme power, yet it was Sulla who died a natural death, while Caesar was assassinated precisely because he would not give up supreme power. What the sentence does, is point out how wrong Caesar was to criticize Sulla on this particular point - whatever one feels about the qualities, characters and place in history of the two men, on this point dealing with the retention or surrender of complete power, Sulla was proved wiser by history. It is quite likely he may have suffered the same fate as Caesar, had he not resigned the dictatorship. In the end, this sentence can be re-written, but it should reflect that in this instance Caesar made a fatal error of judgement, that led directly to his own death. Finally, in many books on the lives of the two men, this sentiment is forcefully expressed. Sulla16 2/15/07

Things to followup on

• ISO_27001

• BS_7799

• AAA_protocol

• Kerberos (protocol)

Vincent 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales does not play chess with his friends, and other things

I just attended a press conference given by Jimbo Wales at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan. He confirmed that he does not play chess with his friends in his spare time, though that was for some reason written on his page at some point.

Apart from that, he gave an excellent speech about his new company Wikia. Where Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, Wikia aims to be "the rest of the library and the magazine rack". These will be commercial wikis, but they are now building the thing and they will worry about revenue later.

Vincent 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Sulla Mediation

Currently, the mediation bot will list the RFM under the pending tasks page, where an available mediator will pick up the case (as chair, I don't typically mediate cases). How the mediation proceeds from there is largely due to the mediator and the parties' preference. Sometimes it's over e-mail, sometimes on the talk page of the mediation request itself, and occasionally, it is over IRC. Hope this helps a bit. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)