User talk:Thesmothete

Welcome!

Hello Thesmothete, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 07:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ballstonstationentrance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ballstonstationentrance.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the image is not copyrighted, but I cannot say for sure. In the meantime I took my own photo and have used it as a replacement image. So I don't think this image appears on any Wikipages. Thesmothete 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

center vs. epicenter

Hi Thesmothete, I saw you changed my mention of the "Binnenhof" as the "epicenter" of Dutch politics to "center" (in the Tegenpartij article). I have changed it back to epicenter. I have a few arguments for this. First of all, "epicenter" can be used in this way, see the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Second, in politics, a lot of the action is below the surface, so epicenter seemed like an appropriate term here. Finally, epicenter is funnier (in my opinion) and that seems appropriate for this article. Let me know if you feel strongly about it :) Best, Slinger 17:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster is not consistent its approach to the "reflect reality" versus the "preferred usage" approach to dictionary definitions. Compare its treatment of "irregardless" (usage corrected), "ain't" (usage defended) "beg the question" (usage as meaning "raise the question not treated at all), "enormity" (usage as meaning "largeness" defended). That doesn't mean it's appropriate to adopt any of those usages, including "epicenter" to mean "center" in formal writing. People started using the term "epicenter" to mean "center" because of the way the term was used without appropriate context by seismologists. In informal or uninformed communication it is has come to mean "the center of something bad or momentous", and lately, simply, "center". However, if you intend the word to mean (even metaphorically), "the point on the surface nearest the actual center" then you have used it properly and I have no complaint with it. That intent was not immediately obvious the way it was written. There has been one other non-earthquake usage like this that I have not changed. I have also avoided (not always successfully) changing "epicenter" when it appears in quotes, even though the usage is improper. Thesmothete 19:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style indicates that "epicenter" should not be used to mean "center" because "epicenter" might be regarded as incorrect and also may be ambiguous.

If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning", since alternate only means "alternating" in British English (and also according to the American Heritage Dictionary).
Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to an ambiguous one. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternative meaning", since alternative commonly suggests "nontraditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker.

FEMAanswers.org

We need your wiki skills at www.FEMAanswers.org, dedicated to help understand the labyrinth of FEMA assistance. Please take a look and consider helping. Thanks. Castellanet 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class articles

Hi, I just wanted to explain that I reverted your change to Template:Grading scheme, because it would be quite a significant change in wording. We already have a couple of thousand articles assessed using this system, it would be a major change. Can you post your views on the template talk page? You could post it here as the topic has been mentioned before, though personally I agree with Titoxd's response. For an example of a short A-Class article that I wrote, see gold(III) chloride - is this what you had in mind? Wikipedia isn't limited by size of paper, that's why Jordanhill railway station was an FA candidate - I'd say if that topic can be considered for FA, almost anything can be! Cheers, Walkerma 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As you can see, I have further reverted the change by Sj that prompted my initial change -- if we had to talk about it first, then that policy should apply to everyone, not just me. It appears that you are responding to an implication that FA status should not be available to short articles. I didn't mean to initiate such an implication. I have no problem with short articles having FA status or any other status befitting their quality. I intended my edits to reflect the reality so far as it exists, and to augment it within the new system. I would encourage you to reinstate my proposal, but with edits that conform to your understanding of what the differences would be between a short A-Class article, FA, GA, etc. To me, the difference would be that when an article suffers because it is short, it shouldn't get as far as GA (unless it's just a little short), whereas an article ought to be short should not be penalized for brevity in GA, AC and FA status. I bet we're in agreement on this -- if so, why not be bold and state it in the template in a way that makes you comfortable. Thesmothete 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thesmothete, can you take a look at my latest edit? I want us to allow shorter articles where appropriate, but I wouldn't want to see glorified stubs going through as A-Class. Is this OK? By the way, I hadn't noticed Sj's earlier edit. I think your other edits have been very helpful, by the way. I am also suggesting a change to the wording on websites, I'll post that on the talk page to elicit comments first. Thanks, and please help us out on assessing articles for WP:1.0! Walkerma 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit to A-Class is fine. Presumably you think the same would be true for GA? We need to think about how brevity would be treated in the lower ranks. Stubs and Starts would generally be incomplete, but B-Class need not be, if what it mostly needs is cleanup, citiations and wikification. Thesmothete 16:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington County, Virginia

Hey Thesmothete, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.235.45.19

Thesmothete, thanks for heads up on 69.235.45.19. I've reported this IP to the vandalism noticeboard. Hopefully an admin will put a block in place. Gw e rnol 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate elections, 2006

Thanks for putting my changes back in. I had not noticed the changes (apart from the date change June 29 -> July 9th (how can this be POV?) and in fact don't understand why they are considered POV - seems to be only changes in wording...--Rob 09:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a vandal

You should've warned this guy before reporting him. Raja Lon Flattery 19:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were already warnings on the page that said "Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning." Doesn't that mean a warning isn't required? Thesmothete 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for our audience

TradeSports is inside baseball - while opinion polls are widely debated, discussed and published outside the narrow scope of political junkies like ourselves. We owe it to our readers to give them the most important facts first, and that means giving them things they'll recognize. They won't recognize what the heck an "independent exchange market" is, but they will know what an opinion poll is. Perhaps that's the journalist in me speaking. Anyway, I'm not denigrating your writing in any way - it's a great contribution. The question is, do we think TradeSports is more important than a TIME poll that says two-thirds of Americans think there was a GOP coverup, or a FOX News report that the Republican Speaker of the House is now politically radioactive? I don't think so. There's no real consensus either way - nobody else has expressed an opinion. Feel free to open a debate on the Talk: page for the article... I pledge not to do any further swapping around. Anyway, I'm in Pacific Time and it's about time I sleep too. FCYTravis 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your courtesy...

regarding the Foley article. Haiduc 02:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Coffee table book

Why did you revert Coffee table book to a prior version? Please offer an explaination on it's talk page. The old version you provided is not the best version of the article. Thesmothete 07:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there;

I have no idea why-I don't believe I have ever visited this page. However I access Wikipedia through a shared computer and I have recently been experiencing some abuse of my account from another user. I am very sorry for the inconvenience and I'm glad to see you have put it back to the better version. I will be more careful about logging out in future. Cheers :-) Bennyboyz3000 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cabal is everywhere...

Yes, I am the "cabalist" who has taken the coffee table book case as requested. I have opened the discussion in the case report page and intro'd in the article's talk page. I am hoping for a positive response from all involved parties. Thank you for choosing to mediate with us! We can avoid a revert war before it even starts. If there are any new developments or if there is anything you would like to tell me, please let me know. Thanks! Antimatter---talk--- 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know that someone is dedicated to improving articles like that. As far as I can tell, the link from the grading scheme wiki takes you to the older version of the coffee table book article, so it is likely that even if the actual article is improved to FA status, people will stil link back to the stub-class article. Perhaps someone should consider a new example for a stub-class article, at least as long as you keep improving it ;) Antimatter---talk--- 08:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi, thanks for bringing your question to my attention. I have not been on line much the last few days due to real life stuff. I'm going to spend some time today catching up so look for an answer later today. Take care, --FloNight 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to think about your vote and making a reasoned decision. If I can further clarify anything so you feel comfortable putting your trust in me, please let me know. Take care, --FloNight 14:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro

Hey, I've gotta better idea. We should just change the infobox so it says that, instead of retyping everything and making it look cluttered. How about you update the template while I continue to try to put in these figures, and then it'll be correct and complete. VitaleBaby 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll fix it then. I'll place WMATA Parking in it, that way it was be 100% correct. VitaleBaby 20:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline or essay

You can take a look at Category:Wikipedia essays. I had encountered Template:Essay on some Wikipedia pages and thought it may apply here or be worth considering. If the proposal doesn't become a guideline and/or there is no formal support for it, perhaps it may become an essay. However...

I should have not brought the word up. Usually a proposed guideline that is not adopted would still be kept for historical interest. The language is fine as it is and it needn't be changed to an essay. To do so would also unnecessarily complicate matters. I should have said I was not sure whether it should be a formal guideline, as the same conclusion could be deduced from WP:N and WP:BIO (and WP:NPOV in the Stony Brook case). Tinlinkin 17:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

I replied here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider (not likely)

I strongly disagree, and I take a bit of umbrage at your incorrect assertion. I spend quite a bit of time on new-page patrol, trying to weed out as much of the garbage as I can. Much of it ends up being speedy deleted, which you don't even see because most of it is gone in short order, thankfully. Of the rest, a number of articles are short statements that have no references to back up anything that is written, and usually can't be verified. If the article subject appears to have some merit, but lacks sources, I promptly place an {{unref}} tag to let the author know that sources are needed, and we can't just take his or her word for it. If an article does not qualify for speedy deletion, but is obviously an article which does not meet Wikipedia standards, I will not hesitate to put a {{prod}} on it, and then an AfD if the prod is contested. I do not apologize for seeking to rid Wikipedia of articles which are not up to the standards to which the founders and community aspire — an accurate encyclopedia. I don't keep stats on such things, but if I did, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of article that I put up for deletion by any of the three methods are in fact deleted, so I must be doing something right.

Sometimes an article is patently awful and I submit it to AfD, but others come along and rescue the article by doing emergency work on it. In fact, I started a Wikiproject called the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit, where articles about subjects that are likely notable but with articles facing imminent deletion are brought in for major surgery. You might find this project of interest.

Disruptive? Hardly. If you want to see something disruptive, spend an hour on new-page patrol and see some of the out-and-out crap that comes along. I'm one of the people with the pooper-sccopers. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Apparently your beef with me is about your article Residential zoned parking. There's a simple solution: come up with a source or two. That's all it needs. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, but I think my actions have been appropriate. You seem to think that the {{unref}} tag is some sort of Scarlet Letter, when in fact is informative. It is better to let the author of a new article know right up front that references are needed than to let it languish for weeks or months, where it is more likely to end up being deleted instead. I'm actually not nearly as quick on the trigger as I used to be. After 2½ years and nearly 15,000 edits, I think I have a pretty good feeling for what should be deleted and what shouldn't. As for being bold, there are a few folks that might think that I am too bold. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

(By the way, here's a trick then you are wanting to show a template tag in a message: {{tl|templatename}}. It automatically links to the template page, too.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Harriette Walters.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harriette Walters.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Pathetic....

I know this sounds pathetic, but how do you make a user page? I basiclly know how, but how do you put those things, loke for example, on your page it says you are from planet Earth. If you want to reply, go to my discussions on RayquazaDialgaWeird2210. Please and thank you. RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArlingtonTODimage3.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:ArlingtonTODimage3.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added information. Thesmothete (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington urban development

Hi there. We were working on the same content simultaneously but you saved it first, so I reverse my own edit. Nevertheless, the smart growth pattern is such a relevant feature of Arlington County that I would like you to consider moving in as a new "Urban development" section, next to transportation, as both subjects relate so close to each other and this characteristic makes of Arlington a model for other cities in the U.S. and the world (just as I did in my edit). The decision is yours. Best regards.-Mariordo (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thesmothete. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thesmothete. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harriette Walters.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harriette Walters.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Absolute defence

The article Absolute defence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

https://dictionary.lawyerment.com/topic/absolute_defence/ says that it is sourced from Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. So is this just a dictionary definition?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]