Severity: Notice
Message: Undefined offset: 1
Filename: infosekolah/leftmenudasboard.php
Line Number: 33
Line Number: 34
Welcome!
Hello, Espoo/Archive 1, 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! --ZeWrestler Talk 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi ZeWrestler, and thanks for the welcome, but i've actually been contributing for more than two years and have had an account for almost 2 years. Is there a bug in the system that reports old accounts as new? Espoo 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Your link to the quackwatch article made me smile David.Throop 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you live in Espoo, by any chance? -- comment by User:JIP, who forgot to sign this [ed. Espoo 07:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)]
Hi Espoo - saw your comments at Talk:Lagarostrobos franklinii; I've added a note - MPF 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I note from the edit-history that you previous contributed significantly to Tinea versicolor. I have grouped together the topical treatments as there is no distinction, in the UK, as to which agents may be obtained over-the counter or on prescription. I have previously summarised advice obtained from the UK Institue of Dermatology on treatment into a protocol factsheet, however wikipedia policy is not to add links to ones own website (but other editors may of course). - Please have a look at the Talk:Tinea versicolor page and comment as appropriate. Thank you :-) David Ruben Talk 01:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
please see the ratnapura discussion --Terrance 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? The article is at Champs-Élysées. Martin 19:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Champs-Élysées in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. --Espoo 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. You are almost certainly right about the user named Xanon. As far as I can tell he is a neo-Nazi revisionist; and in case he reads this the term is used in a strictly descriptive sense. I personally will not enter into any direct exchange with him. White Guard 23:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving Vepses to Veps. How can one fix the same word on the map? I have no experience with WP images. --Espoo 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you please tell me where to find info about how to correct the layout errors on United_States_Capitol#Flags and Egyptomania#Race_and_national_identity? The latter is BTW only evident in Firefox, not IE. In FF, the first two lines don't stay to the left of the picture and the second line is truncated after "or Asia, or within the". Maybe the fastest way for me to start to learn about layout would be to see how someone corrects these errors. Thanks! --Espoo 06:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Espoo, in case you haven't spotted I've added a proposal to Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea to use the name Lingonberry throughout. I realise we have disagreed on this, but I respect the fact that you have stuck to Wikiquette and remained polite throughout. I've seen debates on simple changes spiral into mutual abuse on Wikipedia before, so I'd just like to say that I respect your opinion even if I differ from it, and I understand that both of our aims are simply to make the article as good and accessible as it could be. Kaid100 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem on the page move. The category isn't much more complicated; you're just dealing with Categories for Discussion instead of Requested Moves. Check out the instructions at WP:CFD#How to use this page. Most requests have to sit on CFD for five days, and there's usually no opposition, and then they just get done. Someone might even speedy-close it, although it doesn't quite satisfy any of the criteria at WP:CFDS. I hope that helps. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I just saw your note on the irrationality of having 12:30 a.m. before 11:30 a.m. Did you know that the utility Wmatch by PC magazine to keep directories in synch actually got this wrong at one of their releases? When you edited and saved a file between midnight and 1 a.m., it thought it was older than a version created after 1 a.m. the preceding day. So your late night worked was erased. This info does not belong in an encyclopedia, but I thought you might like to know and laugh over it. −Woodstone 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#historical_periods. Thanks! --Espoo 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone messed up the article Swedish-speaking Finns. Now the name of the article is Finlandswedes. I think that is crap English, so maybe you would like to change it back? Terveisin--217.112.249.156 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Espoo. I read the conversation at the link you gave me. I can see why you're frustrated. Personally, I make it a policy not to remove anybody's comments from my talk page, even obvious trolling, but I understand that plenty of people here delete material from their talk pages. I find that it's generally not worth the energy to fight with these people. He read your message; you can be sure of that. Beyond that, I don't think you come out of the discussion looking so bad. There's not really an accusation that you "threatened" him, just a statement that doing so would be useless. Reasonable people can see who's being polite to whom in that whole exchange.
Look, I know it's a pain in the neck, but the best thing to do, since there seems to be someone who's randomly opposed to a perfectly common sense move (or so it appears to me), and since the CfD was closed by an admin who's not interested in reviewing his decision beyond saying that the inclusion or exclusion of a hyphen doesn't have much effect on Wikipedia (which is true), then... it's basically down to the four choices Kbdank71 laid out. I suggest DRV first, and if that doesn't work — which may be for a variety of reasons, including that you might get de-listed because of someone's asinine idea of proper procedure — then I suggest trying a relist at CfD. In either case, if you can get some more informed opinions involved, that's the best. Let me know anywhere you list it, and I'll toss in a vote of confidence that I think your argument makes more sense than Nygaard's, based on the very little I know. DRV's a funny crowd - they may just do you right.
If none of that sounds worth the trouble, then I don't know what to tell you. Part of the downside of how Wikipedia works is that a lot of decisions are based on the reasonableness of the three or four people who happen to be standing around when shit goes down, and that doesn't always work out in the direction of common sense. I'm sorry I can't say more, but I can't go tell Kbdank what to do, and I don't know enough about the topic to swing more weight around; like Kbdank says, an admin is just a normal editor with a few more buttons. I wish you luck. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Good to know that you're a bandwagon mentality editor. If the majority do it, it's right. That's jsut stupid reasoning for doing anything. Anywhere. Ever. I'm going to leave the edits alone, because I can tell you'll a 3rr lawyer. but I think your decision is a sign of poor ethics and even poorer judgement about the application of 'variant' pronounciations. It's NOT pronounced that way by anyone who can read, jsut by the illiterate. The Dictionary doesn't sell if the stupid and the stubborn think the dictionary is wrong, so the Dictionary edits to appease. Wikipedia is free, and has NO such obligations to shareholders. We should, and gneerally do, strive for accuracy, not popularity. ThuranX 17:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Did you ever report Bramlet Abercrombie for violation of WP:3RR as you wanted to? [1] What was the result?
Did you notice he slyly reverted again and without any explanation or even an edit summary? [[2]] He definitely wants to hide things and is not interested in an unbiased and objective article. --Espoo 10:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just took a look; that satisfied pretty much all my concerns. I'm going to stay neutral on this move for now, however. Thanks! — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 16:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what to make of your essay to me, I just do simple copyedits. Thanks Hmains 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Espoo. Thank you for doing Balikpapan. I read through the debate on Talk:Académie française even though I was feeling unwell. I do not think my copyediting qualifies as professional, though I do think it is adequate for the articles I copyedit; so I cannot pronounce decisively on naming conventions. This is the extent of my judgement:
You are right that the most common name used in English should have precedence over the native name.
In support of your argument, you have cited various Google searches which put the number of hits of French Academy above Académie française; you also cite encyclopedias as using French Academy and not Académie française. Your opponents have put forth counterarguments that particular reputable sources — the Economist, a myriad of newspapers, certain university presses — use Académie française instead of French Academy. You dismiss these arguments, saying the most notable sources use Académie française as a kind of snobbery. They also cite their own web statistics, which you dismiss.
As far as I can tell, though not being an authoritative judge, the debate is moot. I do not have time to check the validity of the web statistics, and I do not have any predisposition to the premises of their arguments about authority or yours. If you were to show decisively, to those without prior opinions, French Academy is more accepted as the English use over Académie française, you would unambiguously win the debate. In the end, the issue is a judgement call which one makes.
I have personally seen Académie française more often in print — i.e., not often — and heard Académie française spoken more frequently than French Academy — i.e., rarely. I would support either position, whether it moves or not.
If you believe this issue is important and your reasons are certainly valid, I suggest you take the issue up with an administrator or to some kind of arbitration. The scope of my copyediting qualifications does not extend to naming conventions. A professional copyeditor might be able to help you more than I, but I am not a professional. Rintrah 13:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Espoo. I got your link after the RM discussion had already been closed as a "no consensus". I can see why you find it frustrating. The guideline says that, if an English language name is in common use, then we should use it. I'm mildly surprised to see that "French Academy" is used as widely as your sources show it to be - personally, I've only ever heard it called The Academie Francaise (with or without diacritics), and I grew up in Texas! Nevertheless my personal anecdotal experience means nothing when it comes to making decisions for the encyclopedia.
It does seem to be the case that most people in that discussion were willing to discount Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) in this case. Why not bring it up there, on the guideline talk page? I'll bet that's a good place to find people who care about that guideline, as well as people who've dealt with similar controversial cases in the past. I've added the guideline to my watchlist; I'll keep an eye out for what kind of response you get there. If Académie française is to be an exception to the Use English guideline, then I think it should be explained why it is, and how to recognize such exceptions in the future. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Various editing tags might be relevant to Balikpapan. If you find the content confusing, perhaps add {{confusing}}; if the content seems inaccurate, perhaps add {{verify}}. There is also a tag for insufficient context. The Cleanup page lists all the possible tags you can use. Rintrah 05:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope I do not commit another grammatical faux pas. Oops. Rintrah 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. While explaining the naming conventions in the different forms of the English language may seem an important aspect with regads to using the proper ethnic terminology, such information hardly belongs to the introduction of an article on an ethnic group? Also, I think a far too long discussion of this (off) topic follows in the article on "Finland-Swedes". Perhaps you could consider starting a whole new article on ethnic naming conventions rather than keep inserting such text in the separate articles? Clarifer 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you're right that the discussion in the article on "Swedish-speaking Finns" is so long that it almost merits a new article, but none of the info is superfluous and it's definitely not off topic. Most people do not know what is explained there, and without that explanation, the article would continue to be the subject of attempts to change the name back to the old-fashioned and misleading name "Finland Swedes". You yourself didn't know what is explained there, as shown by your incorrect claims about US English and direct translations.
And your goal of a short intro is laudable, but you don't seem to understand several things already pointed out by my edits and their summaries or only implied by my edits of factually incorrect info.
1) It is simply factually incorrect to write "The terms Finns and Finnish people are usually used in English to refer to the ethnic group historically associated with Finland or Fennoscandia." Therefore we definitely need to say what was there originally, i.e. "The terms Finns and Finnish people are usually used in English to mean "a native or inhabitant of Finland", but they are also used to refer to the ethnic group historically associated with Finland or Fennoscandia and are only used in that sense here." My only contribution was to rewrite that in better English. It's not me who "keeps inserting"; it's you who keeps removing, and the result is factually incorrect.
2) The designation of any group of people is one of the most important aspects of a description of that group and often the most difficult thing too. According to WP's manual of style and general practice and in order to avoid edits by angry users who only read the intro, we definitely need to explain all the terms in use in the intro and, if they are ambiguous, explain their meaning in normal English. We also can't call things analogous or historical that aren't, as you did.
3) As explained in WP's manual of style and in Wikipedia:Lead_section, the intro can in fact be longer than it is now and should even include new things that are still missing:
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs. --Espoo 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-09 Kbdank71 has become obsolete since Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Finland-Swedish has been closed as "Rename", as you requested. I'll close the case for now; if this was an error, please let User:-Bobby and me know and I'll reopen it. — Sebastian 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as explained above and in my description in the mediation cabal, the original renaming controversy was and is quite insignificant and not what the mediation was about. The mediation was about the fact that an admin openly gave personal preference and immature argumentation as much value as established practice in reputable sources and said so openly, which is very bad for WP. The admin violated several basic principles of WP and stood behind those decisions, which is why i didn't just ignore him and only renominate the CfD, as advised by the Mediation Cabal. On the basis of his reaction to my criticism, it's obvious these grave admin errors were not normal, human mistakes that we all make.
However, i myself suggested to Bobby that we at least temporarily shelve this because Kbdank71 is dealing with a family emergency. In addition, it may indeed be best to completely forget about the whole thing because Kbdank71 would, if convinced by mediation to admit he did something wrong (or forced to do so by an authority figure), no doubt claim that he would not have reacted the way he did if the renaming issue had not been a seemingly trivial hyphen. --Espoo 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. KazakhPol 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear League member,
We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I will suggest you to find Alex because waste management is his expertise. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - just wanted to apologize for reverting your copyedit at Electronica when I removed the reference. I was going too fast and didn't look carefully enough at your edit. Sorry about that... Your change does make the intro more clear, thanks. --Parsifal Hello 07:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on the incorrect use of Myanmar — also for continuing the conversion of Myanmar to Burma in the article. I started it — manually — and tho't, "there's gotta be a better way". I now have wikiEd installed. Unfortunately, before I could start using it, I had to make a dash for the hospital. I generally don't like starting things and then leaving them; I'm more wont to revert my own changes rather than leave it a bad mishmash.
BTW, did you do the changes manually or did you use a bot? I could've continued manually, I think: I can hyperfocus, sometimes bordering on OCD, on a repetitive task for hours when the situation is right (strangely, I do this most when I'm tired as opposed to energetic and motivated). I wasn't tired enough today, so I looked for and installed my very first bot. Ooooh, look at all the pretty buttonses!
I'm a bit of a Luddite, or perhaps a throwback. On the information superhighway, I'm stuck at a tollbooth looking under the seatcushions for nickels. I did some CompSci back in university — a year before they retired the punch-card reader; my first and only TV video game was a RadioShack version of Pong; I long for the days of Hack and Rogue and line numbers in BASIC. Given this stunning level of technogeekery (-geezery?) can you recommend a bot or two that would be useful to an editor like me? Thanks, and cheers. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, can't help you. I still haven't gotten around to learning about WP bots and editing tools. In any case, changing M to B would be very difficult with a bot because you need to keep M in quotes, titles of sources, and perhaps elsewhere. Where can i get wikiEd and read about it? I couldn't find anything on WP, and the Google results were confusing. --Espoo 19:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I didn't exactly "miss" the evidence you presented, but it simply would not have been feasible to cover every argument made in detail. --Michael Snow 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that you didn't want to take sides by presenting details of the proof for preferred use in academic and expert use, but your article fails to present an or the essential element of the discussion:
Especially interested outsiders would be interested to know that the whole problem was much less political than it looked even to those participating in the discussion. Basically it was a fight between UK and US common usage (that ignored use in professional sources), which almost none of the participants were aware of until afterwards, and even then only some realised this.
Even more importantly, most discussions about language use on WP are just as chaotic because there are not enough professional linguists among WP editors and because even very intelligent discussion members believe in Google statistics without knowing enough about language to interpret them correctly and don't have enough sense and leisure to call a few experts in at least the 2 "most important" English-speaking countries. The insanely short 5-day period for discussions is a major cause of the lack of common sense and lack of input from experts and of the excess of emotions and feelings of panic in these discussions. Due to the 5-day limit, WP is reducing the input to mostly very active WP editors and ignoring the fact that real experts have real lives and jobs and do not spend enough time on WP to have even a small chance of noticing such discussions in time. --Espoo 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Burma again Talk:Burma#Survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.189.89 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether you could copyedit the article Holden, which is currently a featured article candidate. The remaining concerns are to do with the prose, and If you could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
without spending too much time on the diffs, I have agreed with you on the talk page about the additional general use of spiritism/spiritualism. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry i didn't answer earlier, but i was and am very busy.
I'm no expert, but it seems that the religious movement called Spiritualism is more than mediumship and is in any case significant enough to merit an article of its own. Even if it's not significant enough to warrant an article as long as the current one, it would be very difficult to get consensus on how to reduce the content enough to make it fit as a subsection of the mediumship article.
What do you mean with an infobox? I think we should make a new article on spiritualism that can start out as a disambig page but that at least states what this word normally means in English:
1 a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums. 2 Philosophy: the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality. --Espoo (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry i don't have time to help right now. I'll hopefully have time on the weekend. --Espoo (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thank you for your observation. I've replied here. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Espoo,
I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your addition to Talk:DirectX. Did you have an actual question about DX10 and WinXP? All you did was paste in a long list of operating systems -- please edit your comment to remove unnecessary text and add context so that we can understand what you are trying to say. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am contacting you because you're a member of the League of Copyeditors. Would you be interested in taking a look at Highlander: The Series (season 1) which is currently a Featured List Candidate ? The quality of the prose is the only remaining objection to its promotion and I would really appreciate your help. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
