User talk:Ardenn

Welcome!

Hello, Ardenn, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  karmafist 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of the FAC nom, but I'm a bit busy with a paper to take a look at it at the moment. By the way, as a friendly caution, some people might not like you removing content from your talk page (they see it as hiding from criticism). But if you want stuff off your talk page you can remove it if you create a separate page (an archive) called User talk:Ardenn/Archive for it. Cheers, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ardenn - I have done an American Mathematical Society search for his research papers, and it came up with a few - You may want to reconsider your vote, although I don't know enough about the stuff to explain it. Most of the junk about his hobbies should be removed though. Blnguyen 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention that my comment (in ref to Masonry & women, "...including you...") may have been read as being towards you, & given your person, could be construed as rather negative. Just so you know, that wasn't the case, not in a gazillion years. Sorry for any perceived offense. Delete this at will. Grye 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Daisey, where you recently voiced an opinion. User:Calton has raised some significant objections, and I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind considering the ensuing discussion and changing or confirming your choice with respect to the article Mike Daisey. Sincerely ENCEPHALON 07:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you voted against me, I want to thank you for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denniss has responded to your query on his Talk page and explained why he changed the flag format. Please respond to him instead of reverting the flag again. Wuzzy 04:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more info on why Wikipedia is moving from PNG's to SVG's, see Commons:Transition to SVG. —Gabbe 14:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ardenn. I notice that the spelling changes I made were changed back, stating that 'Canadian' English is used in the article, which is ok. It's really tricky sometimes in language and orthography to say something is more Canadian than something else, being that a lot of times we kind of fall in between Americans and the British; we prefer colour (Br.) over color (Am.), but will use tire (Am.) almost exclusively instead of tyre (Br.). Having done my degree in linguistics and researched the topic, I am all too familiar with this issue. I must say though that the spellings 'programme' and 'enrol' are used in Canadian English. As a matter of fact, 'program' (other than when speaking about computers) and 'enroll' are Americanisms-- American innovations. Canadians nowadays tend to use both, but a generation or two ago, before we were influenced by so much American media, 'programme' was the preferred way of spelling it...and 'enrol' is still used more in Canadian orthography. If you were to look in the Collins Canadian English Dictionary, you find 'programme' and 'enrol' as the spellings; if you were to look up 'program' and 'enroll' in the Oxford dictionary it would say 'US'. I don't have a copy of the Canadian version of the Oxford dictionary, but I believe that both versions (program/programme) are considerred OK. All in all, neither of us is right or wrong, but 'programme' and 'enrol' are a variety of Canadian spelling. Caribeno 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the real problem: two people (you and I) are arguing in good faith over the right way to deal with this topic, but you know that Psionics is going to attract the kinds of edits that make people distrust Wikipedia as a reference source. Can we agree to par down the list of links, but keep those that are illustrative of the state of the pseudo-science while ageeing to keep an eye out for truly POV edits to the content of the article? -Harmil 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ardenn,

I am new on wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm going about this in the right way, but I would like to discuss your recent merging of the Ottawa Health Research Institute page and The Ottawa Hospital page. This is not correct and I can provide evidence to back this up. The OHRI is the research arm of The Ottawa Hospital, but it is a separate entitity, with its own board of directors, its own financing, its own org chart, and its own annual report. The OHRI is based at The Ottawa Hospital, and many of its scintists and clinical investisigators area also physicians at The Ottawa Hospital, but it is separate. More information is available on the OHRI's website, and in the annual report, available at http://www.ohri.ca/corporate/OHRI_AR_04-05_e.pdf. I would like to change this back the way it was, but I want to give you an explanation first. I will change it at the end of the day (Feb 21) if I don't hear from you.

Jpaterson 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that "most folks think OHRI is just the reserach arm" but the point of wikipedia, as I understand it, is to include the most accurate, comprehensive information, not just what most people think. And in this case, the truth is that the OHRI is a separate entity, with equal partnerships with both The Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa. And I don't see why a 250 word article is too short for wikipedia. There are plenty of short articles on wikipedia and length should not be a criteria for relevance. Jpaterson 18:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that information should not be difficult to find, but putting a sentence about the OHRI and a link to more info does not make it difficult to find. Jpaterson 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, TOH is an important funder of the OHRI, but not the biggest funder. The majority of funds come from peer-reviewed grants awarded to individual scientists and investigators for specific research projects. These grants come from agencies such as the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Jpaterson 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I am happy to provide evidence to support my point. Jpaterson 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you are affiliated with sign language in one way or another. The article on CODAs needs quite a bit of work, and I think is an important article to have as a part of Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to participate in making it a better article. — Esprit15d 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How can I help you? You can ask your questions here and I will respond. There's no need to use {{helpme}} for the time being, since I will be watching this page.--Commander Keane 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a 3RR violation at WP:AN/3RR, and User:Monicasdude just pain out attacked me under comments. I'm frusted with all the personal attacks. Ardenn 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy harasses me, and recently he voted on several afd's against votes I had put up, or my own nominations. Ardenn 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the attacks were personal - they were criticising Wikipedia behaviour (it may have been rubbish, I don't know). Anyway, try to discuss your problems with this guy - I don't see anything on Monicasdude's talk page from you. Wikipedia:Harassment may be of interest. In my opinion, just ignore the problem and it will probably go away. Be the more mature individual in the conflict.--Commander Keane 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is pure rubbish. I've tried to talk to him before, but he just attacks me and removes the comments from his own talk page. I've tried to ignore it, but he just keeps trolling. He's already had 2 RFC's opened against him. --Ardenn 21:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the RfC run it's course (possibly to ArbCom). If he violate a policy get an admin to block him. You removed comments from your talk page - that's just as bad as what he is doing. It wasn't vandalism (even if it was trolling) - see the definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Also, the orange background for your instructions above makes them impossilbe to read. I won't be continuing with this issue any longer.--Commander Keane 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly justified, I have the rules of my talk page listed at the top. Thank you for the advice, I'll try to ignore him and participate in the ArbCom case. Ardenn 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ardenn! I wrote a couple of edits as 85.226.147.196 earlier today (or yesterday -- I'm trying polyphasic sleep, so the days meld together). I've had an account for a while -- I've used wikipedia since it started as an alternative to nupedia -- but I find it a real hassle to log in. I'm not really "engaged" as a wikipedian with all the politics and policies, mailing lists and discussions. I just like to read things. I know people like to have a handle on who's writing what, so I try to remember to login, but my wikipedia usage pattern is that I'm usually reading articles, and only from time to time want to do little edits, mostly for POV or clarity, and when I'm in the flow of reading loggin in is somewhat of an obstacle. I have no real quest for fame & glory, the only reason to log in is as a courtesy to others. Sometimes I don't even see that I'm not logged in. I'm spoiled with my main wiki, Handgranat, because then you can just type a username close to the summary field without having to go to a login page. Thank you anyway for taking the time to talk to a "faceless IP" -- you've got a good wikipedia spirit. Sunnan 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WayneRay 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay I had spent a considerable amount of time adding and updating the Canadian Poets and Publishers within Wikipedia. I have been busy at work for the past two months and haven't logged on to check on things. One of my authors, who has a wiki page Navtej Bharati, said both his page and mine were up for deletion?? I looked on my publisher page HMS Press and it was only updated until 1995. Mr. Bharati (who incidently is one of London Ontario's largest book publishers) book came out in 2002 so therefore was not in my authors list. I had re-written HMS Press in accordance to one of Wiki's editors and the new layout was accepted in 2005, NOW you say it is up for deletion. You guys dont like Canadians?? I don't understand the logic. I can update the information and add the next 50 books I did and his name will be on the list for verification. Please explain. I have been publishing Canadian and American poets since 1982 and have about 150 publications. ???[reply]

That "Read before Posting" box looks mighty familiar... :) Darkcore 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I definitely don't mind. I'm actually honoured that you decided to "borrow" it! Darkcore 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]