We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

Welcome the units of my virtual personal high-rise Housing and Development Board building - or more commonly, my archived talk pages.

To view other archives, see the main archive list.

archive 1

Aetherometry

Hi Natalina. Sorry to see that you've gone over to the Dark Side :-) More seriously, I'd like to see the PS tag in; and I'm not sure why you've become so insistent on keeping it out. There is now a pretty fair consensus for having it in: if you ignore the anons, and the people that edit only Aeth, you're the only one who doesn't like it. William M. Connolley 09:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the tag under the impression that if we removed the tag, the aetherometrists would be appeased, peace would exist and they wouldn't be incited to add additional POV. To me, this peace has lasted considerably, until the tag was added again. I mean, the last time peace wasn't achieved they added huge lists of links to irrelevant articles and categories such as "Natural Science". -- Natalinasmpf 16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeeeessss... but now you're part of the revert war. And I can't say I'm happy doing deals with these folks, even implicitly. Still it seems to be quiet now. I won't revert you over this. William M. Connolley 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (ps: moved here: easier in one place).[reply]

I just hope you won't think I am an ignorant supporter of questionable theories and conspiracy theorists after this. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were supposed to be my sock puppet, anyway :-) William M. Connolley 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

I noticed this edit [1]. Please abide by our policies against attacks. I know it has been a long time since it happened, but I thought I should give you some advice. Thanks : ). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Anger

Hi Natalinasmpf,

Unless you do believe much in national pride, don't take the current arugements during this Van Tuong Nguyen saga too seriously - Note the fact now that there is Australian anger and you won't see too many rational additions for now, and they'll eventually go away when interest on the incident dies down (like Michael P. Fay). In case where you find your WikiStress boiling, try working on other articles in other topics of your interest. :)

- Greetings!, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I cannot open the zip file you sent me last night. Please contact me on IRC asap. :D --Phroziac _. o º^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...nevermind. i sent that at the same time you contacted me. haha. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

Hi there. Please observe the Wikipedia Three-Revert Rule on this article. You have already reverted the same change four times, please stop and discuss the changes with the user in question before reverting again.

Many Thanks. --Intimidated^talk 16:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody got told. Ha. Mahalia56 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but beware that spite isn't very conducive to the community. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on Communism

Hi there,

I also have issues with your repeated removals of my text, and your most recent removal of a "disputed" tag. Please read the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communism#Under_the_Comintern and respond to it. Please let's avoid an edit war. -- 24.91.136.214

Well...

Singtel IP. It's shared. Someone may get caught in the block. I'll block for 15 min. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Brainy!

I hope you don't think I'm being patronising, but you strike me as being one brainy wikipedian! And in one so young! ;) Camillus^{talk|contribs} 12:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree Patrick 16:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communism, again

Sorry, I'd gone out for dinner, so had to leave off monitoring reversions to the article. There seems to be something of a lull at the moment, but I don't think User:KDRGibby is going to become a consensus NPOV editor any time soon, and I'm concerned by his edits to Liberalism as well. Ho hum... Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had to fight to get the editors of Liberalism to relequish a very one sided POV on the page and allow the original liberal interpretation of events to remain on the page. Much in the same way the communist page now has problems with allowing information to be "leaked" where they disagree with the basic principles.

There is nothing wrong with what I've wrote, especially after the multiple revisions. At least I have made an effort as opposed to any of you. (Gibby 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

What do you mean, "leaked"? We're not trying to deny that the People's Republic of China is in fact, very much market economic like - but this is already mentioned in the article, and covered in further detailed such as History of the People's Republic of China, economy of the People's Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China article in itself. As well as state capitalism. -- Natalinasmpf 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

much in the same way that the Soviet Union is covered elsewhere...and so is lenninsm and maoism......... yeah (Gibby 05:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Yes, but they are linked. The whole point is to explain articles in context, link them, otherwise there would be no need for separate articles. When sections get too long, we fork them off to separate pages. The idea is that general pages link to more specific pages, so the reader can read the more general material and if he or she wants to continue, can click on a link to read something mores specific - that is how articles break down. This is the general guideline to writing articles on Wikipedia. You want to express the view that China has a free market and that this is ironic. This is a valid observation, but I must state that this is not yours. This view actually has been expressed a number of times by other people and is already present on many articles, including the Communism article, concerning state capitalism, and how many "Communist states" don't actually act communistically. The main problem is that the material you want to add is too detailed, and that it is already represented in other articles. You can rest content that your view is well represented already. -- Natalinasmpf 05:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Market Communists

You have not supplied any good reasons for the deletion of that section. I have edited with each deletion to make that portion fit better with each passing day. Please see the discussion page to discuss your dislike...or more likely disagreement with the facts. Please add comments there before deletion.

Thank you,

(Gibby 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

see the fmc discussion and the NPOV discussion.

seriously, see it, discuss it, and try giving logical reasons... (Gibby 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

I already am. Please use proper Wiki etiquette, as well. -- Natalinasmpf 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Are you aware that you are in violation of WP:3RR? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that was merely to revert his fourth (and following) reverts - it was clear that consensus favoured a version without a huge "npov disputed" template at the top, especially since 172 et al had similarly done it. -- Natalinasmpf 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is no excuse to break the rule. I have protected the page for now, but I will be watching. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should practice what you preach. :) Mahalia56 04:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was a totally different dispute, which was about history, not some pop culture phenomenon. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" by whom may I ask? And how did you determine what was "consensus"? (BostonMA 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

By everyone who posted on the talk page - it was ad hoc, and if in dispute, should be been raised by someone not just by him, especially since everyone else agreed there wasn't any real problem. -- Natalinasmpf 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly "everyone who posted on the talk page" did not agree with you regarding the the "npov disputed" template. In fact the opposite, if you look at the discussion page, you will see that there is a section NPOV. To date, no serious arguement has been raised that there is no NPOV dispute. (BostonMA 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have unblocked the other editor with which you had the edit war, for fairness. BostonMA is making good proposals, that I hope you all consider. Take advantage while the article is protected, because it is not forever. I will unprotect in a few days. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the narrative in the section which is now titled "Soviet Marxism". I pointed out that the narrative was filled with "original research", which lacked verificable sources. I further cited sources which clearly cast doubt on the accuracy of that narrative. You resonded that verifiable sources would be forthcoming. I am still waiting. (BostonMA 14:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Your new "dyoh" template

In your Template:dyoh, I wanted to fix the words "access to anyone to the total sum of human knowledge", but I can't quite see what you're trying to say. Steve Summit (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping

Hi, I'm still hoping that you will make a statement of agreement with the conflict avoidance guidelines at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Adding your sig to the Proposal for moderating the edit wars on the Communism discussion page would be nice. (BostonMA 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, its me again. You were very active in deleting my edits as well as those of Gibby. I'm concerned that you have not been using the time available to discuss your concerns. I hope that you will not summarily revert other people's edits if you are not willing to use the current period to argue your positions. Can we come to some agreement about that? If not, should we seek the assistance of an outsider? Please let me know your views on this.

KDRGibby's RFC

Have you seen my 'inside view' [2]. I think it sums up the underlying problem fairly well. KDRGibby now seems to have taken up the constant refrain "you are not using logic" [3] [4] [5] [6]. This is a pretty good indication of what I mean. In this context, logical means logical from the point of view of KDRGibby. Mattley ^(Chattley) 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the justifications offered for rejecting Gibby's edits logically incoherent. Regardless of his POV, I think there are double standards applied. (BostonMA 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I see that you suggested User:BostonMA mediate in the dispute with KDRGibby. I wonder if you might reconsider whether that is a good idea. With all due respect to the guy, he has hardly any experience of the project and is not well-versed in policy, procedures and so forth. He has also said that he finds the arguments offered by yourself, myself and 172 logically incoherent (leaving aside his suggestion that we are a Maoist cabal). Someone who cannot appreciate both sides in a dispute, and who dismisses clearly articulated objections by multiple experienced editors as logically incoherent isn't very well-placed to mediate said dispute, I would say. Mattley ^(Chattley) 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, First a note for Natalinasmpf. I watch your page, and so saw this note. Please let me know if it is inappropriate for me to respond to it here. Hi Mattley. I may or may not be a suitable person to mediate. You are correct, I haven't edited pages that had any active fighting going on. You are also right that I am still in the process of learning policy and procedures. Yes, I did say that I find the justifications given to be logically incoherent. No, I did not suggest that you are a Maoist cabal. I do believe that there is a group cohesion among you, but I doubt that it is based on a common political ideology. Whether one or more editors is Maoist I do not know, and I do not suggest that anyone is. You suggest that I cannot appreciate both sides in a dispute. That is quite possible. Is there something in particular you had in mind? I agree that the objections to various things has been clearly articulated. That doesn't mean that I will always find them reasonable. It may be the case that, because of your shared experiences, you have developed quite common reactions to things, and thus end up frequently agreeing on practical matters. Then when one or another of you makes a comment which supports your common practical aims, but which may have holes in it from an outsider's perspective, you may not notice those holes. Familiarity alters the way people communicate. Of course this is just musing on my part, and you needn't take it seriously. Mattley, perhaps when you cool down a bit, we can understand one another better. I'm sure you've had better days. (BostonMA 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No logic as in if you say a section should not be included because the section title only recieves 179 google hits. Then to come find out current section titles have as little as 150 google hits, but you make no effort to have those sections deleted. That is logical inconsistancy. Its not that hard to understand (Gibby 09:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

First, it's logical consistency. But of course, before you point this out as an ad hominem, I was just tired of you mis-spelling it. Anyhow, the situation is different. "Free trade communist" are a concept. The section titles may use multiple concepts in the same title. The google hit citation was not over use of section titles, but the prominence of concepts. Good day. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalinasmpf, I have written a response to your recent comment on my talk page. --BostonMA 13:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page FA

I'd be happy to help. Just tell me where I should be going to copy-and-paste the good version. What section is the problem? A quote on the main page talk will be fine. Thanks. Harro5 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangqi images.

I ran the final upload run on these images last night. I got a few errors though...

Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-edcdb.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line427 Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-elca.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line 427 Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-elcdb.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line427 Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-elsd.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line 427

...would you confirm that all the other images are uploaded, and if these were actually supposed to exist in the first place? --Phroziac _. o º^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 14:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're welcome. :) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Congratulations!!! You've earned yourself a barnstar!

Fir e Fox 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi Natalinasmpf, I've taken the communism case on. I've notified KDRGibby and hopefully we can resolve this situation. If he accepts mediation, we can begin! Dan100 (Talk) 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek "Theory of Government(s)" . .

Hi Natalina—

Are you familiar with the ancient Greek Greek "Theory of Government(s)" which holds that the change in Government style is 'circular' (none of the ancients believed in "progress"— they were too impressed by the apparent cyclicity of things)? It holds that a Dictatorship will inevitably change to an Oligarchy which will change to an Aristocracy which will change to a Republic (which Plato liked best of all; not surprising, since suffrage was denied about 85% of the population in ancient Athens' so called Democracy) which will change to a Democracy which will change to Anarchy (your favorite?), but which will then change to a Dictatorship— and the cycle repeats!

normxxx 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across it, although I had thought of it before actually reading about it. However, I tend to think the current catch-22 system of repression is slowly taking over, which is of course, a bad thing. -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>However, I tend to think the current catch-22 system of repression is slowly taking over, which is of course, a bad thing.< I think you may be right, but only because we have had a (brief?), but explosive, flowering of Democracy, which is not really such a nice form of Government (it tends to reduce things to the Most Common denominator— and to Hell with tomorrow!), which may yet continue for some time yet (even the Singapore government has 'adopted' some 60 of 70+ 'suggestions' on 'easing' the Autocracy). In my old age, I am in favor of a merit-based Republic (shades of Plato). Oh well; maybe Winston Churchill had it right when he said that Democracy is the worst form of Government— except for the alternatives! normxxx 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally find bashing the masses to be a tad cliché. Ideally, there should be nothing wrong with the lowest common denominator - however, there is a catch 22 that encourages ignorance of the masses, which means they are oblivious to insidious takeovers such as plutocracy. Which means bad education policy (because the people at the top favor ignorance for the masses). Which means they still stay ignorant. Breaking this catch-22 would reverse this somewhat. I actually dislike Plato, although I can agree with Socrates and Aristotle. After all, every individual has the right to voice his or her opinion to directly change the government through direct voting (as an anarchist, I am afraid I favor direct democracy over representative), after all, they are individuals with their opinions, and who are we as ivory towerists to usurp power and assert our superiority to them, for is that not our own bias? The key then, is not to disregard the opinions the lowest common denominator (if that is a neutral statement at all), but to raise the lowest common denominator and to sustain a positive cycle. -- Natalinasmpf 01:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a firm supporter of the free software movement . .

Do you believe that software creators should be left to "develop" software in a garrett, like the artists in La Bohème ? And what about access to the tools of their trade, which do not come cheap? I understand your intellectual sympathy with anarcho-communism (which I simply believe to be impractical in any society larger than a tribe— ~100 folk or so), but do not anticipate the advent of your society. In this society, free software is, at the least, unsupported software— of the nature of any "free" labor. Not many of us have an independent means of income whereby we can indulge in unlimited "free" work on anything. In the meantime, "free" software should be seen as in the nature of a charitable donation.

normxxx 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but often the tools of their trade become self-created, and can achieve self-sufficiency as a community evolves. I see free software as an altruistic movement for information awareness which cares nothing about profit and cares only about knowledge and intellectualism. And the joy of programming. I don't see how it's necessarily unsupported, it would work like any gift economy, including the drive to competency. -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Where I was coming from was the flowering and near demise of freeware in the '90s. Few such efforts have been so rewarded or supported as Linux.

Ah, but I think that is because Linux was an ideal operating system to lob all free software efforts into, so it's not that there have been few efforts, but most of the efforts have merged. Since freeware != free software, anyway. ;) -- Natalinasmpf 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talk:architecture . . / . .

See the latest comments. Since this does not seem a frequented page, I have asked for mediation/arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normxxx (talk • contribs)

Uh, it's only a minor dispute. I hope we don't get any ill will out of this, I think this can be resolved with at most, an RFC. I'm sure it won't turn out anything like Gibby's. ;). -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar! I am persuing this in depth because I take you to be a very serious person. (See latest additions to the architecture talk page.) However, I am very new to Wikipediua, so I appologize for the inappropriate highlightings, which I will henceforth allow free reign only in discusssions! Also, I asked for help on this from my Wikipedia welcome committee of one, who will probably also advise a Rfc, if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normxxx (talk • contribs)

Acknowledged. Well, I certainly hope you mean an article RFC, not a user RFC. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the event, I went for a request for a third opinion. But, so far, only Stochata has responded. (He has contributed to architecture before, so his is a valued opinion.) Are you aware that there are in the neighborhood of 10,000 articles on various aspects of architecture, only haphazardly cross-referenced?

I have been studying the architecture and content of the "architecture" articles in Wikepedia. It is vast! Much of it little coordinated. I know little about the architecture of the built environment, but I have extensive background as a systems architect (see the new write up for my resume!). So, I have undertaken some minimal cleanup, especially of the Main architecture page (I have abandoned all hope of changing it to the disambiguation page; there are probably several thousand references to "architecture" in Wikipedia, 90% of which are expected to produce something about the architecture of the built environment), the Architectural History page, and the disambiguation page. I particularly welcome any suggestions from you.

Thank you for the "Exceptional Newcomer Award" (the Order of the Blue Butterfly?) But, I am still very much a newby and learning as I go.

[]As an aside, I am retired; and very, very much older than you. So please, please excuse me if I ever seem condescending (I promise you I will not mean it as such). I also was a Psychology Instructor at the U. of Mich. in the U.S. for a time (I got a Ph.D. in Mathematical Psychology for kicks), and I am sure you are well aware from painful experience that teachers (even ex-teachers) tend to lapse into "down-speak" from time to time. Also, do not hesitate to ask me to clarify anything (I am not always altogether clear on my points as I am more creative than analytical; which is probably why I wound up as a systems architect)— I promise to do the same. (As a practitioner of the Socratic method, I sincerely believe the simplest and most fundamental questions usually reveal the major areas of collective ignorance. My students and colleagues hated it!) I am usually (but not always) more than willing to confess ignorance (I developed that habit when I found most people hated such confessions also— it's almost like Jujutsu (or, the Taoist, “in yielding there is strength”)!).[] normxxx 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes it is vast, and there needs to be some organisation. I will probably add organising the entire category (that's right!) to my long-term to do list. I have so many other things to do, and I am exhausted. I'm off to play some online computer games, no doubt a stereotype of my generation. I need a break. I haven't played America's Army in weeks. -- Natalinasmpf 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei

When you had reviewed this RfC, I must admit that it was lacking in some respects. However, I have expanded it with relevant points (see the bits in green) - even if it will have no impact on your decision, would you be able to re-visit this RfC please? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek phonology

I was interested to see your comments on this page. I don't know anything about Huaiwei, but I thought you were judicious in your comments. I would like someone with a little distance from the situation to take a similar look at User:Thrax's behavior on Ancient Greek phonology. From my point of view, Thrax has been a terribly uncooperative and disruptive editor, but it would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has nothing to do with the case. Do you think his behavior is acceptable? not acceptable but within the rules? deserving of some sort of action (if so, what)? Thanks. --Macrakis 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it as soon as I clear some other issues up. I will be glad to provide a third opinion, but I'm not much of a mediator, but I will try my best. :-) -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No hurry, Thrax is quiet for now. --Macrakis 00:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS But do let me know on my User Talk page -- I don't monitor yours. --Macrakis 18:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit police

The edit police brigade says hi :-) --HappyCamper 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed it...I thought you were being funny...I had such a great laugh. It's been a long time any Wikipedian managed to make me laugh like that! Cheers! --HappyCamper 02:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. :D --Terence Ong ^Talk 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here You Go

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf, just in case you didn't get the link on IRC. Good luck, although you might not need it, I think you're a shoo in! karmafist 17:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My congrulations to you in advance! I'm pretty sure your promotion is just days away. Merry Christmas too! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese assaults in World War II

Hi, thanks for the Barnstar :-) Sorry for the delay in replying but I've been thinking about your question. And I don't know if the Japanese success can be described much better than we have done in Battle of Singapore.

I would summarise their advantages as follows:

1. Tactics. "Encirclement, isolation and flanking" was a large part of it.

2. Organisation. The Commonwealth forces were structured, trained and equipped mainly as heavy infantry, to fight the Wehrmacht in Europe and North Africa. They relied on mobility through trucks and trains, and the use of artillery and heavy machine gun units, to deter frontal assaults. However this doesn't really work on a battlefield which is dominated by thick forest, as the ability to move and deploy is restricted to roads and rail lines. And the Japanese used classic light infantry structures. This meant that even if they they didn't have the mobility of the Allies, they could more quickly change attack plans at both the tactical and strategic levels to refocus attacks when they were met with obstacles. They weren't slowed down by elaborate supply lines, as was the case with the Allies. These lessons were eventually learnt by the Allies. For instance, even the Australian 9th Division — which had been much praised by British commanders for its efforts in North Africa — when it was deployed to the Pacific in 1943, in addition to significant retraining in jungle warfare, was stripped of many of its transport, artillery and tank units.

3. Experience. The Japanese had been fighting a war on and off in China for ten years. Few, if any, of the Commonwealth soldiers had seen battle before December 1941. Grant65 | Talk 01:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communism References

Thanks for that, I didn't know how to do footnotes. Your edit is great, but I think I jumped into the middle of an ongoing edit war... Pages are Schaefer, Richard T. "Sociology" 5th ed. pp. 123, 343. You may want to include some of this text from pg. 343 to further defend this:

"Marx believed that each socialist state would eventually 'wither away' and evolve into a communist society. As an ideal type, communism refers to an economic system under which all property is communally owned and no social distinctions are made on the basis of people's ability to produce. In recent decades, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba, and nations in Eastern Europe were popularly thought of as examples of communist economic systems. However, this represents an incorrect usage of a term with sensitive political connotations. All nations known as communist in the twentieth century have actually fallen far short of the ideal type." Patrick 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Also, what could be done about GMB's continued reverting of the text? It seems like everyone agrees on this version... Patrick 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He will eventually be blocked for violating the three revert rule. I am trying to come up with a discussion of his points but he refuses to discuss it. Anyway, about the book I don't think there's much to expand on from the book, because it's already mentioned throughout (although we could reword), we just need as many references as possible for the existing test. Thanks for the concern! -- Natalinasmpf 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks!

Hi Natalinasmpf, thank you for your edits on Ursula Rucker. The article as it used to be was not from a NPOV, I didn't fully see that, because she is one of my favorite poets of all time. Again thank you, the article is improved ten fold. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used a footnote section as of yet. When you say to "bring sources of what the critics say", do you mean to provide links to reviews from sites such as amazon, and BBC Urban Review? KnowledgeOf Self | talk 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the comments from critics should be provided after providing the footnote link? For example, this is a review from a music critic from BBC Urban Review, as is this one, like I mentioned above, I've never provided footnotes to an article. I would be obliged if you could take the reviews I've provided and insert one or both in as you would want them to be. After seeing the additions you'd make I'll go and find more reviews from different sources and add them in. Thanks KnowledgeOf Self | talk 19:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

BostonMA's updated comments

I wasn't sure what BostonMA was trying to do when he duplicated that whole section. Thank you for fixing it! Owen× ☎ 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank-you. I'm not sure how it got screwed up and I apologize. I tried to fix it myself, but by then, I kept getting change conflicts. (BostonMA 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

ROK Barnstar

Congratulations!!! I hereby award a Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Natalina for random acts of kindness in editing and politeness beyond the call of duty!

normxxx 01:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, I still feel that this article is rather pointless. I would like to see what you perceive as the cultural link between (for lack of a better example) Singapore and Israel? Or Afghanistan and Thailand? I still feel that Wikipedia would be better off without the article, but if that's more or less a pipe dream than it should at least be a redirect page for more culturally specific articles. --RyGuy17 06:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is also a common link, despite the distinctions, and the distinctions after all, does press the article to have sub-pages, which is already done. For example, there is a huge difference between all the native peoples of the Americas, but we still group them as one (Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Native Americans). -- Natalinasmpf 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McCarthy, GMB and page protection

G'day Natalina,

you asked why I protected the Joseph McCarthy article on the dodgy version. Simply put, GMB's changes, extreme though they may be, are not vandalism. As such, it's inappropriate for me — well, any protecting admin — to choose my favourite revision of an article and protect to that one. We're supposed to be neutral when protecting pages, and as long as the current revision doesn't contain vandalism, it's the one we should protect. GMB certainly seems to have very extreme political views from my humble Aussie POV, but that's no reason to discount his opinion more than the opinions I prefer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No External Links

Just saw your edit to the Warhammer 40,000 page. I'm not saying you did the right or wrong thing here, but would like to know where it says that you cannot include external links in the body of the article, unless they are references. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A fair reasoning, but can you point me to where in the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines it states this? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

Hi, if you haven't notice the Singapore COTW, you may like to take a look here. Do make a vote or nominate articles for COTW. --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete article

Hi Natalinasmpf,

I'm going to pass you (and fellow SGpedians) an incomplete work to hopefully continue on, which is at User:Mailer diablo/Sandbox. The MRT FAC is running into very serious problems, and from next year onwards I'll probably have very little time to devote into the project. I do hope to eventually see National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal become a featured article one day as well. :)

- Best reagrds, Mailer Diablo 14:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chad-Sudan conflict

Until Wikizach has concrete source, we're fishing. We must wait until sources can be cited. I think "Ongoing" is much better than "Undecided." As far as we know it isn't even a "war" yet. KI 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Strangely I have been unable to find any references to UN mediation... plenty to AU and Egypt though. KI 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you've been attributing all of the externals links I added at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I didn't see this before. I'll do that for any future links I add. KI 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said 1-2% on the voting to move and 1-5% in your edit summary...can you provide a source for these statistics...?

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help against some POV-pushing

I would greatly appreciate your help against the Objectivist Reductio ad Hitlerum being pushed into the altruism article, and against some libertarian POV warring at positive right and negative right. Thanks in advance. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2nd-person language rewording of 3D Monster Maze

I've tried to do some <subj>, see that article's history ;-). You're welcome to help further in the task — I feel that the new phrase "run for one's life" sounds a bit worse than the original "run for your life"; also, I didn't reword the strategy advice that uses the 2nd-person lang. as it would be in striking disharmony with the cited in-game messages. If you have a good idea how to reword that smoothly, please go ahead. --BACbKA 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly changed since, but that paragraph still remains a stumbling block for that very same reason. It is even sticking out more than before, as, per others' suggestions and the gaming project guidelines, the gameplay is now in the article start. If you could find a creative way to solve it w/o creating the above disharmony, I'd be really happy... --BACbKA 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suppose!

I see you reverted someone else's hostile remarks on my Talk page. Very neighborly of you. Tell me, what exactly IS that guy's problem? I can't remember calling anyone on wikipedia a "moron", "lunatic", or "fanatic" in weeks at least. ;) -Kasreyn 11:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A RFC has been filed for User:Monicasdude's questionable user conduct. Please join in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be-earlied congrats to your RfA!

You'll like this, I'm sure. Though I don't think many people would use it, since it's uh, rare enough to have a communist, but a Christian communist, too? Well, I used to be one, too, but I'm not a very good Christian so... I'll be using {{User Capitalist}}, I guess. Hehe. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful edit

Thank you for your helpful edit [7] --BostonMA 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not fix it?

In the recent past I have seen quite a few good editors express disillusionment with Wiki, and it is not hard to see why. Your recent edits to Battle of Malaya and comments accompanying your edits are a good illustration. You have twice replaced a cleanup tag on the article giving "tone" as your reason. Firstly, not everyone would see what you are talking about so why don't you specify what you believe is wrong with the tone. Secondly, why don't you fix it instead of placing on it a dubious tag which is likely to remain there for ages because not everyone would know what you are on about. There are 12,000 plus articles awaiting attention on Cleanup at the moment, many of them simply dumped there by people who place tags but never do the work to improve the articles to a quality where they remove the tag. This is not a dig at you personally/exclusively, but at the very unhelpful habit which has crept up on us and become almost policy. For myself, I refuse to be a willing drone from here on, unless some of those who flash tags around actually try to improve Wiki by actually editing articles. Incidentally, I will copy this comment to the Cleanup talk page too. Moriori 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually intend to fix it (it's listed on the todo list of my user page), just that I listed it for cleanup so any passerby's could fix it until I get to it. -- Natalinasmpf 01:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you still haven't specified what is wrong with the "tone" of the article it will be interesting to see how you apply your interpretation to it. Passersby won't necessarily see anything wrong with the "tone" so why would they consider fixing it? Moriori 03:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please see my talk page for a response to your message.--TracyRenee 16:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page for a response to your message.--TracyRenee 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- 03:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And congratulations from me too. May you find eudaimonia in editing Wikipedia, and remember, Wikipedia is Communism! (in the very best sense of that word)-gadfium 08:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'd have supported Suppa! but I was late! See you around and Happy new year. Cheers -- Szvest 09:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Congratulations! Sorry my vote didn't make it through in time, but it seems it wasn't necessary anyway. It's always nice to have sharp new eyes monitoring the site. Have a good 2006! Sarge Baldy 10:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too... William M. Connolley 11:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Hello Natalinasmpf, I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOf Self | talk 03:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Note

Thanks for the note! I'm a lot less confused now. BTW, as of now, Gibby's essay is up in the article, as he has made 4 reverts. I can't see how his essay can be salvaged, so it needs to go. 172 06:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I've nominated him at AN/3RR. I'm not going to revert his revisions to set an example; I'll allow other editors to do that. -- Natalinasmpf

Thanks again for your efforts. Definitely, I want to be listed as a participant and sign on. The kind of patience that you have shown him is remarkable (I mean, I never would have considered him material for mediation, given his rude behavior from day one), making his latest comments directed toward you, much less myself, all the more unacceptable. Keep up the excellent work! 172 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hello. Can you go to WP:TFD and comment or vote about Template:PD-USGov-LOC ? Thank you - Darwinek 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Not a problem, i'm honored to have initiated the process. I have the utmost confidence that you'll do great, but if you get bogged down, just remember the vandal's words to cheer you up -- Wikipedia is Communism ;-) karmafist 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page for a reply.--TracyRenee 11:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I congratualte you on your elevation to the position of an administrator. All the best. --Bhadani 13:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Maybe some non-admin will come along and create a lot of work for you. :-) --D e ath phoenix 14:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
====>> Congratulations!!!! I will do my best to do as Deathphoenix says!

talk:Normxxx normxxx 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Ah what a way to start the new year for you eh? ;) Talking about that, I do need help in moving Current events in Malaysia and Singapore to December 2005 in Malaysia and Singapore as per routine monthly archiving. I am just heeding your call for providing assistance hehe. Thanks and have a great 2006! :D--Huaiwei 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events. It may not be policy, but I have been adhering to it religiously all these while for the sake of maintaning easier-to-follow edit histories as per recommendation provided there. Hope you may assist. Thanks! ;)--Huaiwei 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yoz...still patiently awaiting!--Huaiwei 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Thanks a million~! ;)--Huaiwei 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your promotion to an administrator. And a Happy New Year. --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrats on becoming an admin! -- Jbamb 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on your adminship, it was well earned. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --King of All the Franks 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You'll make an excellent admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! I didn't get to give you my vote! I knew I should have done that before logging off on December 31st... Well, if it counts for anything, here's a symbolic Support, and congratulations! -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congratulations, all. :D -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More power to the neo-maoist cabal for the purification of knowledge! Completely missed your RfA. Congrats + all. --Pjacobi 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Tora!Tora!Tora!

Mahalo for your feedback comments with suggested alternatives ...

Consider reading "The Truth About Stories" by Thomas King
RJBurkhart 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kulin image

Hello; it's from http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/early.html. It's OK, I'm one of the owners of the site (this site has been the source of images galore, for instance on the Croatian languege page tec.).Best, Mir Harven 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly-I don't get it. Maybe due to the less strict laws re Internet property operating in Croatia (then), or to the general liberal attitude towards such things (copyleft mentality), the image has appered on the site I mentioned without any regard to the possible consequences. Vaguely, I recall that it was, like the major part of images, simply scanned from some book. That's all I know. Mir Harven 14:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, delete it then. I've been out of touch with the communications person on the www.hercegbosna.org for ca. 2 months (ie., since updates) & cannot provide any quick link or confirmation of anything in short time. Best Mir Harven 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

What happened in the dictatorship of the proletariat article is the infamous ultra right wing POV editor user:ultramarine who makes over 100 edits a day, mostly criticizing anything remotely marxist in nature got pissed that i removed some of his edits which were not only POV but tangental (many belonged in the democratic centralism article). he got very angry and irrate and began putting "totally disputed" and "pov" tags on just about any article that his critical edits are taken off of. I refuse to debate with him on any subject because it is futile and he will just add templates and then make a big deal when they are removed. he hardly has anything constructive to contribute to any marxist articles. please support me and my fellow wikipedians and revert that template back, he is the only one that has put it there and if a large number of ppl keep taking it off we can at least put a hamper on his evil and devstating activities. Solidusspriggan 08:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation network in Sengkang New Town

Hi Natalina,

I m quite puzzled by your insertion of the following under the section titled above, especially the portion on private transport being the dominant mode of transport.

"Private transport is the dominant mode of transport in Sengkang, but city planners plan for public transport to eventually become the preferred mode of transport in the future."

I live in Sengkang New Town and the pattern of transport utilised by its residents is no different from any other new towns in Singapore. Of course, it is a different story if you are referring to old rural Sengkang before 1997. Would you mind explaining and cite the source for the above info? --Sengkang 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:KDRGibby

Howdy. Since you are directly involved in one or more disputes with KDRGibby, you should probably not be directly editing his user page, even if you feel that the content he has there constitutes a personal attack. What he has had on his user page does seem a bit inflammatory, but editors ought to be able to describe disputes they are having with other editors, perhaps with more diplomatic language. android 79 13:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

It was scanned from the Leningrad copy; whose holders released all rights to the scanner. Unfortunately; I am not sure if the man who scanned it released all rights - to wikipedia... --HolyRomanEmperor 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelganger account

Hi, I've created a doppelganger account named Terenceong1992 on wheels!. Please do not block it. Thank you. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator

User:Natalinasmpf on Wheels!!

Think you'd like to personally take care of this one ;) Yuyudevil 08:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Argentinean sailors

Hi, I notice you turned this into a redirect instead of deleting it. Just two comments:

It's a useless redirect, as nothing refers to it;
The correct category, Category:Argentine sailors, now contains

There is 1 subcategory to this category.

Category:Argentinean sailors

and that link points to an empty cat. This just looks a little ugly to me. Once again, sorry for screwing this up in the first place! Cheers. — Johantheghost 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect 1.FC Cologne

Hi! Why did you remove the deletion-request? Your explanation "redirect not being used is not a criteria for deletion" doesn't make sense to me, since I primarily referred to the wrong name (missing blank). And that's a perfectly proper criteria for speedy deletion. --Nanouk 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my main point was the wrong name. I understand that "not being used" alone doesn't qualify as a reason. I know about the "fairly common typo" rule, but I don't think this typo is so common. The redirect was created by Kingjeff only recently (in fact just yesterday), to make a point at Talk:Hannover 96. This user has a history of acting rather strangely (one might also call it vandalism), so I just wanted to clean up. But I don't mind too much if the redirect stays, if you consider it necessary. --Nanouk 16:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

I put up a bunch of those "historical anniversaries" links for speedy deletion yesterday. I noticed you deleted a handful. There are many more (about 40). Could you just go and delete them all without me having to go through and put a speedy tag on all of them. They are all redirects to their respective dates and they all violate the Wikipedia:Subpages policy. Historical anniversaries/April 30, Historical anniversaries/May 5, etc. They are found by doing a search for "Historical anniversaries". Pepsidrinka 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly

Thank-you. That was very a very thoughtful and generous action. --BostonMA 03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Natalinasmpf. Thank you for supporting my Rfa and your kind comments! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore as illiberal democracy

I think is not an opinion but a fact that Singapore's democracy is an illiberal democracy. This is not even contested by the leadership. Rather it is justified for the survival of the city state and by the supposedly Asian values.

Thanks

Many thanks for your support and kind words on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 11:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

212.219.190.164

Hi. Could you look at this edit. I think it is vandalism based upon the user's history, but I wanted someone else to take a look. Thanks. --BostonMA 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose votes

You might as well just let it stand - even if he rounds up a few friends, it strikes me as unlikely that it will have a big impact this time around. Guettarda 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIgnature

I see that your signature has been changed to

Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant

You might be interested to know the expression used for this : "elle vécu heureuse à jamais" (litterally, "she lived happy for ever"). Cheers ! Rama 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Arbitrators

You left a reply comment to my Oppose vote for Terenceong1992. I said that I thought 13 was too young for this position. You replied, "Rationale should not be because of age, but experience. Age is often linked, but never a real indictator of true ability." That may be true in the very general sense, and certainly is true for specific abilities, for example, figure skating, violin playing in some cases, gymnastics, mathematical genius. However, I think that when it comes to arbitrating disputes often between adults many years older and with the accompanying experience and baggage, life experience and age is a definite factor. I would argue that Terenceong1992's "I withdraw ... no I don't ... sorry I wasted your time" is an example of the exact type of age-appropriate behavior that, while fine for a 13-year-old would not serve him well as an arbitrator. (If you wish to reply, please use your Talk page or mine as suggested on the Voting Page. Let's not clutter up the Voting tally page with comments. thanks. Crunch 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You make some interesting points. If someone gets involved in Wikipedia at age 7, by age 14, they will have 7 years of Wikipedia experience. But they'll still be 14 years old. My argument is that arbitration involves an element of real world skills as well, that no amount of life on Wikipedia can prepare you for. This is a function as much of the life experience of the adults the arbitrators must deal with as it is the different, or shorter, life experience of the teenage arbitrators. There's just not enough common ground. I do agree that most young people have a lot more free time. Crunch 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may convince me yet. Living in Singapore I'm sure gives you a perspective on life and living in "harmony" that we in America don't have. Crunch 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aetherometry again

Hi Natalina. I don't know if you've seen it, but you figure in http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia2/Section_V.html (a smashing victory for the spanking new Adminship of the bogus anarcho-girlie Natalina). William M. Connolley 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently they think I'm more fascist than libertarian socialist. Oh well. I guess being bashed by a spiteful, conspiracy-accusative kind of group is another thing to be ultimately proud of. ;-) Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a category

Dude, can u move Category:Manufactuing Corporation stubs or at least put an R in it as it has been mis-named. I have no idea whether renaming it with an R will make it in need of double redirect fixing or what..Thanks -- max rspct leave a message 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to help. Attendez! Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]