User talk:Cojoco/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk pages

Hello Cojoco,

Note that when adding new headings to talk pages, it is considered good form to add them to the bottom rather than the top. Most talk pages are designed to be read in chronological order, starting from the top. Check out WP:TALK for more info. Also, the third tab in from either side at the top of the page (the plus + sign) will automatically slap a new section onto the bottom, so you don't have to wait for an enormous edit pane to pop up, then scroll down to the bottom. Also makes previewing easier. WLU 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Best way to learn by the way - help pages and policy pages. Very useful. WLU 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rollback request

Hi there, thanks for contacting me.

After reviewing your contributions and your request, at this time I'm not inclined to grant rollback. Since you are still learning the ropes, I think it would be more to your benefit to have it once you have the ropes learned.

That being said, I'd like to point you over to Twinkle if you haven't looked into it already. It has a javascript rollback that mimics the official function, but it does not rollback on the server directly. There's much more leeway to learn vandalism fighting with that tool. You can install it into your monobook directly, or install it in the gadgets section under your preferences. Let me know if you need anything, and I'm willing to review rollback for you in a month or two once you have some practice. Happy editing. Keegan^talk 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Lee Tulloch do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://fabuloussomebody.blogspot.com/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• My response here Talk:Lee_Tulloch cojoco (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

line != straight line?

Hi, Paolo,

Your modification to collinearity, changing "line" to "straight line" didn't make much sense.

A line in mathematics is always straight, and things which are not are called "curves", hence space filling curves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cojoco (talk 11:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me. Notice that, actually, my edit was not totally useless. Line does not always and in all contexts mean straight line, and of course in these contexts curved lines exist, although I know now (because you warned me and I checked Wolfram's mathworld and Wikipedia) that in mathematics this is the most commonly used definition (the only one? I am not sure). That was not, however, the classical definition of the term. Otherwise, nobody would need to write:

• "Equations of the straight line"

And this is how these equations are called in elementary math textbooks, as far as I can remember. Also, I am not sure that in physics the term line has the same restricted meaning as in mathematics. There are two words in physics that contain the word "line" (although I admit that they are not frequently used):

1. rectilinear or rectilineal = along a straight (recta = right = straight) "line" (e.g., rectilinear motion, or rectilinear propagation)
2. curvilinear or curvilineal = along a curved "line" (for instance, curvilinear motion)

There is also an expression used in topography and metereology, in which the word line is used to indicate a non-straight closed curve:

• contour line

So, are you really sure that the restricted meaning of the term "line" that you know, which is frequently used in mathematics, is also frequently used in physics? Paolo.dL (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove your edit, merely queried the assumptions behind it. cojoco (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

White Bay Hotel

Hi, J Bar, I noticed that you've been adding a huge amount of material about Sydney to Wikipedia, well done.

However, I am curious as to why you keep changing the description of the White Bay Hotel from

"Until recently, it served as a platform for billboards"

to the incorrect:

"It served as a platform for billboards advertising to traffic on the Western Distributor until it was destroyed"

It hasn't had a billboard on it for years!? cojoco (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cojoco, The reason I removed 'recently' is that in practice using that word can lead to errors. It's fine for that article today but if that article doesn't get updated it will say recently forever. Because I monitor the Sydney articles, I have seen many that were written 3 or 4 years ago that state a fact as recent but a lot has changed but nobody has bothered to go back and change the information so it is incorrect. I've found when editing articles it's better if you state the actual year or date than say recently. I hope that explains it for you. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks. I've added the dates from the Heritage Report. cojoco (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why remove the adjectives?

Hi, Notacupcakebaker,

I undid your revision to "Special Topics in Calamity Physics", removing the adjectives "brilliant" and "dashing", for several reasons:

• These adjectives are descriptive and accurate: why remove them?
• Removing information from a Wikipedia page disqualifies it from being a "minor" edit, which is what you marked.
• You provided no explanation for your removal of these words

Therefore, I'll undo your revision again. cojoco (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cojoco, I deleted the adjectives because to my mind they are unnecessary, and controversial. I think you will find many reviewers who do not describe Blue as "brilliant" or her father as "dashing." Incidentally, I'm a very casual Wikipediest, and I don't know if I'm sending this message in the right way so please forgive me if it's wrong. Though I continue to disagree with you, I will refrain from removing the adjectives in the future. Cheers, cupcakebaker

Hi, cupcakebaker, I didn't mean to discourage you from editing, and I'm not even that dead set against your edits. However, I've pointed out some reasons that I disagree with the way you went about it, so I hope that you understand. I would encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia by finding places you can add information, instead of taking it away. I've just added some links that I hope you will find useful. Here are some tips which I hope you take in the spirit of politeness with which they're intended:

• When you're talking to people, please add your points to their "discussion" page, not their "user" page
• When you make edits which change the content of a page, don't set the "minor edit" flag
• Please don't be discouraged by my attention: I am only a Wikipedia user such as yourself, and I want Wiki to be better

May I ask why you found those adjectives controversial? It is clear that Blue is academically highly gifted, and it is also true that her father does not want for feminine attention, so "brilliant" and "dashing" seem right on the money.

cojoco (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Short Selling revert

Over time Wikipedia has developed quite strict rules on Biographies of living persons WP:BLP designed to protect people from attacks, rumors, etc. This primarily is used with regard to articles, but really applies to all pages including talk. My comment was both irrelevant to the article and a personal attack. So it was inappropriate for here, but that doesn't mean it wasn't justified ; ) Joshdboz (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Joshbod's edit

Hi Cojoco, just to let you know, even Joshbod agreed that his comment should be removed, per his message on my talk page. He was voicing his negative personal opinion about a living person, which is generally frowned on in our policy on biographical information about living people. It's especially important to do that on the talk pages of articles that have already seen very heated editing, to keep the temperature down and keep the focus on the article itself. Hope this explanation helps. Risker (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent talk

Your recent edit at talk:CAMERA is very astute, and I appreciate it. You are on to something that can be reliably sourced, but with much wider, topical implications, which might become somewhat off topic for this specific page and move elsewhere. Would you be willing to move your comment to the bottom of the talk page in a new section?

Before you do, you might want to look here and here[1]to get an inkling of the breadth of your observation. Should you decide otherwise, just let me know. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your appreciation. I've shifted the comment to make it more visible. cojoco (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Lutz

At a quick gance, it looks like the outstanding problem is the sources - all of it's from works either of dubious accuracy (IMDB - it's a lot flakier than it looks) or written by her. If you can find some robust third-party sources - an article about her, perhaps, or some references from the various awards she was nominated for - then that'll be the main hurdle overcome... Shimgray | talk | 12:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fair enough to me. Shimgray | talk | 15:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Conroy

A minister's wiki page is not a dumping ground for criticism from all and sundry. It has WP:BLP issues. I'll take other action on this. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't dead-set against your edit, it just seemed rather inconsistent with Slattery's even-less-relevant comments being left in. cojoco (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A coatrack is desribed at Wikipedia:Coatrack. I've also added an explanation at the talk page. Andjam (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

'Accuracy', et.al.

I guess I do not really understand your question, or what discussions you find interesting. Please give me a better description of what I/P arena you want to learn more about. Is it just about Wiki’s CAMERA-gate? My link to the media watchdog groups includes both WRMEA and FAIR. The table is not perfect however; just a quick ref. It does not include many more sites on both sides, which do not comply with their chosen inclusion criteria. I dispute the construction of the table itself, particularly the ‘Affiliation’ column, because some are absolutely more affiliated officially than others. There are others, like FAIR, which do media watching on a far broader scale than just the I/P conflict, but because of their broad liberal biases are indicated as some-how ‘affiliated’ as pro-Pal. That seems to me to be OR, but I have stayed away from that one because it would become too argumentative and time-consuming, especially now since the general topic is currently as hot as Gaza stoves are cold. That CAMERA-gate chapter is officially closed, although the situation persists, like it did before it hit the fan. Have you run across this yet? Let me know, we are within the same relative time zone. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is that "Media Coverage" page, and the description you find frustrating? Give me a link.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking at it, from my particular point of view (editing at CAMERA at the time), and admitted bias, I must absolutely agree that this section and particularly the last para do a disservice to NPOV. Firstly, it was a conflict between Camera and Wikipedia regarding very different views of what constitutes NPOV; it was already underway when reported by EI; that only got it in the news The current lead-in is a mis-statement of what the incident was. There is no doubt that EI is oppositely pov’d and were quite happy to break the news; it broke as reported by HR, based on my checks. What isn’t here is the WP:COI that was also reported here, which, if I remember correctly ended up with a ban. There are also some other apparent on-going questions (look for acronym). Lastly, by way of background, this may have played a role in changing methods used by CAMERA and its crew when enforcement first came into effect, as well as WP:IPCOLL, which resulted. It definitely could be written better. Take a stab at it, especially that last para. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA

Hi, thanks for taking the article Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict to the Adminstrator's notice board. I am not familiar with Wiki procedures here: is there anything I should know? cojoco (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing special you need to know. There are several problems concerning this source, one of them being hatred. We should use sources that speak of "Palestinian Duplicity" the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish Duplicity". PR^talk 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Please note that I have made a report to WP:AN/I regarding the edit warring / WP:BLP issue concerning Rashid Khalidi (that affects the above article), here: WP:AN/I#Historicist edit warring on BLP violations. This is a courtesy notice only because you seem to have been involved in some edits or discussion on the subject recently. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. cojoco (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Protectionist Parties

You haven't lost anything in to any black hole - your edits are kept in full in the page's history. I suggested the DLP/communist pages as examples for what you can do - create a seperate page for the current party as opposed to the historical party. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we need reliable sources. Generally, parties that are seeking registration are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles - perhaps the only one that I can think of which would qualify is the Australian Sex Party, but only because they've been cited in a tonne of media over the last few months.

We probably have ten or fifteen articles created on parties "seeking registration" each year, and maybe one or two actually survives long enough to get 500 members and actually contest an election. It's a case of the cart before horse - once they've got either the press coverage or the registration, then they might warrant an article. One single source doesn't notability make - especially (as this one is) one that isn't even focusing on the proposed party, but on racism in general. Rebecca (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy to let it pan out. cojoco (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no deletion discussion because no discussion was required. It was a WP:PROD. Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: NetAlert

My update was based on the last line of this source. [2] I must of forgotten to add it before. I'll do it now. --Nitchell (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source states differently :S I'm not sure what to do there. --Nitchell (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ACMA and Stephen Conroy

Hello, I think you may be being a little overzealous in your editing of Stephen Conroy, perhaps you should consider reintroducing the second paragraph. I agree that Stephen Conroy, Internet Censorship and ACMA are all separate entities, but aside from the internet censorship, Stephen Conroy is not much of a notable, except for his political existence. Therefore I think it is important to highlight the controversial nature of the whole wikileaks palava on his actual entry. Shuggyg (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Shuggyg, while I agree with you that the only interesting thing about SC is the internet censorship thing, why do you think that Wikileaks has anything to with a biography of the man? There's plenty of material about Wikileaks in ACMA and ICIA, and excessive information about ICIA in his biography really amounts to coatracking. If you want more discussion, maybe you should consider copying all of this to the Talk page for Stephen Conroy? cojoco (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet censorship in Australia edit summary

Please to not make attacks in the edit summary even if the person/editor is a vandal. Not a warning just a note :). Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that Dodo would be regarded as a personal attack, sorry! Haven't you got better things to do? cojoco (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Cojoco. Thank you. Now you get a warning for "Haven't you got better things to do?" as it's a personal attack and bad faith, The note I gave you was for your benefit as "Don't be a silly dodo." is classed as a personal attack. Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You really must be very bored. This is neither a personal attack nor bad faith, just an observation. cojoco (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may trouble you for some of your time

I am trying to wrap my head around this issue. I cannot decide whether or non the argument is proper or improper and I would like your opinion; and while I am at it: Someone has added a subsection on a misquote of some Israeli general that CAMERA publicized. I'm thinking about cutting it back and would like your thoughts on the matter.
--NBahn (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, NBahn, I have a vague memory that the whole issue got blown up because of a mis-interpretation of an opinion piece, which was an Op-Ed in the New York Times. I don't have time to chase it up right now, but I think the essence of the argument is that some Israeli general was quoted nearby to a statement quite dismissive of Palestinians. This quote was never made by the Israeli general, but a careful reading of the original article did not actually attribute it to him. There has been a lot of edit warring on both sides with the mistaken attribution, and castigating people for making it. I suggest going to the original article in the NY Times, and attempting to piece together events from there. While I/P relations are obviously very difficult, too much energy I think has been expended on this single issue, which amounts to a misunderstanding. If I have time I will write down more details this evening. cojoco (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Web.archive.org official links

At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Canongate Books do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/interview-with-canongate-publisher-of-the-year-lisa-glass-talks-to-jamie-byng/ (matching the regex rule \bwordpress\.com).
   If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

The thread was already marked as resolved. Let's please leave it at that, shall we? As far as the inappropriateness of re-adding unsourced info back into a WP:BLP article, please see [3]. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! cojoco (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mess with the Cirt. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift9, please be WP:CIVIL. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, fellow hater of censorship

I'm a fellow Wikipedian, and I wonder if you could do me a little favour. I cannot do it myself because of censorship. Another fellow Wikipedian contacted me recently and saw fit to add a message containing the name of a banned religious group here in the Middle Kingdom, where I currently find myself living and working. Although I think he has a perfect right to talk about it, the result has been that the Internet censors here have blocked access to my Talk page, which rather hinders communication, and makes it impossible for anyone to reach me there. The blockage only kicks in after a few seconds, leading me to believe that some program or other scans for that string of characters. I have managed to catch a glimpse of his message, though. I would ask him to do it, but I cannot reach any of his pages. They're blocked, too.

The favour: Could you simply go to my Talk page and change the group's name to a string of question marks????????????? You are hereby authorized to do so, and if there is any trouble from an administrator, refer him/her to this message. The offending group name is right down near the bottom.

I would really appreciate that. Thanks.Kelisi (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It all seems mighty strange, but it seems harmless enough, and it's done now. cojoco (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mighty strange, but mighty effective! Thank you so much. I now have my Talk page back. Kelisi (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Study

Thanks, I'm glad you like that study. It has good footnotes. Not up-to-the-minute, but reasonably recent. ColJenkins (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)