User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Jun 2007

A question...

Hi Dr. S - I've been watching your edits for a while, and wonder whether you'd considered running for admin? I'd willingly nominate you if you're interested... drop me a line on my talk page to say yay or nay :) Grutness...wha? 06:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that. My offer stands if you feel ready for nomination in a few months - let me know if and when you think it's time. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr S, I only noticed to day that you are not an admin, and was surprised, because it seems to me that you would make a great admin. I see that in your reply to Grutness, you said not for a few months, but I'd like to ask you to reconsider; we need people like you as admins, and my experience is that there's not as much flak in the job as you might fear. If you still want to leave it for now, then please let me know ASAP when you change your mind, because I too would be delighted to nominate you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwaye strikes again

You may want to intervene again regarding User:Pastorwayne's category creation. You should look at the most recent comments at User Talk:Pastorwayne. Despite repeated complaints, he continues to churn out categories. A couple of things about Pastorwayne really bother me. First, despite what Pastorwayne claims, his category names (mainly the ones using "Primate", such as the ones I have nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30) do not match the titles used for these people in real life. Either Pastorwayne is so stupid that he cannot understand this or he is lying. Second, he still seems oblivious to the fact that no one else likes his category work, and he seems to feel that it is his right to be confrontational.

Given his repeated disruptive behavior, I can no longer assume good faith with User:Pastorwayne. I must conclude that he is either being deliberately disruptive by creating strange categories (possibly as retaliation for previous categories being deleted) or his view on how to organize things is truly irrational. In either case, he needs to be blocked from category creation. His actions are diruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a statement on his talk page. If you wish to comment or clarify, please feel free to comment here (to hopefully reduce distractions there). - jc37 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne created Category:Wikipedians who listen to Glad

Pastorwayne created Category:Wikipedians who listen to Glad. This is clearly in defiance of the request that he stop creating categories. Please block him. (I will also inform User:BrownHairedGirl.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comments at her talk page. - jc37 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Keshe "Theory" MfD

If you do send this for deletion, can you let me know so that I can come by and support this? Cheers -Fritzpoll 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr sub Dated 15.6.2007

I see you have given me time till 5th of Jun to take the Keshe Theory out or delete .

The site was under construction and not completed, as I had to attend a scientific conference in China for explanation of this new discovery on behalf and by governmental organisations for Chinese scientific community.

As I could not access to computer till today due to the fact that wikipedia in china is mainly can not be reached and is blocked.

I would like to make the following comment for your nomination and deletion.

First of all the user page was advised and communicated before putting up and setting up through Wikipedia help line.

Secondly, The technology based on the theory has been accepted and tested by number of governments and world institutes.

The space aspect , energy production , and Nano particle production of the technology has been tested by European governmental founding research and proven to be correct.

The peer review is for when a theory is not tested and not when is commercially implemented under licence.

Please reset my user page back otherwise I think you will find out very son that you have shown your incompetence to understand new concepts and technologies.

planetary nebula cite

I see what you mean about seds. How about this [1] for the cite?--mikeu 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Popes of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 25#Category:Primates_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Patriarchate_of_Alexandria_and_of_All_Africa: shouldn't the word "pope" in the category name be in the plural form "Popes", as in Category:Popes of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My systematic NASA image grabbing

Sure on the crediting. Sorry, my bad. All the images should already have links to where I've been getting them from - did I miss any? WilyD 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll go through and try to clean it up a bit. Regards WilyD 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadwater Farm

(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")

I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nebulae template

I see your point. Perhaps re-naming the template "classifications used to describe nebulae" might be more suitable? As for expertise...we're talking GCSE Astronomy, so perhaps I'll leave it to you. Lofty 09:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-CfD

I'm afraid my suspicions remain intact. I happened to watching this one closely. Johnbod 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block on Pastorwayne

I have now indefinitely blocked Pastorwayne, and will seek a community ban if the block is overturned: see User talk:Pastorwayne#Enough_is_enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PW removing warnings from his talk page

In this edit, PW removed an older block notice from his talk page. My understanding is that he should not delete warnings from his talk page. At this point, I am tired of him acting like a jerk and then making up lies and excuses for his disruptive behavior. Just leave him blocked indefinitely. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Pastorwayne#Re-Indefinitely blocked. - jc37 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorcruft

Just a note of appreciation for all the hard work you are putting into clearing up the utter mess of primate categories at CfD. "Primates of Italy" took the biscuit. Usually I don't bother commenting as your nominations tend to speak for themselves and pile-on support isn't needed in such cases, but I made an exception for this one! Well done too for removing the "maintained by" templates he'd added to various primate category talk pages - shudder... Bencherlite 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about rename to Category:Catholic Primates and Vicars of Christ of the Roman Catholic Church exercising the ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Catholic Holy See in Rome who are Primates and Catholic, per ample precedent and WP:BEANS? Bencherlite 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The XfD Barnstar

		The XfD Barnstar
		For sustained and heroic dedication in the gargantuan task of cleaning up the galaxies of bizarre and useless categories created by Pastorwayne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - if I'd seen this barnstar before, I'd have left this rather than my note of appreciation last night. Bencherlite 11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

cfd2, cfr2 etc

It's getting worse: see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Aaaargh.21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Keshe theory

Dear Dr sub Dated 15.6.2007

I see you have given me time till 5th of Jun to take the Keshe Theory out or delete .

The site was under construction and not completed, as I had to attend a scientific conference in China for explanation of this new discovery on behalf and by governmental organisations for Chinese scientific community.

As I could not access to computer till today due to the fact that wikipedia in china is mainly can not be reached and is blocked.

I would like to make the following comment for your nomination and deletion.

First of all the user page was advised and communicated before putting up and setting up through Wikipedia help line.

Secondly, The technology based on the theory has been accepted and tested by number of governments and world institutes.

The space aspect , energy production , and Nano particle production of the technology has been tested by European governmental founding research and proven to be correct.

The peer review is for when a theory is not tested and not when is commercially implemented under licence.

Please reset my user page back otherwise I think you will find out very son that you have shown your incompetence to understand new concepts and technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.67.181 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 June 2007

Guidance on duplicate categories

See Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Duplicate_categories. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Keshe Theory

Dear Dr Sub

From archive of the site it shows that you were the one who nominated the site to be Deleted.

Therefore is you who has to correct the resting too.

Unless as you say that you are a known cosmologist , this is a lie behind being a cowered as well.

As a leading nuclear scientist I have nothing to hide about my identity and my findings are released to the scientific community on my site www.keshetechnologies.com,

As Cosmo nuclear scientist I find your attack on my site to be from a child play by an incompetent claimed to be scientist calling himself a cosmologist Dr Sub something.

Please see that the matter is corrected.Keshe Theory 15:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)keshe

buses

I think there should be a double-decker category. I appreciate your point about the single-deckers; there should be - perhaps is - a list of London bus models somewhere. I see a dd is an "autobus à l'imperiale" in French. Johnbod 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TV show categories being deleted

Hi Doc, would you care to comment at CFD: Kyle XY? I'm disappointed by the votes for deletion at CFD which just refer to precedent instead of giving a rationale. Is it simply that once there is a navtemplate for a TV show, Wikipedians:

• require that readers must use that and that only to explore other pages about the show,
• and therefore delete the alternative route i.e. category for the show?

IMHO that's a shame. I like alternative routes in works of reference. That sort of category is one of the things that Wikipedia can do that other works can't - but here we are deleting them. Show categories also sometimes include sub-cats that are not in the template, e.g. images, in which case they would have been useful for writers of future articles. CFD: Celebrity Deathmatch was a case in point.

I'd welcome your esteemed contribution. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now that IS a rationale. Best, Fayenatic london (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

historic

It is hard to connect this with your actual nominations, which aim to remove sections of a wide category scheme, but do not so far involve other sections (or is this the classic piece by piece tactic?) and have second or third-best proposals as to what to do with the articles. Earls Court station is sure to be listed, as are all buildings that are plausibly categorised as historic. Why do you keep going on about it? You also brought forward no evidence that the supposed vagueness of the present name had actually led to any undesirable results. Johnbod 10:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The house you live in Ealing does not have an article, so is irelevant. The threshhold for listing is massively lower than for WP notability, so as I have said, any UK house plausibly categorized as historic will be listed. Johnbod 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, though it doesn't bother me. But you are only tackling the Celtic fringes of the categories, and you are not merging them to listed buildings, which is the obvious place. I have made this point many times, but you haven't addressed it at all. Nor would I really be happy with a situation where the USA appears to have hundreds or thousands of historic houses and districts, and the UK none at all, which is where your nominations are leading. You have never produced any evidence of misuse of the categories, or where any potential ambiguity actually has a bad effect. I am getting rather fed up with nominations that seem motivated by remote worries about what might happen, when there is no evidence shown that anything has happened so far. Johnbod 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have commented in the debates that they should be merged to the listed categories, if anything is to be done. I don't think I would support a deletion nomination for the main (global) category. Johnbod 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to comment in any nomination, and you keep putting up the same ones. You have a problem with "historic", which you have explained & I understand but don't really share. But you have never responded anywhere to my points about the actual effect of these nominations, nor shown any evidence of having considered the issues they give rise to. You were talking about changing nominations to listed categories, which is what I have consistently supported, but have now nominated all the English cats to merge to the architecture cats. Your initial comment in reply to me in this last debate didn't help. I don't think my comments can be regarded as personal attacks; they are certainly not so intended. Johnbod 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

M 108 discovery removal

Hello George,

I see that you removed From Messier 108:

 It was discovered by Pierre Méchain in 1781 or 1782.<ref name="NSOG">{{cite book 
 |last= Kepple
 |first= George Robert
 |coauthors= Glen W. Sanner
 |title= The Night Sky Observer's Guide, Volume 2
 |publisher= Willmann-Bell, Inc.
 |year= 1998
 |id= ISBN 0-943396-60-3
 |pages=399
}}</ref>

Commenting:

 Removed redundant reference; Edied sentence; Need to format new reference (probably not original source for distance)

It is not clear to me from your above change comment as to why you felt the need to delete this cited information. Perhaps it was not intended?

Thanks.

WilliamKF 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the tough effort you're expending eliminating unnecessary "historic" designations from categories. I appreciate the conversation that has ensued with Category:Historic houses in Omaha, if only to see how attached folks are to a historically poor choice of adjectives. Thanks again for all of the different categories you're trying to remove this from. – Freechild (BoomCha) 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion, or uncontrovertible fact?

You state on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 "which is why the category should be deleted": if that is your opinion, then state it as such: please do not declare it as if it were beyond debate or discussion. Kevin McE 11:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unofficial Football World Champions

Thanks for putting that rationale in for me, I'm still fumbling a bit with this 86.12.249.63 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of Categories

Further to the discussion that took place on June 19th, re. Historic Houses in Scotland &c: I would have thought that it would have been courteous to have made known that it was taking place, to those who have spent most time working on these articles, eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Castles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales. I live in a house, in Scotland, it is 350 years old, therefore it has some "History". It is not, however, "Historic" as that implies that either it was of unique construction, or that specific important events took place there. I would not presume to give my building an article, yet nevertheless it is a still a "House in Scotland". I would therefore ask those who have changed this classification to explain themselves on the relevant noticeboards. Regards. Brendandh 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I see that it has now been implemented at your instigation. Therefore can you tell us how to reconcile, say: Category:Houses in London with Category:Buildings and structures in London. Is the intention that notable 'modern' houses, examples of ecohomes and apartment blocks, such as BedZED or the proposed Citygate ecotower mentioned in the latter category should now migrate into the former? This was not explored in the CfD. Ephebi 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the prompt feedback at my talk page. Like you, I have lived on both sides of The Pond, and I realise that we were taught different meanings for the two terms historic and historical. Makes me wonder if you have fallen victim of a faux ami? My Am.English dictionary says the two are synonomous, but my Eng.English one states a clear difference that from our discourse I don't think you've recognised. E.g. 'my house is historically as old as Texas, but it is not historic' makes perfect sense in Eng.English, but is gibberish in Am.English. It would appear that some contributors to the CfD were equally unclear, and in retrospect, I see that some of the entries in the Historic House category were similarly confused, as their positions relating to historic events were not explained.

While I do sympathise with your attempt to get a clear definition of the category, I note you didn't have an answer as to how to seperately record past, present and future notable houses. I can see too many problems in trying to group old houses by century (few houses remain untouched for a long period). So I guess the historic house category is dead, long live historic houses!

But as a result we now have several categories that sit uneasily together: Housing in London, Grade II* listed buildings in London, Buildings and structures in London, Houses in London. Ephebi 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: 'The housing category seems like another problem' - agreed, although it wasn't until the house category came along! Also note that listing does not qualify a building (or other structure) as 'historic' so I rather doubt that it will fit very easily (I think it was raised in one of the CfDs already). But before going too far I suggest the dust needs to settle while folks realise the direction you are taking these cats., and it needs to be aired in front of those people who have been working on them. Ephebi 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• While salami-slicing your way through your anti-historic house crusade, you might like to consider the lists and definitions given under Historic house. I am still uncomfortable that you appear to be blythely imposing your American definition of 'historic'/'historical' onto the English-speaking world (although I recognise that a lot contributors have fallen into teh same trap) Ephebi 18:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Galactic Explorer

Thanks for the notice. I also have Astronomy magazine, so that's another reference. Please give me some more.GalacticExplorer 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter.GalacticExplorer 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)