User talk:Edison/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Edison. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
the article on the dumb german- russian
WTF? i reverted it but you removed my revert? just to make it seem like you had more edits?RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- See reply on your talk page. Edison (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinions removed fomr article
So my stuff was actually no vandalism it was actual knowledge that everyone knows, Jehovah's witnesses actually do come to your door and people really do hide from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknoweveryting (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- See reply on your talk page. Edison (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
blortashed71.191.44.119 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
how to tell if a hand dryer has been badly defaced.
how to tell if a hand dryer has been badly defaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.44.119 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've rescinded the multiple nomination on this AFD and am now suggesting that it runs on this one particular article with a view to gauging community thoughts on individual phone articles. I'll then use that as a basis to decide how to approach the other ones. You may wish to change or add to your contributions here as the basis of the AFD is changed - this is a courtesy notice to allow you to do so if you wish. Exxolon (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
EMF
Hi Edison. In a recent question on the science ref desk [1], the OP used the abbreviation EMF to mean, apparently, electromagnetic field. You then used the same term, apparently in the same sense, in your reply. I'm not pointing this out in order to lecture you or to pick a quarrel. I just want to know your opinion on whether EM field is a legitimate expansion of EMF.
In my view, the EM field version is mainly used by anti-powerline campaigners who don't know the true meaning of EMF. Having spent many years learning about and using the term in its original sense, I wouldn't dream of using it in this new sense. It even annoys me that Wikipedia lists this meaning under "EMF". What do you think? Best wishes, --Heron (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
I just thought I'd take a moment and mention that I always enjoy interacting with you on the Reference Desk (and hope that you can say the same for me). Your knowledge of the topics in which you participate is both broad and deep, your experience is valuable, and your answers are well worth the reading. (If there's an RD barnstar, please feel free to interpret this posting as the awarding of that star ;-) .)
Atlant (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Bhuddism & Christianity, AFD, et al
Per your post, [2]. I couldn't find any others, but the list is transcluded if you need to modify it. Per your post, the items are listed in date order. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Hugh White
Parent cats like Players of American football or National Football League players are generally kept free of actual player articles. Instead, the sub-cat system in place is used. So if White played as both a OL and DL (I added both cats), then those should be his cats, not Players of American football (and he also is cat'd under Michigan players and whatever other teams he played with). Even if White played every position imaginable, he'd be cat'd under each of those individual position cats, but not the nonspecific parent cat Players of American football. Pats1 T/C 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Note
I thought it might be worth a mention that I rephrased my ANI post. I'm hoping its clearer now that my complaint is based on an actual abuse.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I double checked the admin board about this incident, which I think by this point has turned into something of a witch hunt by a group of like minded editors. I was hoping you might help me out as what concerns me is Avi, being an adim, may make a rash, and, quite frankly, bad faith decision to block me. Something like that occurring would not be in itself a big deal, but I have prided myself on being a fair-minded and productive contributor to wikipedia that plays by the rules, and would rather pack in the whole thing than carry on with a blemish on my record. I also feel that Avi's statements that the wikipedia project needs to be "protected from me" are unfair in the extreme. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Ward
I am somewhat ignorant of Wikipedia but I tried to follow your suggestion and sent the following to the Administrators noticeboard:
Some time ago Dr. Ward, myself, was instrumental in airing an expose on cults. No names were mentioned but the cult and its behavior itself was questioned. Inquiry emails to this group led to attacks from them upon my character. They called my family and terrorized us with threats. They have taken personal information, such as my name, credentials, address, IP address, and added it to a resume I had posted online. They then changed all of the information to say things that would defame my character. They also linked my name to a questionable character that frequents different web blogs, of which I have no associations with whatsoever. It has upset not only myself, but the Church I Pastor, and the organization I belong to. In an email to me he boasts there is nothing I can do about it "because I deleted it but anyone can still retrieve it from the edit history." Going by the name of BlazinPaddles he opened a Wiki account earlier this month and his history shows he has ONLY edited or written about Dr. Ward. He may have found good reason to edit anything anyone had quoted from my books (I did not submit these quotes) that wasn't properly referenced, however, his reason for doing so is revealed in the ridiculing character assassination he has launched. He has written horrible, demeaning things about my person and my biography and linked my name with a quarreling character I do not even know. It is important that all of the history of these demeaning statements be erased. Please help me. Here are pages containing the urls with the statements he posted. You will find they were posted by himself and then deleted by himself in order to create a retrievable edit history:
(every url on this page contains character defamation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blazinpaddles&action=history
(His addition in green)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oneness_Pentecostalism&diff=prev&oldid=223823639
( In this one he deletes Dr. Wards name for no apparent reason)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Apostolic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=224001794
How can I permanently erase this libelous information from the edit history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCreveal (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job
|
The Rescue Barnstar | |
| I award you this rescue barnstar for rescuing the article Evanston public library from certain doom by doing a very quick rewrite and hunting for reliable sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |
Electrical resistance of nail and skin.
Thank you for the advice. It was thoughtless of me to include my dangerous practice in the reply. I should have known better - there will always be someone who will try it out, despite warnings (or even because of them). I have now removed that part of my reply. Apologies for the delay in doing so. Dbfirs 21:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I understand your concern, but the intent of the guideline regarding talk-page warnings assumes good faith on the part of the person being warned: "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Based on the attitude and behavior of that editor, who was blanking everything he touched while issuing vulgar personal attacks in his edit summaries, that's an assumption I wasn't willing to make. For the record, this is (as I recall) the first time I've ever blocked anyone who wasn't conventionally warned, which is why I was moved to alert AN/I. If you want to re-open the conversation there, I have no objection; feel free also to link to this conversation. Dppowell (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken. The next time I encounter a similar situation, I'll give it additional thought. Dppowell (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: The right to remove content from ones own talk page
Wow I have been away for a while: that never used to be the case. Thanks for updating me on the new policy. —Sean Whitton / 12:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also regarding Huggle: I'm starting to agree with you. I've made at least two mistakes where I've reverted a reversion because someone else got their first (and then it goes and warns them, which I have to go and remove and apologise for). If vandalism exists for a few more seconds because CDVF is slower then that can't be such a bad thing if people are calmer about it. It makes the whole thing into a race. If you don't make the decision quickly enough someone else will, and then they will be subconciously competing with you and as such as less likely to get it right. Bah. Bring back the good old days ;) —Sean Whitton / 12:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Schlafly
The last AfD closed only two weeks ago. That is definitely too soon. It's been my experience that you should at least wait a couple months before re-nominating. This issue seems like it could be better handled at DRV or the article's talk page instead, as his notability is marginal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just curious. Would it really be necessary to reopen the afd since we also have a merge proposal in progress? I think that carrying out the merge discussion would be a better outlet than re-opening the deletion discussion, since there already seems to be a consensus forming for a merger. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on that part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
My signature
Could you explain what you see? I've never had any complaints before so I assume most people can read it fine. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- It does link to my talk page - click on the 5. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Alexander Black House
Per your suggestion I stubified the article, removing all the copyvio content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
One of your sentences is missing some words: "Dr. Lounsbury that the book would ultimately not be suppressed." Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed [3]. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you join the discussion?
I think you might have relevant input in this ANI discussion. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Request
When you have a chance, would you please delete William F. Egan from main space? I created it accidently. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
please revisit
Please revisit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield. The article has gone through expansion and additional sources have been added. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth
Regarding the above, I strongly believe one of the participants is a ban evading sock per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Museum
Basket Knitter Museum of the Romas. Delete it? I can't find anything on it. I only started it from the list to get missing museums started on wikipedia to expand later The Bald One White cat 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know. However I believe the list was generated from the official greek museum site or the museum is under the Greek Museum Commission which we thought was a criteria for notability. However there doesn't seem to be anything solud online of it which is unusual as most of the greek museums have some coverage in travel sites at the very least. The Bald One White cat 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I found two hits with google, this one and this one. I removed the deletion template therefore, is this ok? Although the museum has another name at the latter link, maybe the article should be moved. --Cyfal (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard Fortescue, 7th Earl Fortescue
Hi Edison, following your comments in the the Richard Fortescue, 7th Earl Fortescue AfD, you are obviously more familiar with this subject than I am. Could you add a citation to the peerage book? PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, here?) Justmeherenow ( ) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Temporarily off-Wiki
My computer is broken, so rather than using this ratty old one from the attic with an obsolete operating system or public ones with security problems, I will be off Wiki until the problem is resolved. Carry on. Edison (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
While I am not using the admin account, I will be using a new non-admin account I have created for use on shared computers, with a different password, called Edison2. Edison (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)- The computer is fixed. so I will resume admin activities, and the alternative account will be off-Wiki until such time as I have to use a shared computer. Edison (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi I see you added info on an ectopic pregnancy in Australia this year. I've added a ref to another one in the UK that occured just a month earlier, but has only just been published. It was on the omentum, and the laparotomy performed had never been done in the UK before. Bet they were sweating it in the operating theatre!!!81.156.124.251 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
United States Department of State
Hi, is United States Department of State RS? Do you see any validity of this edit? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am not "the authority" on what is a reliable source, but the passage is from a newspaper and cites the US State Department. That does not mean the State Department is always correct, but the fact that they said it seems reliably sourced. It represents the viw of the US government at that time (1999). I do not see a basis for arbitrarily removing it as not a reliable source. Such editing questions should be determined by consensus on the article's talk page. Edison (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion
I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sherman, Texas bus accident
I added some information to Sherman, Texas bus accident. You may want to take a look at my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman, Texas bus accident. --Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Latimer
A pleasure Clappingsimon talk 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you just updated your message to say that a username block was issued. I think we probably block conflicted, as my 31 hour block shows in the log instead of your indefinite block. Since I've agreed that the username is inappropriate, I've got no objection to your unblocking and reblocking indefinitely. I note that the user's subsequent comments don't indicate a great potential for future contributions under any username. GRBerry 03:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The Holocaust of ...
Greetings, Edison! After I provided what I consider to be a succinct reply to the current Humanities Ref Desk query about the application of the term "Holocaust" to the Nazi-perpetrated genocide of European (or world) Jewry, I read with interest your response: "I do not see why it should be limited to Jewish victims of the Nazis, since other groups were designated for genocide and also have millions of victims." Would you please clarify (here, so as not to turn this into a free-for-all or semantic wrangling) to which groups and circumstances you're referring? Quite honestly, it's important for me (as a professional in the field) to know how this (prevalent, while not necessarily prevailing) point is perceived and understood by one such as yourself, a WP editor whose contributions I admire in content and style. -- Sincerely, Deborahjay (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
... and further to your response... -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the article as a result of the AFD. It has been open for over 5 days, and there have been no objections to its deletion. I closed the AFD discussion also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I closed it 10 minutes ago. Try purging your cache. The diff is here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just look at this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Re you message on my talk, no I didn't do a google news search, since I thought that the author would have provided the best possible references, given that they had had three attempts to produce something meeting the criteria. Having looked at the hits, there's a little coverage, but borderline "significant coverage" under WP:N. The article itself does not claim any significance of the subject (it's "one of many activist groups" in the area, after all), hence my previous speedy request. have also responded on the deletion discussion. regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
New source for A. Frederick Collins
The Boy Scientist sounds like just the sort of book I would have loved as a boy! DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Eagles
It is against policy to put "notable" in list titles as people/events/places etc in a list must be notable to be in the list. Please don't do this move again. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Lists#List naming. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a featured list, so all on it have to have articles, meaning they meet notability. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Page created at User:Cheelam1220
I think you accidentally created a user page when you meant to post a message on his talk page. Wronkiew (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
WHY?
FIRST OF ALL SORRY FOR WRITING ON YOUR ACTUAL USERPAGE, AND SECOND OF ALL, WHY CAN'T I CHANGE THE SPELLINGS TO THE CORRECT ONES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwahunn0800 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Admin help request
A while ago I moved a page to the wrong name [4], so far no one else has come along and moved it to where he belongs (His full name is Edward Arthur Milne and he is usually cited as E. A. Milne, Edwin as his first name is a mistake I made, confusing him momentarily with E. A. Burtt, whose first name is really Edwin). Because of the existence of a redirect as his correct name, I need an admin to temporialy delete Edward Arthur Milne, so that I or someone else can move the article to Edward Arthur Milne. (I could just cut and paste from the article to the redirect, but this would not preserve the edit history.) --Firefly322 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Edison (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Me, being a prick
You're right. That was rather shitty of me. I'll go and redact that. Sorry to cause such stress. It wasn't right, and I will undo it now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like someone else removed it. That's all fine. If I do that again in the future, please be sure I get hit with an appropriately large fish. Again, I apologize for being such an ass. I will try to hold my tongue in the future. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
WBA Edits?
You sent me a message which I can't follow because I have not edited a template on West Bromich Albion, even accidentally. Is this message meant for someone else? 86.128.209.239 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on the talk page. The problem edit was indeed done from the IP address. Edison (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| Thank you for answering my IQ question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
Michigan
FYI you weren't entirely right about the area change to Michigan that you reverted and warned about. It was done in good faith, and the information there is at least partially wrong, more info at Michigan shortly. -Ravedave (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The edit I reverted was a substitution of extremely incorrect data for the state's area and rank. Edison (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Your Missing White Woman Message
I didn't add the reference to Britt Lapthorne. I merely moved it. FYI there has been criticism of the way in which sections of the media have latched on to this tragic case and how conservative politicians have tried to use it to their advantage. Please amend or delete your busybody message on my page. Thank you. Albatross2147 (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page. Edison (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thank you
for saving the Scott Fox stub. --GrebeBluetoad (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| Thank you for answering my satellite and oil replenishing question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
BLP privacy policy for limited public figures
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent contribution on the Joe the Plumber talk page
Excellent contribution on the Joe the Plumber talk page. Thanks for the context! This leaves open an opportunity to add broader variety of information and insight to the page. --VictorC (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I love that poster. I got a repro of it years back and gave it to my sister. --VictorC (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Answer from DanyVega
Hi! Edison
I'm Daniel Vega, from Mexico, and I have a friend called Cinthia del Carmen (actually I don't know if it's Cynthia or Cinthia) and she asked me to write her theorys about her name and secretly say something terrible.
Actually she has 7.5 aunts and 8 uncles (I was wrong writing 75 and 83, I'm really sorry, I feel very bad about it. Please forgive me!). When I say (or write) 7.5 aunts I'm really saying that one of her aunts was very injuried in an accident, and she has no legs.
I dont know why she wanted me to write "theorys", but she wanted Wikipedia to know her terrible situation and if someone could help her, but I insist: I dont know why she wanted theorys.
I hope you help me and don't block my account.
Dany Vega —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanyVega (talk • contribs) 04:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
THANK YOU
Thank you!, Thank you!, Thank you!, Thank you!, Thank you!, Thank you!, Thank you very much for not blocking me!
I'm just a begginer, thanks for the aclaration that you made me
I thought that if Cinthia's aunt has no legs, she is a half aunt.
Thank you very much!
--DanyVega (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)DanyVega
transformer
me the same as on on reference desk and asked about transformer.actually i dint got it.u see the input current of primary doesnt depend upon secondary coil,but on input impedance and input voltage.as in primary the input impedance is just that of primary coil (which is same in loaded and unloaded cases)then there should be the same input current for a fixed value of ac supply.and then there should be the same input power.then in unloaded conditions where would this bulk of power go.Roar2lion (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I had just added the info to the talk page and was removing the AfD as you messaged me. I was also monitoring several other AfDs at the time, so I wasn't very timely in my removal of the template. Thanks for reminding me though! DARTH PANDAduel 02:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Ewigkeit
A tag has been placed on Ewigkeit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Chris (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it. I did not create or make major edits to such an article. I moved an article about a band with that name to a more appropriate name and created a redirect, then someone created a vague article on Ewigkeit. I think it should remain a redirect. Edison (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up
On this talk page - I went overboard with a joke in reply to something that was in the original version of the article. Thanks for cleaning up my mistake. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks.
Thank you for your answer at the reference desk regarding social experiments. I've added detail to my question that you may find iteresting. I remember reading about this in psychology class and it was one of the few days of high school that stands out for me. If those same experimenters tried screwing around trafficwise in a bad neighborhood today, I believe they would achieve, *ahem*, different results (insert ambulance sound effect here).--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Gunny
Thanks for your work on the article about I.C Gunsalus, a fine scientist and estimable person. BBRC had an article devoted to him, which could add to the article. He was said to have been in the running for the Nobel Prize. How could that be checked? Edison (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I will research further. What I've created is a very big stub and any additional information will only help flesh out the biography. I'd appreciate if you could point to any other biographies or obituaries that would have more deatil. While I guess he's out of the running now, I will look for Nobel details. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources
After much prodding and pushing, people have finally started citing sources. Please revisit the discussion and read and evaluate the sources. Show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. You'll have to navigate a lot of irrelevant chatter to find the citations, and the actual discussions thereof, but I've tried to make them prominent. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
July 29 in rail transport
I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Danite123 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on Bennett.d@hotmail.co.uk, or leave a message here or on my talk page. Many thanks,
Daniel
This is a sui generis situation, where the original editor admits that it's a complete hoax. Given that peculiar fact, I felt it best to forgo the usual procedures in the interests of keeping total hoaxes off Wikipedia. I feel rather strongly that permitting a confessed hoax to stand undeleted while we painstakingly plod through a lengthy procedure with a foregone conclusion is destructive to our credibility (such as it is). I'm sorry if you feel I was discourteous to you as a fellow editor in so doing; but I've never encountered a case like this. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- My nose doesn't disjoint easily :) In fact, I would usually ask for an explanation from the other editor; but if the explanation made sense, I'd just shrug and keep on keeping on. I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hermias of Atarneus
Hey Edison,
Sorry just trying to turn in this project for AP World, didn't really have time to put up online citations, as it was not a part of the projects requirements, but if I have to to keep the article up long enough for my teacher to grade it then I will. I'd appreciate it if you gave me some time to do this. Please ignore periclesofathens, he's been out to get our entire class it seems.
Thanks,
The Red Eyebrows —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Red Eyebrows (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever, pal. This is the biggest joke I've ever heard. No school would ever assign students work at Wikipedia; what a load of fake BS. None of you have completely explained yourselves so far, and you know what? I don't care if you do or don't. All's I care about is reverting edits that provide no citations whatsoever, one of the most basic requirements for anything on Wikipedia.-Pericles of AthensTalk 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reminding me about the warnings. I am using them now. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 19:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I changed the notice from PROD to speedy delete. It's already been deleted once at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baritenor. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
List of fictional governments
For your attention, a recent AFD you were involved in has gone up for a deletion review here. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Re your argument for deletion, that the ship fails WP:N, would you care to look at the article again and maybe consider reviewing your vote in the AfD discussion. The vast majority if ships are considered notable enough to have articles by WP:SHIPS, subject to normal rules about WP:V and WP:RS etc. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Re your reply, as a WP:TWP member, locomotives individually are generally not notable enough for Wikipedia. Churches would seem to be generally notable enough on their own, as are broadcast towers. Schools are generally notable above junior/kindergarten level. Don't know about the rest.
- Re Timothy Bloodworth, the only sources in the article at the moment are on line sources. This doesn't necessarily mean that there are no other sources available. With a total of ten sources and an external link, I'd say that is more than enough to meet both notability and verifiability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion on WT:SHIPS to try and establish notability guidelines for ships. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| Thanks for answering my Band Planet question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
Copyright
A few days ago you asked the following at Wikiproject:Ships: "How old does the book have to be (might vary by country) for the image to be not a copyright violation?"
It is not only how old the book itself is, but how old the images and so on might be that appear in it, because of course a very new book might include very old images. For a summary of copyright rules pertaining to wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Edison! I have a concern about the source you added HERE. I went to http://inthesharktank.com/ and went up and down the page and finally found the video clip about Ben and his Uno proposal on The Dragon's Den. I much appreciate your providing it... but there were other better sites for the video that mentioned Ben by name in their text and did not require a reader to search as I did to discover what the source website had to offer... sites such as [5], [6], [7]. I even found a site where a video was removed [8] for some reason. While I had found all these myself, and though it might have been nice to use one of them, I did not wish to run afoul of WP:YT, WP:ELNEVER, or Wikipedia:Copyrights. My thinking is that with the article being so extremely well sourced, it would be best to not risk having any problems with copyright violations. So here I am to see if you might agree. We might include a sentence that states that video clips of his appearance are available online and source that to some WP:RS that says the same thing. Make sense? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a thought... 'cause I do agree that a link to the vehicle itself is like "one video is worth a million words". Motorcycle Mojo has a "channel" on Youtube. That's where the best version of the video exists. They did a series on the vehicle, got the permissions, and were able to create the video using the CBC footage. On this page on THEIR website, Motorcycle Mojo specifically provide a link to their video clip on their youtube channel. So... if I'll set an EL to THIER page, so its not WIKI who has to worry. The chain of custody is being properly followed. Seem rational enough to make sense (chuckle)? Something like this.... "Motorcycle Mojo provides footage of Uno on Dragon's Den [9]" The onus is then not on Wiki. We're clean. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'll like how I handled it. Thanks for the inspiration. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for apple info
Thanks for your answer to my question about Depression-era apple sellers. I appreciate it! --Lph (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
r u kidding me ????its a joke--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you'd have asked, i would've give in.No problem--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if you watch AfDs in which you participate, just wanted to let you know I left you a question. StarM 22:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why can't you expand any of these museums yourself? You seme to have plastered notbaility tags on all the museum stubs. Try googling them and conducting some research and helping out somewhat. People can't keep leaving the work to me to do. I am very surprised nobody has expanded them yet. The idea is that people come across them and expand them not take the easy way out. The articles were started as part of WikiProject Museums. They were listed as notable missing museums and were affiliated with the Greek Ministry of Culture. I had anticpated that the project would be working on them if not WikiProject Greece too. I did a google check to see if potential sources were available and there seemd quite a bit around to expand most of them into full articles with useful content. I have actually expanded a number of them like Aegean Maritime Museum etc and a number of others but I really need people to collaborate and make a contribution. The Bald One White cat 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Cate Blanchett
I removed the quip about the number of films Blanchett was in that were nominated for the Academy Award for several reasons. One reason is that similiar "stats" could be drawn for many actors - Leonardo DiCaprio or Kate Winslet come to mind from present films. As a stand-alone statement, it lends undue weight to the Academy Awards vs. any other major film awards. Her roles in those films are covered quite well in the article and this statement just seems extraneous to me. It's not unlike statements people keep putting in Kate Winslet's article - she's the youngest to ever be nominated for, she's the first actress since blah to not be nominated for that after being nominated for this... that just seem like fluff to me. Plus, it's not the best crafted comment in the world for a good article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You really don't have to explain to me about the importance of an Academy Award, or any other major film award. Removing that single blurb, which is unreferenced, doesn't scrub the article of Academy Award mentioned in any regard. For one point, including user derived factoids harkens to original research, no matter how trivial the conclusion. However, my point was that the article already covers extensively Blanchett's involvement in films nominated for an Oscar. The percentage of actors who were in a nominated film isn't an issue, those who were have that point covered in their articles. However, it is also important to avoid giving undue weight to one award, especially for an actor who isn't American. Is an Academy Award more important to a British actor than a BAFTA? Or is it more important to an Australian actor than an AFI award? That isn't within our scope to determine and by only including the Oscar in such an analysis, it lends a US perspective. Also, there is this list and this list, which kind of diminishes the uniqueness in regards to Blanchett. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame
See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?
Coding:
|
Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternative counter
I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try, if you haven't already found it. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Re. question on ScienceApologist's talk page
There is the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but as you can see from a quick browse of that page, ScienceApologist was one of the main editors involved in bringing pseudoscience promotion issues there. On the other hand, a quick browse through any of the categories on alternative medicine will turn up all the rubbish you could wish for. Nevard (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this
Please note that sources do attest to its notability, i.e. "the story most familiar with US audiences" and that is verifiable in published books. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey!
Thank you so very much for answering my binocular question on the reference desk. My science teacher would have totally killed me. You're the very best! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross
SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Nathan Stubblefield
Hi, I hope you will know what to do with this edit. It can't be left like that, but I don't know enough about the subject to figure out how to revise it. Even reverting would leave it with poor grammar. You added the previous text here although you may not have originated it. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Edison's Day!
 |
Edison has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, |
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Edison - vegetarian?
I don't think the vegetarian category is necessarily a strict category, it's mainly for people who lead a vegetarian lifestyle to some degree. If the article had included that reference I wouldn't have deleted the category, since people looking up vegetarians could always check the Edison article themselves - it's ultimately not up to me to decide who is vegetarian and who isn't. I've been cleaning up the list of vegetarians and there have been many names on there that weren't backed up by a reference, and that included the Edison article. The problem on that list is that names keep being added without sources so the list has no integrity, so the only way to stop that is to delete all the unsourced names and copy over the sources for those that are left. For what it's worth, I think Edison's vegetarian credentials should be included in the article and backed up by the source you quote, and the category re-added, since the Vegetarian category does not impose any restrictions on the strictness of the definition. I will leave that to your discretion though since my edit on the Edison article was actually motivated by edits to another article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ányos jedlik and 1. electric motor
HAHAHAHA. http://www.frankfurt.matav.hu/angol/magytud.htm
The first electric-engine of the world will be presented at the exhibition, made by a Hungarian engineer-physician Ányos Jedlik, who became member of the Hungarian Academy simultaneously with Faraday, the other famous expert of electricity. The works of Jedlik were even recognised by Siemens, who worked on similar fields. The Jedlik-relic was already presented in 1927 at the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Volta’s death expert of electronics, who received it with great satisfaction. At that time, Jedlik's engine was already 100 years old.
Sorry the real electric motor, first real transformer,patent of the first electronic television (Kálmán Tihanyi are not American inventions, but Hungarian.--Celebration1981 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: your comment on the AfD: bravo! Perhaps you'll consider contributing to some of the many (necessary) articles on bacon here on WP, themselves an expression of Bacon mania. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Superfluous references
I wasn't aware that commonly-available facts required additional, redundant references. On what were you basing the necessity for a flag on the stability of isolated plants? You are aware that a 20 kW diesel pumping away in a drilling camp in the bush is not going to maintain 0.01 Hz stability like the MAPP? Why not require a reference for every single line in the article, since obviously we cannot trust our editors to know anything? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Television History - edits on 4th Jan 2009
Why add 7 [citation needed] to a block of text opening with "Main article: History of television", isn't the 1 reference enough?
83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
: 20 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
- Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oo7565
The reason it's a "last warning" is because he's had more than two years worth of warnings about his behaviour already (including one from me exactly two years ago, I notice) – it's not the "sudden escalation without warning" that it looks like. Remember, the ones you're seeing at AFD are only the marginal cases that weren't either obvious keeps or obvious deletes. – iridescent 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Edison, look as his whole record. It's not just the current batch of prods. The articles he removes prod tags from have been equally inappropriate--look at his deleted contributions. he's operating recklessly. Iridescent is screening well. Some of what's been taken to afd I've said delete, and some keep. Some of what he prods is of course proddable, but that would be true of anyone who puts prods on random small articles. I've deleted his expired prods when that's the correct course, which is sometimes, about half. Perhaps you can teach him what to do and what not to do. DGG (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 23#Jorge Ferreira wkpd2.jpg
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 23#Jorge Ferreira wkpd2.jpg. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please sign your comment? Bearian (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Tesla
Would it be possible for you to please put the following biographical external link. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phirangi (talk • contribs) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Edison. You seemed to be really an expert on Tesla and I am sure have much better understanding of his work than the author of the article. Still I thought this will be a nice article as an external link. So I will add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phirangi (talk • contribs) 06:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article is protected so I cannot add this link. Can you help? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phirangi (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Care to advise....?
On this list... either as an essay or an addition to WP:RS or WP:NF.... "Reliable sources for horror films". Its still undergoing a lot of work, but I think I have made some decent progress. Care to assist? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD
Moved from user talk: Ikip:
Do you go around criticizing editors for creating identical directory-like stubs lacking the "multiple reliable and independent sources" needed to satisfy WP:N as vehemently as you criticize editors for expressing the same grounds for deleting the stubs in the endless stream of AFDs? Do you really think each AFD for virtually identical articles must be an exercise in creative writing and elegant variation? It does not take long to look at yet another "X - Y relations are foreign relations between X and Y" stub and see that it has the same flaws as the dozen right before it. Each regurgitates what a country's foreign ministry website says about who they have diplomatic relations with (as of the date the stubs were created, soon to be stale). How much better to have a section in the article about the country which links to the current version of that same foreign ministry website, so the info is up to date. That would not clutter Wikipedia with about 20,000 pointless stubs. Edison (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone who cuts and paste a !vote to an afd would get the same response. There was no criticism in my posting, just a statment that you had posted the same repsonse in other afds. thanks. Ikip (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you are not attempting to discredit the AFD comments of others, then why post a running count of what they have said and where? I still feel that there is nothing wrong with repeatedly pointing out, in the same words, the guidelines violated by a vast series of cookie-cutter robostub articles like the "bilateral relations" articles. and that nothing much is gained by saying the same thing repeatedly with slightly different phrasing in the resulting AFDs. Edison (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Please note that I have gone to great lengths many times to "save" a deserving article which is at AFD, including going to a university library and spending hours looking for book and journal references. I do not call for delrobostubs, which take a list someone finding a list somewhere and making it into myriad stale permastubs. If I can find references when I create an article, why shouldn't others? Edison (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- The more I think about it, the more I like your idea to merge all of these articles. I have alread started this: User:Ikip/Foreign relations of Argentina by country
- BTW, it appears like copy and pasting a message in afds is perfectly alright to many editors. This was rather shocking to me. Ikip (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Please note that I have gone to great lengths many times to "save" a deserving article which is at AFD, including going to a university library and spending hours looking for book and journal references. I do not call for delrobostubs, which take a list someone finding a list somewhere and making it into myriad stale permastubs. If I can find references when I create an article, why shouldn't others? Edison (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you are not attempting to discredit the AFD comments of others, then why post a running count of what they have said and where? I still feel that there is nothing wrong with repeatedly pointing out, in the same words, the guidelines violated by a vast series of cookie-cutter robostub articles like the "bilateral relations" articles. and that nothing much is gained by saying the same thing repeatedly with slightly different phrasing in the resulting AFDs. Edison (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Greece bilaterals
Edison, I for one love your WP:NOTDIR rationale, and given the "we're an almanac" argument has been made here, here, here, here and here (as well as here), your response is bound to be interesting. - Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wheel War
I guess the user will get the point twice. Sorry to piggyback! Law type! snype? 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
SciRefDesk
Edison, I was pretty careful to specify that I thought it was not a good idea to supply DC power to an AC motor, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. Devices designed for their operating condition work well, other devices often don't, sometimes with spectacular or toxic effect. Franamax (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Refactored here per my talk page prefs. Franamax (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never suggested trying to operate an AC motor on direct current. The OP did not specify it was an AC motor, and there is no reason to assume it was. In fact, the question specified it worked off a 120 volt DC battery. I have worked with large 120 volt batteries in generating stations and substations, and they routinely operate powerful motors to recharge springs on circuit breakers and to operate high voltage disconnect switches. Motors work great on direct current, and have since long before AC motors were introduced. Some New York City customers of Consolidated Edison kept large direct current motors for elevators, pumps, and fans operating into the 21st century, using rectifiers. You are more likely to be able to build or buy a DC air conditioner than to find an incandescent light bulb whose filament is an Ohmic resistance. Regards. Edison (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- However you responded with an indent under my post, which indicates that you were responding to me, not to the OP. I was very careful to specify that I was not aware of any air conditioner units that use DC motors and I'm not aware that any such exist. The OP specified an air conditioner and I'm pretty sure DC motors are quite rare in those (though possibly a DC motor using rectified AC power, but wouldn't you still get some problems hooking an AC rectifier up to a DC supply?) Now if the OP had mentioned an "industrial" ACU, I might have thought about it differently, but then it wouldn't be a 1500W unit, would it? I guess I should have used one extra indent for my post, maybe then you wouldn't have taken it so seriously. Obviously 120V DC motors work, because they umm, do... I think you may have missed my attempt at humour, with the answer being "fire extinguisher". Franamax (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way.
Thank you for the incredible idea to merge all of the bilateral relation articles into articles by country. This will eventually stop a lot of edit warring. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion & WP:NOTINHERITED
I want to apologize for not listening very well to your argument. I got a bit worked up over the deletion discussion because of a pattern I've seen recently that has nothing to do with you or that particular discussion and I apologize for that. I also do not think it is fair or right to make strawman arguments and I want to make sure I am understanding exactly what you are saying so that we can reason through this issue, both on the deletion discussion and the talk page of WP:NOTINHERITED.
The key issue I see here is that I see a conflict between WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. I haven't been able to understand how your arguments delete fit into a challenge/questioning of whether WP:N has been met. You don't seem to be questioning the reliability of the sources, so I assume you are questioning whether the coverage is significant. I am failing to understand exactly how/where we disagree though which is why I think we keep talking past each other. I would be very grateful if you could communicate this to me (and please excuse me if I continue to seem very dense). Cazort (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting on my talk page. I understand your views on inherited notability. What I still don't understand is how this relates to WP:N. The explanation you posted seems to me to conflict with WP:N, and I don't think we are going to be able to hash this out until you can articulate how your views relate to WP:N--what aspect of notability you are questioning. To take your example of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, your rationale about inherited notability would strongly suggest to delete/merge that page. Yet, WP:N would strongly support keeping it (significant coverage in reliable sources), and the deletion discussion shows an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. It's not clear to me what you're questioning--are you claiming that the coverage is not significant, that the coverage is not directly of the person in question? Or are you claiming something else? Cazort (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your second post! I think I understand where you are coming from now. =) Thanks for being patient with me. Cazort (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
: 18 May 2009
- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Edison, Edison
Some people might be interested in determining what ethnicity she is and reporting the results in the article, which would require partial editing of it. Puerto Rican is not an ethnicity, it's a sort of nationality, as regards her ethnicity: it's afro-hispanic, i.e. her genetic heritage is both African and Iberian (just as Obama's is African and English, among other things). These facts might be of interest to a good number of readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.43 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:Sonia Sotomayor
Done. Was looking for the template when you asked me. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Help?
Might you be able to lend a hand with the discussion at the talk page of Betty Logan (talk)? I see she reverted you as well in the past, rather than put in a request for citation. And looking back at her talk page discussion this is a pattern. Everything is now even sourced, and she continues to delete my entries. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful/thoughtful suggestions and reasonable tone. I of course side with you, and though Betty "dispute[s] the assertion that it's acceptable to not include references for a claim if there are references on other articles," I think she misses the point that you are referring to articles that themselves have appropriate references. Her rule, that every list must have itself such references, is one that she may prefer, but she acts as though Wiki demands it (or the list itself by its language demands it), when neither is the case. I suggested that is she wished it to be the rule, she could seek consensus on the talk page and then so indicated at the para at the head of the list, but she appears to prefer to simply delete additions that are accurate but not referenced in the format she prefers, and to do so without even an edit summary. My suggestions that tags were better than deletions in this case (and research and correct citations input were even better), were simply ignored. I note that she had this same problem with a series of prior editors.
- She also asserts incorrectly in her response to you that "Claims about living people have to be backed up by a reference anyway." While this is of course good form, it is not what Wikipedia requires, at the risk of deletion. The actual rule is that the material subject to removal is unsourced or poorly sourced "contentious material about living persons.
- She also seems to be confused generally, as I explained in my last note on her talk page, between when in her POV is best form, and what is required by Wikipedia, which leads her to delete accurate material unfortunately.--Ethelh (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Trotsky-Edison
Yes, Time magazine bringing it all together!--Iacobus (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Swine Flu 2009
Do you want to help in a major way. And Edison, I want to challenge you. I saw that you made a previous change, from "retorted" to "said," something like that. And that's fine, as far as it goes. But is that it? Is that all you want to do?
A public health situation that's potentially very serious indeed. The way I'm looking at it we're drawing from a deck 1918, 1957, 1968, 1976, 1997, and now this year. Someone might come back, No way, 1918 was an outlier. Okay, that's certainly possibly. 1918 might well be an outlier and many more cards in the deck and we just got really unlucky in the relatively recent past. That's certainly possible. A lot of uncertainly, might remain mild throughout, Southern Hemisphere's winter, our winter, etc.
We're got to invite people to contribute right now news information, don't know any other way of doing it, running into major opposition, and could use some help. I remember you from System Accident (which up to this has been my major project) and you hit the nail right on the head. The conventional approach is to merely blame the last person who has touched something!
Well, this thing could break bad at any time. It's not even like a hurricane approaching a shore. Of all the random mutations, we could get a really unlucky one with a mortality approaching that of 1918 ("only" 2%, in some parts of the world it sounded like more than that, but in any case, enough people got sick that 2% was highly, highly significant). At any time . .
So what I did with Swine Flu 2009, and I don't want it fragmented into five or ten mini articles, I view this as The main article
. . . What I did was very short intro, 'Current Situation,' 'Overview' And how else would you do it? The Current Situation invites people to add the current news articles which they feel, in their best judgment, are the most significant. And this is emphatically a time to relax the normal rules of wikipedia.
- Even if we agree on none of the above, please get in there and help make the article genuinely informative. Play your absolutely best tennis. Leave it all on the court! Cool Nerd (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should strive to be both up-to-date and not a pastiche of news stories. A weekly newsmagazine like Time or Newsweek is a good model. We want the "big picture" but we do not want stale information, which says there are x cases in the state of Arizona in y counties with z deaths, when all those figures are way lower than the present numbers. Edison (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even if we agree on none of the above, please get in there and help make the article genuinely informative. Play your absolutely best tennis. Leave it all on the court! Cool Nerd (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- In short, I'd answer that we can do both. However, be that as it may, if you have even a medium interest in the swine flu, please get in there and make the changes and additions that, in your best judgment, helps improve the article. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Jessie James
Would you please look back at Jessie James? According to its AFD, you deleted it, and the deletion log says that you deleted it after restoring, but most of it (minus 41 deleted edits) is still in existence. I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not; just very confused about the technical side of things. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article currently at Jessie James used to be at Jessie James (singer). If you look at the page history you can see that User:A new name 2008 moved it. --Pascal666 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Jessie James. How easy would it be for you to reach back into the deleted article and pull out the templates in the header directing people to similarly named articles and paste them into the current one? --Pascal666 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Administrator Edison. User Goodday unintentionally went to my User page and created a page. There was no page at all there until now. As was the case a year ago when you last helped me out (16 May 2008) - I do not want a User page. Can you amend it so that there is no page there at all and my username appears in red as it always has. Preferably, you could permanently block any editing of my Userpage. I'm not sure if this is your job, but if you could help, I would appreciate it. Kind regards. Thanks. Redking7 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
: 1 June 2009
- From the editor: Browsing the archives
- Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
- Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
- News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [11].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Signing blocks
Sorry about that. It shan't happen again! -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Swine Flu, alright, let's try Newsweek style for a while!
As the third sentence in the article, I added, "A June 5th update by the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO) states that “69 countries have officially reported 21,940 cases . . . " http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_06_05/en/index.html
And, please take a look at Australia if you get a chance. I definitely think we should keep up to date on that.
(Now, if things start to go badly, I'm still in favor of the news blurb approach. To me, it invites participation, and it shows the reader, not merely tells the reader, that the situation is fast developing.) Cool Nerd (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Dynamo
I raised a request at WP:REX#Ányos Jedlik and the Dynamo regarding this issue. They seem to now have reached a dead end in a 1971 article which cites no sources. What next? SpinningSpark 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix | Talk 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your work on KISN (Portland). ---kilbad (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your comment on my page. I look forward to constructively adding to your encyclopedic website in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B757 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Jedlik again
Did you notice Eric's reply at the library. I was tempted to say yes please, go and find the notebooks if you can, but I didn't want to put them to the effort if it does not solve the problem. SpinningSpark 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
: 15 June 2009
- Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
- News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
- Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Administrator Notice Boards
I've noticed that you gave me a link to WP:ANI, but the page is semi-protected, so no changes could be made for new accounts. Pbskidz61 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
patrick mimran
No problem what is the required tag to delete then, other alternative is that this article needs aditional editing because its totally pathetic in the present form and not notable at all.--Netquantum (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netquantum (talk • contribs)
- what is the tag to put a note that the article has a problem and needs additional editing and sources.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netquantum (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please take a second look at Netquantum's edits at Buri? I really don't want to edit war with this user. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Big snakes eating people
I'd favor constriction as a target, than this could have a section on human attacks, expanding an article that is currently disappointingly small. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Funny comment
"Glad you got a chuckle. (or not). After answering the OP's question a small joke seems permissible. Ha, ha, hee, hee, eh. Or do you feel all should be dead serious?" -- If you're referring to the "semicolon" comment you made, I sure did get a chuckle out of that (in fact, I was laughing so hard that I almost burst my diaphragm). Seriously, that was one of the funniest comments I've seen so far on Wikipedia! So, sure, feel free to make funny comments any time you feel like it -- other people will really appreciate it. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
: 22 June 2009
- Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
- News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
George Gordon
How did you calculate the age of Simms? I find him older than Gordon at the time of promotion. Maybe that's what they meant. Edison (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't do any fancy calculation. At the end of the war (April 9 or any other date you'd pick) Simms was younger than Gordon. Their promotion dates are irrelevant in evaluating the claim in the article about the youngest BG at war's end. Your change to "one of the youngest" is fine, although the result isn't very interesting. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think you can help out with the dispute I am having with an editor here: Talk: List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. Hope you can be objective - I do not know what your politics are! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages
Hi Edison, thanks for your message. What I never understood about tak pages: You leve me a message on my page - do you expect me to respond there or here ?
- There: creates a lisible thread
- Here: makes sure my response is read
So, for this time, I expect your answer on my talk page where I also respond to the contents of your message. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
List of skin-related conditions nominated as featured list candidate
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
To: Edison. From: Antiedman.
Dear Edison,
Thank you for referring to my edit in the Barack Obama article as a good faith edit.
However If you could thoroughly review my cited reference and not revert my contributional edit to the article in the future that would be phenomenal
my cited reff on Barack Obama article was this "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU."--Antiedman (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S any info on regarding your revert would be awesome pulse any info on my ref would be grate.--Antiedman (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- If he hadn't reverted, I would have. Obama self-identifies as an African-American, and the vast majority of reliable sources refer to him as the same. A youtube clip of him relating his heritage does not alter either of those points in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
: 29 June 2009
- News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
- Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
bad link
Sorry for my clunky edit... the bad link was referring to ref-46 which was a named reference which had its earlier name-definition deleted resulting in a red error message in the reference section. I was just trying to flag it as a reference that needed fixing, but I should have used a better maintenance tag.DavidRF (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was the "Fox-ruling-Jun30" reference. It was defined by an earlier ref at first, which was later removed. You've fixed it. The AP link was fine. I goofed and tagged the wrong reference at first and fixed it a minute later. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Articles get edited a lot in the hour following news. I didn't have any issue with your AP reference, that was a mistake of mine which I cleaned up with my next edit. What was broken was the previous "Fox-ruling-Jun30" named reference which had its definition removed by this edit. I guess I shouldn't have been in such a hurry to flag the error because these things have a way of cleaning themselves up in the long run. Especially this article which will no doubt have more edits and re-writes as he's sworn in, assigned to committees, etc, etc. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Mrs. Hupp and us
Hello! I hope I am not intruding, but as you may be aware the AfD on Anne Hupp ended in No Consensus. Thus, Mrs. Hupp remains with us. I wanted to take a minute to commend you for your spirited defense of the article, which was very impressive. Be well and keep doing what you're doing. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your recent block of user:Racist4Life
Note that per this as well as the striking similarity in the user page, user:Racist4Life could possibly be User:CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2. -t'shaelchat 03:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Who cares? Blocked is blocked. Edison (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. It matters not to me. -t'shaelchat 03:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Bias! I've seen it on other slur articles, too.
--HusKahrlTon (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Please take another look at the article and amend your position accordingly. I believe I have alleviated your concerns. Best regards, –xenotalk 05:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Edison, your subsequent comments at the AFD give the impression that you haven't actually looked at the article again since you voted. Please take a look. The nominator has commented that his concerns were alleviated, thus your vote is the only one holding up a snow closure. Cheers, –xenotalk 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
re: WP:NOTPLOT
Good morning. You recently made a comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works?
The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
We need a third party admin to close-out the consensus question currently posted at WP:PHARM:CAT. Would you mind doing that for us? ---kilbad (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})}
: 6 July 2009
- News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Madame Ngô Đình Nhu a gunslinging Dragon Lady?
Good man. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dragon Lady was from Terry and the Pirates, not to be confused with a hotty first lady. Edison (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Blue Ghost Tunnel
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blue Ghost Tunnel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Article's subject is identical with an existing entry in the encyclopedia. See Merritton Tunnel. This article is unreferenced and redundant, in fact, a redirect already exists to the Merritton Tunnel article.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deconstructhis (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: I did not create or expand subject article. Edison (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion wanted
Hi, Edison, I respect your opinion and I see you commented on a couple of AfDs for genealogical entries. They are related to this page: List_of_New_Jersey_military_officers_in_the_American_Revolution. I am not sure whether or not it would be appropriate to nominate it for deletion. The entries on a list don't have to be notable, but if neither the list itself nor any of the members of the list are notable, what then? Only one of the entries has any information asserting significance and the source doesn't appear reliable. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Edison. I knew it didn't seem right but you analyzed it and stated exactly why it is inappropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Recent comment.
Hi Edison, As a regular visitor to the reference desk I have always enjoyed and respected your many comments and contributions. But you recently commented during a debate about fisting and the surrounding laws in the porn industry, saying it was "sick shit which clearly harms the female victim". Do you know what fisting is? Why do you describe the female as a victim? Describing a sexual act (which lots of people clearly enjoy) as "sick shit" is a fairly inflammatory comment coated in personal bias. I would be very interested to hear why you thought it necessary to throw such such a comment (on it's own), into an otherwise sensible debate. Find discussion here Thank you.Popcorn II (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Resistor Science Ref desk.
[12] or [13] I used to have an old TV with a similar setup for a wireless headphone connection, but then I had the wiring diagram. The case for the resistor got warm, but never hot. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion
Unless you can read Arabic (or whatever language it was written in, I have no clue what it is) and can tell that the article was a test page, then I think you were mistaken in your tagging of the article, and I have removed the speedy and tagged the image with {{notenglish}}. If I'm mistaken, I apologize for the inconvenience. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
: 27 July 2009
- From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
- Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
- Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
- Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
- News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
- Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ref Desk question
Edison,
I am somewhat of a curious, noobish, anonymous wiki-gnome. I recently posted a question[14] on the Ref desk about ART (active release techniques) and to date you are the only person to have responded at all (I replied to your reply by-the-way, it is the latter not the former). Do you have any recommendations for how to pose a question on the Ref desk? Or whether Science is the right section to put the question on (I didn't see a medicine section)?
Thanks! 208.125.237.242 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! That was exactly what I was looking for! :-) (I'm not looking for medical advice) 208.125.237.242 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Marcia Martin draft article
I just read your comments at User_talk:Dzitya#Your_article - thanks for your input.
I must admit, I know nothing about the author - I have focussed on the layout.
Any help that you could give would be most useful! I found it difficult finding reliable references - I'm not 100% happy with using the "paid-for" death announcement as a source - it would not be counted as NPOV!
I'm not going to be able to do too much over the next week or so... apparently, decorating the house is more important than wikipedia... *sighs*... so anything you can do to help get this article up to standard for a starter-article which wouldn't be deleted quickly, would be very useful! I think Dzitya did a good start on an article as a newbie!
Anyway, gotta go... happy editing! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that merely being a stripper or performer in porn does not make one notable. However, that's not the issue in this AfD; possibly you overlooked WP:PORNBIO? Шизомби (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There has to be a standard of some kind, though (unless you're arguing that no strippers or porn performers are notable?). I agree PORNBIO needs improvement and much more involvement in its composition. For the time being, I believe Aja meets the standard as written. Your comment "Appears to fail WP:BIO" in the AfD seems to indicate you believe it does not meet it as written, but your comment to me "I do not necessarily agree with a part of the notability guideline" seems to indicate you're disregarding it; it would be better IMO to state in the AfD that you don't accept PORNBIO. How would you improve on it? Would that there were a "true consensus of any large segment of the editorship of Wikipdia" on anything here! It seems to me most things happen because of a very small percentage of editors, and I find that enormously regrettable. Шизомби (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
double shot
Hi, you commented twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiram Boardman Conibear, maybe combine your comments? -- Banjeboi 16:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
: 3 August 2009
- News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"Smerge"
I like your use of the word Smerge. Never heard of that word. :) Rockfang (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- All credit for "smerge" goes to User:R. fiend who introduced it way back in "VFD,"or "Votes for Deletion" before "AFD." The "Smerge" is a "selective merge" or "slight merge." "This is for when a topic deserves mention in another article, but not to the extent and detail that is already included. Too often a 'merge and redirect' becomes a cut-and-paste job of the entire contents of one article very inelegantly tossed at the end of another."See [15] from July 16, 2005, where he coined the term. This may be the first use in a deletion debate, July 16, 2005. A smerge involves the inclusion of only the most important information when merged, not every insignificant detail. An article about something a bit lacking in notability does not need to be completely inserted in to the target article, where it would occupy too much space relative to its importance. I encourage the use of Smerge where appropriate. Edison (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
2009 flu pandemic, “circulating among pigs on other continents for years”---Uh?, and could use some back-up
That is what the lead paragraph of our articles states, right now, Thursday, August 6th. More fully it states:
“There is also evidence that the new strain had been circulating among pigs on other continents for years before infecting humans. But transmission is human to human, with cooked pork products safe . . . ”
Wow, and without a reference. No, I don’t think the strain that is currently making people sick in the United States, UK, Argentina, etc., has been circulating for years. In fact, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, “recent reassortant of the triple-reassortant swine influenza A (H1) viruses and a Eurasian swine influenza virus,” that’s what the new swine flu looks like it is. It is four-fold, which our introductory paragraph does get right, but then it stumbles as above. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/25/2667
So, I deleted a speculative part from our introduction (a somewhat different speculative part, this was about three weeks ago), added a quote from New Eng J Med (probably too long a quote), and then got this on the discussion page: ‘Had to remove your totally pointless "splash." Add new information, if you have any, to the article, and in context. Your news bulletin on the lead was totally Uncool. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)’ [Archive 7]
That’s fine. I certainly can debate my own case. And I would even ask that you go easy on Wikiwatcher1. He plays it right down the middle. He’s the same as a hundred other conventional editors. I’m the one who’s a dissident. I am. And I do advocate some pretty radical stuff on the discussion pages (I guess, although not all that radical from my perspective), but then generally play it straight on the article itself. And that distinction might be lost, especially since I admittedly do sometimes push the envelope.
(I also have other things I want to improve the article in addition to the above.)
Okay, I don’t want to be blocked for “edit warring.” Wikiwatcher1 is the same person who recommended I be blocked before. If you can be available to help if things get hot, not so much from my perspective, I’m a pretty cool operator, but from other people’s perspective, I would very much appreciate that if possible. If you have other projects, I understand. And from time to time, if you want to jump in with 2009 flu pandemic, by all means, please, it could almost certainly use your skilled help. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Negative calorie food
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative calorie food. Fences&Windows 23:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Please
Please read the ANI report thoroughly. Everything that you said did not happen in this situation. What you were talking about only happened in the television schedules AFDs. He called me a troll, removed my comments because he said they were disruptive (including on his talk page), and told me to go away (including on his talk page). I only replied to one keep and the other one was not because of a keep. The second one was because of him acting uncivil to me. I'm surprised that you and Michig are saying that calling someone a troll, telling them to leave Wikipedia, and removing someone's comments from AFD is not uncivil. Maybe what Michig does wrong doesn't matter because he has been a member for over four years so that all the bad things that he does is ignored. Joe Chill (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The issue has been resolved. Joe Chill (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
AFD personal attacks
I have had many blatant things happen to me in AFD. I think that someone's (like Michig) first choice to resolve a problem in AFD is to remove their edits and call the person a troll is horrible. After I reverted it back twice, he brought it to my talk page. I don't see why it was so hard to bring it to my talk page first instead of reverting my edits and calling me a troll. I do not understand Michig at all. I might overreact a bit and if I do, it might be after all that happened which caused me to use my right to vanish. Joe Chill (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is that meant as an insult? Also, I was not a vandal on that account and I was never blocked. It's odd that I got insulted by an admin by creating that article when no one gets insulted by editing articles that are pretty much places for people to post porn (no matter what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia not being censored). Joe Chill (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Or maybe I was insulted because I didn't use the word feces and make the article so disgustingly detailed like Wikipedia's porn articles. Joe Chill (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Joe Chill
Hello. I have repeatedly asked this editor to cease attacking me but he persists with this nonsense. The only comments of his that I removed from an AFD were ones which he added which were totally unrelated to the article being discussed but which were simply aimed at criticizing me or arguing about matters completely off-topic to the AFD. This editor has edited my talk page 41 times since the 9th of August, 12 times since I made it clear to him that this was not welcome. He raised a pointless ANI thread about me and has continued to complain about me on other editors' talk pages, even though I have made it clear that I am not interested in having an argument with him. I have tried ignoring him but he has continued to to try to keep this going, and I have also tried asking him to stop [16], but he continues with it. My crime apparently was telling him in an AFD that the word 'multiple' means 'more than one' rather than 'three or more', and pointing out in another that his speedy-tag placed on an article was not valid and that he had not completed the AFD nomination properly. Many of his comments have had no purpose other than to attack me or to keep a completely pointless argument going, which I reverted once I believe, describing this accurately as trolling. I have also told him that he is not welcome to edit my talk page, which he has twisted around and claimed that I "told him to leave Wikipedia". I am absolutely sick of this editor's actions, and I would ask that as an administrator you take steps to stop this person harassing me and slagging me off throughout this project. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Michig, it's over. And I feel the same way about you. Now you are the one continuing it. Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Re message at User_talk:83.100.250.79#Message_from_edison
1. Yes , failure to assume good faith and bitey. I have seen many questions like this - where the user asks a semi-nonsensical question, and then fails to respond to answers or clarify the question. Always a new user name with a single post to the reference desk. That is my reason. I accept I am in the wrong and will attempt to ignore in future.
2. Yes. I removed that question about anal sex, and numerous other identical questions over the past months eg [17] Note the similarity, also note the user who posted the question User:MonksHabit- now blocked as a sockpuppet I believe, as were many other similar posts.
3. It was not so much criticism as an expression of total incredulity, however clearly that didn't come across very well.
83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding this page you recently deleted: Who is more obssessed with Twilight?. G1 was not a good CSD to use, as the page was understandable: I could understand that it was about a person, who was obsessed with Twilight. A7 would have been a better choice. Please read WP:Patent nonsense for more information on what is nonsense (and therefore meets G1). Best - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was a nonsensical article about an obsession rather than a sensible article about a nonnotable person. Edison (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- reply: Oh no, I don't think it should be undeleted (as it does meet CSD A7 any way). And there's no need to include it in the deletion log (as to until it sleeps tagging it, I saw that, and this message was originally meant for them, but I'll point them towards this talk page).
While it does seem like nonsense as we consider it (as humans) (e.g. somebody raving about themselves and how much they love this book), Wikipedia's definition is more narrow. In general, only something like "fgdfhfdgsbgfdbd", or "yes said I maybe no no haha lol gone human elephant back away anyway" is nonsense. Which is either a string of random letters, or a string of almost random words. In the case of this page, it was somebody raving, but it was clear what they are raving about, who they are, etc. Basically, you can understand what it's about, even if what it is about seems silly. Hope that makes sense :), WP:Patent nonsense & WP:CSD#G1 explain it better than I do, so reading them should help my explanation. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)- Don't rely on the edit summary provided by Twinkle, you should know the CSD you are deleting under by the explanation on WP:CSD, not Twinkle. As to making this process easier. Yes I do know some good ways of doing this :). The best would be CSD helper, which allows you to change rationales, change to PROD, delete, decline, etc. I strongly recommend this script, and have found it helpful myself. Also, it you don't want to go through the bother of finding the right warning template, you can use a template I created, {{CSD-warn}}, which just requires the CSD (it excepts "G1" or "nonsense", or "vandalism" etc.) and the pagename (see the template for a proper documentation). I hope that is helpful, and not a waste of your time. - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- All I'm trying to do here, is attempt to let you know that you made a small mistake (nothing major), and suggest ways not to make that mistake in the future. As an admin who is deleting pages under CSD, you would be expected to understand the CSD, past Twinkle's summary of it. Deleting a new user's page about them-self as "nonsense", isn't very welcoming, and is often seen as BITEy. For all you know the user was attempting to create their userpage, which would have made it good faith, and calling a new user's first attempt "an unsalvageable incoherent page with no meaningful content" isn't helpful for the user. Also, I do not find your comment on my talk page particularly helpful or civil - Kingpin13 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't rely on the edit summary provided by Twinkle, you should know the CSD you are deleting under by the explanation on WP:CSD, not Twinkle. As to making this process easier. Yes I do know some good ways of doing this :). The best would be CSD helper, which allows you to change rationales, change to PROD, delete, decline, etc. I strongly recommend this script, and have found it helpful myself. Also, it you don't want to go through the bother of finding the right warning template, you can use a template I created, {{CSD-warn}}, which just requires the CSD (it excepts "G1" or "nonsense", or "vandalism" etc.) and the pagename (see the template for a proper documentation). I hope that is helpful, and not a waste of your time. - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- reply: Oh no, I don't think it should be undeleted (as it does meet CSD A7 any way). And there's no need to include it in the deletion log (as to until it sleeps tagging it, I saw that, and this message was originally meant for them, but I'll point them towards this talk page).
The user keeps "reverting" my edits. Can you warn him for me? Thanks, Theleftorium 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know to warn someone, but since I already left him a message, I thought it would be good if you could too. :) Theleftorium 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you! Theleftorium 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's in the first sentence, actually. :-) Theleftorium 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Times Union ref says "Peter Palmer and his wife, Susan, from Dorset, became the hotel's newest overseers and innkeepers in 1975. For the next 12 months, they devoted themselves to an extensive and painstaking renovation which resulted in the building's placement on the Vermont Register of Historic Places. In fact, the hotel's reopening as Ye Olde Tavern was just in time for Manchester 's bicentennial in 1976." So we have a reliable source for that now. Theleftorium 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that could work. We can use "... that Ye Olde Tavern was built in 1790, making it the oldest inn in the state of Vermont?" as an alt. Theleftorium 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Times Union ref says "Peter Palmer and his wife, Susan, from Dorset, became the hotel's newest overseers and innkeepers in 1975. For the next 12 months, they devoted themselves to an extensive and painstaking renovation which resulted in the building's placement on the Vermont Register of Historic Places. In fact, the hotel's reopening as Ye Olde Tavern was just in time for Manchester 's bicentennial in 1976." So we have a reliable source for that now. Theleftorium 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's in the first sentence, actually. :-) Theleftorium 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you! Theleftorium 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you nominate it at DYK? I'm quite busy right now. Thanks, Theleftorium 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've come across such pages in the past, and I've always nominated them for deletion under A3 (chat like comments). And directed the user towards WP:RD (as you suggested). So I have done that for this page. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for doing it yourself anyway :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Network television schedules
Hi Edison,
Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please contribute with an oppinion here
Hello, Could you please contribute with an oppinion here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Situation:_A_Summary. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Cedric Aubry
Just a friendly note on Cedric Aubry. I declined the speedy deletion request -- professional athlete is not only a claim of importance, it's a claim of meeting WP:ATHLETE. If you think he's not notable, try AfD. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
: 24 August 2009
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
- Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ridicule
I've posted many an imperfect edit, and never really been that bothered about it. I've got a new keyboard and don't seem to have got the hang of it, so I'm always using ";" instead of "'" for example. The reason I don't tidy the tipos up is because I've been told the Signpost should follow the Manual of Style, which says "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." I added the (sic) templates because that's what people did in my first report for the signpost, if you see here and here. So I thought this was the way it was supposed to be done. I certainly haven't deliberately chosen sentences with tipos in, I've rather tried to choose ones which get to the core of the debate. I'll certainly open this up for wider discussion. I do sympathise with being a poor typist, believe me, I'm always having to proof my stuff, that show preview window sure is handy! Hiding T 08:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#The Signpost and the Manual of Style, and I'd appreciate your input. Hiding T 08:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runoko Rashidi
Please Check Ret.Prof (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD
An illegally recreated article you voted to delete [18] is again up for AfD. here Regards, Wikidas© 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Greek museums
Is this and this what you want to see for all of the Greek museums? I've given the dear Dr. Blofeld a good slap anyway... Himalayan 11:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is finding reliable sources in english, I am certain there is info online in Greek... Anyway I'll do my best over the coming weeks to flesh out his robo stubs and try to get them up to at least providing some info! So far, the museums I've come across seem notable, I'll prod any which may seem only like local curio shops... Regards. Himalayan 14:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll go through and gradually root out any. Agios Kerykos Archaeological Collection is the first I found, no google hits, doubt notability. AFD? Himalayan 14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debagging. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For your comments here. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
And thank you
... for blocking them :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio reasons
An improbable or poorly capitalized title coupled with unwikied text is a copyvio 99.9% of the time in my experience. Was it in fact original? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Found it: [19]. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the page is a copyvio, it can simply be deleted. No biggie. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. If it's something that some guy made up in school, I generally blow it out of the water as vandalism. Based on the bit of English I recall in the Portuguese article, I concluded it was likely a oopyvio as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Eccehomo2.jpg
File:Eccehomo2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Eccehomo2.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Eccehomo2.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Inserting dead links
I think you overlooked the fact that you introduced dead links to the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
bad faith editing
Now this edit has bad faith written all over it. The reference should say what the sentence is claiming. Otherwise, what's the point of the reference. I dont know how the link works without the complete URL, but miraculously it does. Why did you revert me? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
: 31 August 2009
- Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
- Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
- Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
- News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
- Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As of this posting
Nokia X6 does not link to your AfD discussion.--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Why don't you explain to me in detail what a personal attack is and why every single editor has a different opinion of it?
Here is my opinion of what are personal attacks, but no one did anything:
- It appears we have to indulge your burst of coprophilia. Could you please provide ISBNs for this book and for The Truth About Poop and Poop: A Natural History of the Unmentionable? from RHaworth on my other account.
- You are not welcome here. Go away. I don't need to. Stop trolling and go away. Reverted to revision 306969051 by Esradekan; actually, lets just cut this crap out - it's unrelated to the deletion discussion - if you want to insult me use my talk page. removed trolling totally irrelevant to the deletion discussion Michig got away with all of that because everybody sided with him at ANI. That was on this account. I wonder where he read the invisible insult at. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I find your berating of people who have a differing point of view than yours invalid. The !vote stands, it is not invalid and you can go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK until the cows come home. Do you know what I have been doing while you have been rambling on and making a mockery of this AfD? From NeutralHomer on this account. Everyone said that it wasn't a personal attack.
- I believe you are truly more intelligent than that. From Edison on this account. He got away with it because everyone said that it wasn't a personal attack.
- Joe, I'd like to point out you're coming across as the Wikipedia equivalent of the grumpy old man who comes out on his front porch and yells at the neighborhood kids who step on his lawn. From Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on this account. Everyone said that it wasn't a personal attack.
- Harasser Imnotacoolguy harassed me with sockpuppets and no admin would help me because I didn't explain the problem in an essay at ANI.This is on my other account. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You did defend Michig in ANI same with everyone else about his incivility. I will not go through the long ANI history to find it. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong with anything that I put. That wasn't a personal attack and I wasn't assuming bad faith on my user page (I should know). So please leave me alone. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Thanks to Joe for making the requested removal from the AFD. I will not thank him on his talk page, since he has quickly deleted my recent posts and has told me "oh shut up" and "leave me alone!" in the edit comments when he deleted my posts. That leaves on his user page what I consider to be a personal attack which he refuses to remove. I wonder if there is any recourse? I am called lazy, but he leaves it to me to look up the ANI complaint he filed against User:Michig which somehow justifies his complaining about me on his user page. Digging (lazily) through the WP:ANI archives, I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Issue. There I said "In general, AFD runs more efficiently when there is less Drama creation, when people avoid trying to have the last word by replying to every opposing Keep or Delete !vote, avoid claiming to be insulted when there is no insult, and get on with life rather than demanding apologies. Edison (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)" Note that the ANI complaint was closed as no action being needed, and that no one found User:Joe Chill's complaints to be well grounded. Edison (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never said that justified it (did I say that?). Why are you surprised that I jumped to the lazy conlusion when you didn't look at the sources and why couldn't you tell me why you wouldn't look at them? I didn't leave it to you to look it up (did I say that?). The whole time my discussion with Michig was going on, I said zero personal attacks. I was not assuming bad faith on my user page. I was just talking about how I think that inclusionists comments are inconsistent. Now explain to me how a long AFD discussion makes it so that personal attacks are all right and what policy supports it. I said zero personal attacks during the AFDs so why couldn't everyone else do the same? Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not approve of personal attacks, but I will not swing the banhammer at the person you argue with when you use words like "dumb" and "liar! referring to the other editor. And please take a tally of my AFD !votes before calling me an "inclusionist." (Added:) I tallied my activity in the area back through August 23, and I see 24 Delete !votes, 6 Keep !votes, 2 Smerge (selectively merge) !votes, 1 Redirect !vote, 1 AFD nomination made, and 1 MFD nomination made. Edison (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I said all that to Michig after a really long discussion with him calling me a troll and telling me to leave Wikipedia. Calling someone a liar when they are denying the truth isn't a personal attack. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes it can be a matter of finding a noninflammatory way of saying it, that is, avoiding the fighting words, when pointing out that the other editor is doing the wrong thing. I believe in presenting references anew in a new AFD. It takes less time for the editor wanting them considered in the new AFD to find them, check them to make sure they are not deadlinks, and post the links right in the AFD, than for everyone to go back to the old AFD. Edison (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that User:Joe Chill has now resolved, in an appropriate way,
allsome of the issues that I have raised. Thanks. Edison (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)- I still object to characterizing another editor as "lazy" in the AFD. There is less effort for the one wanting refs considered to repost them in the current discussion than for him to expect everyone else to go back to a previous discussion and find what he refers to. Edison (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that User:Joe Chill has now resolved, in an appropriate way,
- Sometimes it can be a matter of finding a noninflammatory way of saying it, that is, avoiding the fighting words, when pointing out that the other editor is doing the wrong thing. I believe in presenting references anew in a new AFD. It takes less time for the editor wanting them considered in the new AFD to find them, check them to make sure they are not deadlinks, and post the links right in the AFD, than for everyone to go back to the old AFD. Edison (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I said all that to Michig after a really long discussion with him calling me a troll and telling me to leave Wikipedia. Calling someone a liar when they are denying the truth isn't a personal attack. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not approve of personal attacks, but I will not swing the banhammer at the person you argue with when you use words like "dumb" and "liar! referring to the other editor. And please take a tally of my AFD !votes before calling me an "inclusionist." (Added:) I tallied my activity in the area back through August 23, and I see 24 Delete !votes, 6 Keep !votes, 2 Smerge (selectively merge) !votes, 1 Redirect !vote, 1 AFD nomination made, and 1 MFD nomination made. Edison (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never said that justified it (did I say that?). Why are you surprised that I jumped to the lazy conlusion when you didn't look at the sources and why couldn't you tell me why you wouldn't look at them? I didn't leave it to you to look it up (did I say that?). The whole time my discussion with Michig was going on, I said zero personal attacks. I was not assuming bad faith on my user page. I was just talking about how I think that inclusionists comments are inconsistent. Now explain to me how a long AFD discussion makes it so that personal attacks are all right and what policy supports it. I said zero personal attacks during the AFDs so why couldn't everyone else do the same? Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Thanks to Joe for making the requested removal from the AFD. I will not thank him on his talk page, since he has quickly deleted my recent posts and has told me "oh shut up" and "leave me alone!" in the edit comments when he deleted my posts. That leaves on his user page what I consider to be a personal attack which he refuses to remove. I wonder if there is any recourse? I am called lazy, but he leaves it to me to look up the ANI complaint he filed against User:Michig which somehow justifies his complaining about me on his user page. Digging (lazily) through the WP:ANI archives, I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Issue. There I said "In general, AFD runs more efficiently when there is less Drama creation, when people avoid trying to have the last word by replying to every opposing Keep or Delete !vote, avoid claiming to be insulted when there is no insult, and get on with life rather than demanding apologies. Edison (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)" Note that the ANI complaint was closed as no action being needed, and that no one found User:Joe Chill's complaints to be well grounded. Edison (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know how come when someone says the name Barry Soetoro or birther on here its considered a personal attack when talking about Barack Hussein Obama Junior but when you put in barry soetoro or birther in the search box it goes directly to a barack hussein obama junior birth conspiracy page? If its not a glitch then it must be an alias of his. I didn't know how to directly contact someone about this and this was the only way i knew how. This in not coming from a "birther" which means someone that doesn't think a black person can't become president, because i voted for a black person 3 times for president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrysoetorotruthteller (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) It needs to be brought up because if he is hiding this from the American people then what else could he be hiding? I would say if you did bring it up and let them know about this then it gets out in the public then people will say wikipedia is on top of things and a very accurate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrysoetorotruthteller (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Award of a Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement.
Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
AfD - James Randall
Thanks for your helpful contribution to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Randall_(serial_killer). I'd appreciate further guidance and clarification so this is just to let you know I've responded over there and would be interested in a more detailed explanation of what you feel the article still needs. Many thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2009 flu pandemic: in children, a relapse with high fever may be bacterial pneumonia
" . . . In children without chronic health problems, it is a warning sign if they seem to recover from the flu but then relapse with a high fever, Dr. Frieden said. The relapse may be bacterial pneumonia, which must be treated with antibiotics. . . . ” Report Finds Swine Flu Has Killed 36 Children, New York Times, Denise Grady, Sept. 3, 2009.
To me, this is the first information that might actually save lives. Especially since the general course of advice from health authorities is to take it easy, don't worry, it's generally mild. Except if you get a sign in the tail end that your child has pneumonia. Then it's very serious indeed. So, this might be the first information that someone can actually do something about.
(Presumably, this would apply to adults, too. An adult can also get a secondary infection of bacterial pneumonia. But I'm going to take it step by step. I have not yet found good references saying this.)
Edison, please dive in and help if you want to. If you're feeling especially ambitious, you might want to dive into:
Surveillance for Pediatric Deaths Associated with 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Infection --- United States, April--August 2009, CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 4, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5834a1.htm
Or a sad specific case: How did swine flu kill a healthy boy?, Antioch kindergartner's death leaves parents and doctors without answers, by CHAS SISK, THE TENNESSEAN, SEPTEMBER 14, 2009.
Good luck with your projects. Please help out when the spirit moves you. Cool Nerd (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Your question is, I hope, answered. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for finding those sources. I added some I found, too. I think this can be rescued. Gross, huh? Bearian (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009
- From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
- News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Ref. Desk discussion
This is just to tell you the discussion continues at [20] . Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009
- Opinion essay: White Barbarian
- Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
- Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
- News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Greek museums
Two more Delos Archaeological Museum, Distomo Archaeological Collection. Actually I'm finding most of the "collections" which you thought were nothing but curio shops to be clearly notable museums.. Himalayan 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Where possible I'll try to find book sources. The bulk of the information about these museums on the web is either from travel sites or books. I have used the Hellenic Ministry of Culture site for the basics though which is a goverment source not a travel site. It seems to be written by the actual archaeologists involved in the excavation so should be the most reliable source we have. The travel pages give moe flesh to details, in places the sources if possible can be replaced by book sources like Frommers Guide to Greece etc.. I'm working on another now in my sandbox which I'll post into the mainspace later tonight, Voila, there you go. Regards. Himalayan 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Croatian Military Frontier
What is the problem? Croatian Military Frontier was a part of Military Frontier, formed by the Kingdom of Hungary in the late 16th century. This part of the Military Frontier included the geographic regions of Lika, Kordun, Banovina and bordered the Adriatic Sea to the west, Venetian Republic to the south, Habsburg Croatia to the west, and the Ottoman Empire to the east. And, Nikola Tesla was born in Lika. --Kebeta (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009
- New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
- Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
- News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Armand Deutsch, Y. Chittick and Edison
(I am sorry if this is an inappropriate place for the following comments -- I looked for an email address for you but did not find one)
I actually contacted Deutsch after seeing him in a documentary about the Leopold and Loeb case on the History Channel -- I was amazed that anyone connected with the case was still alive.
Similarly, I heard a man who was 104 at the time on NPR who had a job interview with Thomas Edison in 1922 and felt compelled to speak with him. Yardley Chittick made it to 107 and almost certainly was then the last living person who had had a conversation with Edison as an adult. --Jrm2007 (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Tesla's Birthplace
"He wrote that he was born in the Austro-Hungarian Military Frontier. That existed on the planet Earth at the time he was born. There was then no such place as the "Croatian Military Frontier." Countries which exist in the 21st century cannot be somehow made to exist in the mid-19th century. Provide reliable sources or give up your POV nationalistic and jingoistic efforts."
- Nice language...Well, never mind... It is true that Tesla was born in the Austro-Hungarian Military Frontier, but Military Frontier was long and narrow territory from Adriatic Sea to Transylvania, divaded into several Frontiers. One of them (first) was Croatian Military Frontier, in which Tesla was born. If you are asking me did such Frontier existed, the source is [21]. Certainly, Tesla was not born in Transylvanian Military Frontier. Here is a map, so you can understand what I am talking about:[22]. --Kebeta (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that there were some conflicts on Tesla article, so I accept your apology. I am more into other things right now, so if there would be some problems, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
![[22]](http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/185915BK.GIF){kind=link}
FYI
Please see this. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009
- From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
- Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
- Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
- News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
- Dispatches: Sounds
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).
Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.
Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
RD thread
I am offended by this comment, and I disagree that the thread with the deleted question was "incomprehensible". —Steve Summit (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I removed my observation that leaving the responses while removing the question was "nonsense." Edison (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
- Interview: Interview with John Blossom
- News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
- In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Notability of news events
Prompted by the Colorado balloon incident and its AfD, renewed efforts are under way to work out a guideline for notability of incidents/events. See Wikipedia:Notability (news events). I thought you'd be interested as you wrote Wikipedia:News articles. Fences&Windows 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you want to keep Wikipedia:News articles? It's moribund, and the existence of two guidelines on notability of news articles will only cause confusion. Fences&Windows 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- See reply on your talk page. The older one is better than the new one, and is referenced by WP:NOTNEWS. The newer one is unlikely to gain consensus. Why redirect from a good, but rejected notability guideline proposal to a different one unlikely to gain consensus? Edison (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm genuinely concerned about his mental state
He's demonstrating an unhealthy psychological fixation. It's not a personal attack, it's a considered (lay) opinion. He really does need to get help, because his obsession is not good for him or for Wikipedia.
His subsequent edits to Steve's talk page illustrate both that he's stalking my contribtions (and has done so for more than a year) and my point that there's something not quite right in his head. Look at the history of childish vandalism to my userpage (and on dozens of other user pages on Wikipedia, whenever other editors have rolled back his trolling and vandalism).
Do you honestly think that his actions represent those of an entirely rational person, behaving in a socially-acceptable manner? His behaviour is that of a stalker, and it is not a personal attack to honestly and openly acknowledge that problem.
You're welcome to disagree with my opinion of him, but please don't misuse WP:NPA to issue bogus cautions. If you have something constructive to offer to resolve years of harrassment by this individual, I'm open to suggestions — otherwise, I didn't find your message to be helpful or reasonable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- We revert, block and ban based on behavior, not from lay diagnoses of someone's mental health. An editor who does not conform to the policies and guidelines cannot continue editing. Granted, if an editor goes over to the dark side and is devoted to trolling, or harrassment, we no longer need to assume good faith, but there is no point to hurling accusations of "not quite right in the head." That is far outside the responsibilities and privileges of admins or other Wikipedia editors. Edison (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you're feeding the troll. Well done. I notice that you – Edison – haven't seen fit to caution or warn Light current about the ongoing years of harrassment he's engaged in. Please don't presume to lecture on my talk page if I occasionally observe that an individual who is stalking me and my contributions to this encylopedia has obvious problems. Please, as well, refrain from commenting if you're not aware – or if you're going to pretend that you're unaware – that you're responding to the banned user on your own talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My comment above cautioned the editor, if it is Light Current, against behavior which is contrary to policies and guidelines. No one is such an exalted editor or admin that he is free to ignore policies and guidelines. WP:NPA applies to all. I will respond, when and if I please, to any post on my user page. Some religious groups practice Shunning, wherein they pretend they cannot hear the speech of those who have been banned for some violation. I am not a member of such a religion. Edison (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you're going to play the disingenuous 'if it is Light Current' game, then please don't leave any more messages for me. You're wilfully enabling someone with a years-long history of trolling and harrassment (targeting me, among other editors) on your own talk page. If you have any concerns about my conduct, take them to a formal venue for dispute resolution. I am no longer comfortable assuming that your approaches to me are in good faith, and I do not see continued discussion with you on a one-to-one basis as being anything but a waste of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be upset beyond what our exchange of comments justifies, and your accusations of "willfully enabling" and accusations of lack of good faith are not at all justified, in my view. Your attacks on and insults directed toward the banned user seemed inappropriate, and I called it to your attention on your talk page. I am not "taking the side" of a vandal when I point out that you are not permitted to make personal attacks on a vandal by suggesting he needs mental health "help." All I did is point out to you your noncompliance with WP:NPA, and I will continue to do that when I see the need, on the talk page of any user, rather than dashing first to WP:ANI or other "formal venues." That's not how it should be done. It is also not a good policy to attempt to ban from posting on your user talk page someone who makes a good faith post pointing out to you that one of your posts is problematic. Edison (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your extreme obeisance to the rules ("No one is free to ignore policies and guidelines", "All should observe policies and guidelines. No one is above the law" [23], etc.) is kind of intriguing, coming from someone who was just invoking IAR. (Oh, and we're not shunning, we're RBI'ing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if simple compliance with policies is seen as "extreme obeisance." Edison (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Outside view: you guys should all drop it.
- Ten, we don't comment on peoples mental state here, we comment on the edits they make. Via email or chat, sure, you can privately discuss honest concerns with editor motivations, sometimes those concerns are real. But we don't make public postings positing a state of mind. Peristent vandals are probably already fighting their own mental war, but that's their own concern. We just do our own thing, which is WP:RBI.
- Edison, please don't quote policy letters to epxerienced editors. Make the case in your own words, if you're right, you shouldn't need a single acronym to back you up. You might find more acceptance with a persuasive approach rather than a omg-policy backed one.
- Just my two cents, we're obviously in for the long haul with this disruptive editor, so it's best if we can agree on a unified way to handle them. Franamax (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- And part of that unified approach should be avoidance of getting pissy with each other with demands not to post on each other's user pages. Edison (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I offered an apology, twice, by email. I don't know why you haven't received those messages. I was rather hoping that we could both take Franamax's good advice and move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have an Email address for Wikipedia that I do not routinely monitor. It is best to inform me here if you have left me email. Edison (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)