User talk:Floydian/Archive/2011b

This is an archive of my talk page from May through the end of August 2011

Picture never cleared for copyright permission?

I think the picture ElectricSineWave.jpg that you recently added to the article on Electromagnetic radiation and health was never actually cleared for permission. It is possible that the process in place when you first uploaded the picture has changed, but it seems pictures being cleared via an email permission should be submitted to the Wikimedia Commons, and the OTRS process followed, with the permission email needing to be sent to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org. More info at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission and Commons:OTRS. --papageno (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had sent the email to OTRS but I suppose not. I received permission from Dr. Stetzer via email, so it shouldn't be difficult. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Floydian, I'm sorry I just closed your RfA per WP:SNOW, because I don't think you'd have passed, at this time, given the rationales indicated by the opposers and wanted to spare you the bitter, stinging experience an Rfa can be; if you want your RfA to run for the entire week, however, you're of course entitled to revert my closure! Please, remember you're a valuable Wikipedian and your contributions are much appreciated; do run again, when you feel you've tackled all the issues highlighted by the opposers. See you around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I saw the unfortunate result at RfA. I hope you don't feel discouraged by this, you're a really good editor, and I'm sure that if you take aboard the comments made by the opposers you'll be successful the next time around. Regards, œ^™ 11:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Hello Floydian,

  I've seen you around many a time, and I've always been impressed. I was honestly quite surprised to see your RfA go down in flames like that. If it's any consolation, my first RfA sank like a rock, and just when my second RfA looked like it was headed for an easy pass, the opposes started piling on and I sank straight through the discretionary range. I agree with Salvio that you're a valuable editor and a generally positive force on Wikipedia, and I hope your RfA's outcome doesn't discourage you. After a few months, if you've smoothed out your temperament, feel free to run again. Cheers, Dylan620's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 11:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'd like to echo these thoughts - I said I look forward to being able to support a future run, and I fully expect to do so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone : )

I will definitely be taking in all the comments and giving my best efforts to cool down my interactions with editors and my edit summaries. Perhaps by the fall the tides will have changed. Cheers, ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Layton

Hi Floydian! Regarding discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jack Layton, what is the status of converting that TIFF to JPG for uploading? Jujutacular ^talk 03:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The author told me to email him,[1] which I have. However, he hasn't responded yet. Given it has been only 48 hours and that they responded to me on the weekend, it could take a few more days. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 03:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:ElectricSineWave.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ElectricSineWave.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

At this stage of the game, it's safest to assume that the owner of the copyright is not sending an email giving permission. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I sent the email, as I mentioned above, back in probably September or earlier. I personally know David Stetzer's group of "scientists", and someone who works with him has sent me an email detailing the copyright release. He said I am free to release the image as I want. I am sending another email to him now so that I can paste it on here. Because some people are a little retentive on this issue (an understatement IMO), I have asked him to explicitly state "You may use this photo (link), as you please, under any licence, throughout the universe". If this is not enough, then the system is broke and must be fixed. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 20:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A reply was sent to you in 2009 requesting that a specific license be stated by the copyright holder. The form at Commons:Email_templates could be used. – Adrignola talk 21:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have sent this to him. Hopefully he will respond tonight, but it may take until Monday. -- ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stetzer,

I contacted you about a year ago regarding a spectrum analyzer image that has been used in your research. You authorized me to use this image on Wikipedia for an article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. However, I am now being requested to make sure I have received proper permission from you. You had told me that I'm free to use the image as I want, and this just further verifies that.

So, I have gone overboard and written this statement for the image so that nobody else can raise a fuss. If you are okay with this, please reply and let me know that you accept.

I, David Stetzer, hereby give permission for Justin O'Neill to append this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectricSineWave.jpg) under any free licence, for use anywhere, for any purpose, not limited to adaptation and commercial reproduction, provided proper attribution is made to the original author, and that the result is shared under the same free licence

This will allow me to licence the image under creative commons. I am assuming that you were okay with this originally, but unfortunately they want to have written proof so that nobody can claim infringement down the road for any reason.

RE: Lloyd Francis Boulevard and Robertson Road

I agree that one or the other should be deleted once the renaming is either complete or abandoned. Until then, both should continue to exist in parallel. djblackwood (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Controlled-access highway

I have to apologise for my bluntness but I have purposely added the American English tag to Controlled-access highway. The language used in the article is most definitely American, it is neither Oxfordian nor the Queen's English or I now have a railroad passing by my house and I drive on Highway 1 to work. I don't know when this merger debate ocurred but it saddens me to see Motorway in the UK be transformed into Highways in America and the rest of the world has them too. Unless the article is copyedited it will be in American. Take it as a compliment or a remark but it simply is written in that language. Best Regards Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of attitude that we are trying to avoid, and clearly you are not reading my edit summaries. The current article is a merger of Motorway and Freeway. More of the non-regionally-specific and workable content was from freeway, as motorway covered the concept from a specifically British POV. As such, certain sections are in American English, and some are in British English.

The point of the tag you are trying to add is on articles where language is controversial, to keep editors from trying to change one dialect to another. The point of the tag is not to just to tag the dialect an article is written in (hence why it doesn't appear on every talk page); your use of it now will only be disruptive. The tag will only encourage editors to convert it to American English, which is exactly the opposite of what the intention is. If you wish to contribute constructively to building the merged article, please do! But don't fuddle-duddle around a language tag in the very early stages of the merger. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 03:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, highway is a universal term. Motorway is only used in commonwealth nations; it doesn't have anything to do with the way specific nations name their routes. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 03:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A choice has to be made, this is probably one of the oldest arguments on WP: What language is this article in? I don't speak American. Should I have a constructive contribution to make, it will not be in American, even if I edit the American section. The introduction is American as are terms throughout the article, I simply do not understand its meaning due to its syntax and vocabulary. At one point or another, this article will simply become a portal to regional articles, one of them most likely Motorway simply to relate to regional specific legislation, customs, numbering and construction. The merger was a huge mistake, not because there is animosity between both language speakers but because this article is named after a term that is not used in the countries it describes. Rather than merging and leaving this mess of international non-sense it should have been carefully copy-edited to avoid this language mess.

I foresee great fun in editing this article, what a mess has just been created just to arrange a pseudo status-quo; what a load of political correctness! Can I put a tag advising editors to wear a high-vis jacket and hard-hat when editing? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I did say [[Motorway in the UK rather than motorway. Highway is a universal term, of which different definitions of conflicting concepts exist. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Those conflicts are in the minute details, not in the general concept. A motorway is a freeway, and an interstate is a freeway. The merger discussion went on for several months and was pretty well advertised. The choice that has been made is to use Oxford English, as it offers a compromise between British English (not "English English", as your POV has put it). The article has not been "left" as you put it: I created this over several weeks and now I performed the merger in hopes of actually getting people to move and work with me on collaborating (instead of bickering over semantics). Its only when you actually make the change that people wake up and voice their concerns. There is nothing complicated about the language the article is written in (nor in the differences between American, Canadian, Oxford and British English); if you do not understand it then the engineering concepts that are presented throughout will be far beyond your comprehension. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 03:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A road-related favor

Mitchazenia and I are probably going to co-nominate M-185 (Michigan highway) at FAC later this year. In advance, of that, I'm looking for additional sources for information that we might have overlooked. Given the nature of this "highway", I'm thinking that something along the lines of Brockway Mountain Drive's "Scenic opportunities" and "Awards and recognition" sections might be appropriate, and [2] from the Toronto Star might be one of those sources of information. Can you get a copy of the article for me at some point in the near future and e-mail to me? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 ? 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

I fear your edit has only encouraged the IP. Please take a closer look at the discussion, the press release (which I already linked yesterday) and its wording. The press release is not the report (monograph 102), it is rather an announcement of that report, to be published later. The press release says: "A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online." That's pretty unequivocal.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

GA - Ontario Highway 404

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted Ontario Highway 404 good article status. Oddbodz (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Floydian, I am not a native speaker of English language and I'd like to ask you some help in the article Ethereal being, which may need or not some grammatical corrections. So, would be possible you give a quick look, make it right (if necessary) and remove the grammar tag (recently inserted) if seems ok to you? I know it is a long article, and I could see you are very busy, so any help you can do it is welcome.

Perhaps also be interesting deliver you some context: I wrote some articles to Wikipedia, and among them "Ethereal beings" intentionally was conceived not only of historic text, it also integrates historic, artistic expressions (such as the pictures). In fact the paintings are so important as the text for the subject. By the way, more than half of its images were uploaded by myself, and I am sure you will appreciate many of them. But those pictures as much are beautiful, their function it is more than that; as said, they also supply capital information about the article’s theme. Unfortunately some little time ago some users didn’t understand those concepts and they aggressively removed images, text, and severed sentences (sometimes removing the sense) and even paragraphs were left with orphaned references, which others users and me mostly corrected (except the images, I left them out). I also have to say that I was writing that article one time per week or less by months, many times I left short paragraphs for later develop them, but I never had really much available time and now it is almost impossible continue that project (even so the article it is sensibly complete). And yeah, I am a painter out there, what likely explain that project (I think).

You can reply here if you prefer. I will keep watching this page. All best, Hour of Angels (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Interested to see your good contributions to the page and discussions over recent months. I originated the page back in 2006 but became disillusioned because it was impossible to get much in against the larger number of sceptics (looks like that still continues, although the users have changed). My interest came about because my wife has MCS and ES, which gradually converted me from being a sceptic! The tricky thing seems to be that a very small proportion of people are particularly sensitive, while the vast majority show no symptoms. In my wife's case this has now been traced to a genetic deficiency in her liver which stops her metabolising some compounds, and treatment has much improved her MCS and ES. Of the ES sufferers I've met, at least 75% have some form of MCS, but the reverse fortunately does not apply. I'd be interested to hear what sparked your interest in the subject. Hyperman 42 (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not-so-controlled-access highways

As I said, well done on Controlled-access highway. Please see my proposal for dealing with the lesser grade of highway at Talk:Limited-access road#Merger proposal. Nankai (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I support this. Haljackey (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

merge

Hi Floydian

I wonder if you'd be so kind to merge Expressway into Limited-access road if/when the time is right. I just can't get my head around the instructions. Then I think it is appropriate to redirect Expressway to Controlled-access highway. I created Expressway (disambiguation) to clean up any loose ends.Nankai (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take a look at 'er later today when I get home. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 10:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ontario 138.svg

For some reason, when you updated the Ontario King's Highway shields in February 2010, you didn't do Highway 138. Just letting you know. File:Ontario 138 jct.svg does exist, so don't worry about that.

Thanks,

HighwayMaster (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a couple I missed, as well as most of the decommissioned highways without articles. At some point I'll load up the template and pop out what is needed. Thanks :) - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Expressway redirect

Hey Floydian, please pop in to Talk:Limited-access road to discuss the redirect for Expressway Nankai (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my change to the intro to put the foreign-language words after the two common English ones; it got reverted as the present wording was "agreed". My aim was to give priority to the language in which Wikipedia is written. Consider Fixed wing aircraft: You probably wouldn't write it like this: "A fixed-wing aircraft, commonly called a flugzeug, hikoki, avion, wakarere, airplane or aeroplane......" Now I know that the two English terms are at the end only because all the words are in alphabetical order, but it just doesn't seem right. We have put the reader through enough of a hoop by naming the article with a technical term not a common one. Let us please discuss this again (at talk:Controlled-access highway). Nankai (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Highway 401 being showcased on Canada Day

Not sure if you've seen already, but File:Evacuated Highway 401 Color.jpg is going to be Wikipedia's picture of the day on Canada Day and will be displayed on the front page [3]. If you have time, now might be a good time to give the article a full re-read so it can be tweaked and polished before the masses click on the link to the article. (I might be doing the same.) Expect more traffic than ever checking out the article that day. Haljackey (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've been going through a lot of it so its more or less pretty clean. May need to go back and double check any time sensitive info. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 20:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Rebuttal

For the image tweaks, I wanted to get a high-quality shot for the lead-in photo. The 401/402 interchange [4] or Wellington Road [5] pics in London can replace the one in Dorchester. The congestion shot [6] gives a scope of just how busy the highway is and could be included. The 18 lane shot [7] does the same, just by width.

Another shot I'd like to see included is the Weston Road pic [8] as it is high quality and shows the busiest point of the highway.

These guys are also good contenders: [9] [10] [11] [12]

I know there's not room for everything, and we all have our own opinions, but the page can be modified to tweak the pictures and their placement in the article. There's just too many good images for the article... something you don't typically see for other entries! Haljackey (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I only had an issue with two photos. The Pearson airport photo, which is a poor angle to be of any encyclopedic value, and the ONroute photo, which was pushed down and was messing up the Services table. The last four photos have appeared in the article at one point, but really can't add anything that one of the (too many) photo on the article now couldn't show. The Oshawa shot may be worthwhile, as the bridge in it was the one torn down a few weeks ago. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I think this is overdue, but you deserve it. All the best. Haljackey (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) I'll put 'er on me wall! - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 609 section at List of secondary highways in Kenora District

I have expanded the empty section at List_of_secondary_highways_in_Kenora_District#Highway_609. Tried to mimic the existing text and give suitable references, both new and otherwise existing in the article, but you may wish to edit for style and reference consistency with the rest of the article. --papageno (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! Better referenced than all the other entries combined :) I should point out though that OntHighways is a SPS... though better than no source at all I suppose. Cheers - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I've added the Ontario Roadmap to bolster the SPS reference. The map doesn't show Quibell, where pavement stops and gravel begins, but it does show the sections by colouration; putting the two together and with the text in the article, it is reasonably — yes, kinda' weaselly a word — solid. --papageno (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about your proposal at VPP

I have two questions about your proposal at VPP. I'm posting here, in case I'm missing something stupid.

Several editors are opposing or reserving judgement pending feedback form developers. I was puzzled by this at first, but now think they are emphasizing your phrase (emphasis added) "articles require at least one reference before being submitted". You later said "all new articles have at least one reference, or else be eligible for speedy deletion" I interpreted the latter statement as implying the proposal is policy, and allows reviewers and NPP to tag, but I think some are interpreting the first as imply the software itself should refuse to allow creation if it doesn't detect a reference. Which did you mean?

Second, my tentative support was partly because I would like to allow some time to remedy the problem. In your response, you said, "I wouldn't want to see them speedied immediately anyway". Fine, but your proposal says "or else be eligible for speedy deletion". Can you clarify, as I think some editors might be opposing on grounds you didn't intend to include.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a "still cursory but slightly more indepth" review of the opposes, and I think almost all would go away if the proposal were clarified that this isn't something intended to for the developers to inhibit creation, but guidance for human reviewers, and change from CSD to some form of PROD.

I note it would have to be a modified PROD, as the current PROD guidelines allow anyone to remove for any reason. That said, the BLPPROD does require someone to add a ref, so we have precedent. In essence, I see an expansion of the BLPPROD notion (ten days to source or if goes away) as a proposal that should address almost all concerns. --SPhilbrickT 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the PROD guidelines (I know, I should practically have them memorized), I think the cleanest proposal is to extend "sticky prod" from BLP's to all articles (Guess I should review the discussion, to see if that was rejected.) Personally, I would favor a shorter period than ten days, but creating a new category might be more bureaucracy that it is worth. Simply extending sticky prod to say that if it doesn't have a source after ten days it can be removed (whether BLP or not). As with the current rule, sticky prods cannot be contested like PRODs (where any reason suffices) they must be contested by adding an RS reference.--SPhilbrickT 15:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to make it very clear that I wanted input on the concept and that the specific mechanics could be worked out later on. I have a bit of a planner mentality. - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, but I'm sensing a pile-on opposition mentality, and I fear some of it is copying opposes based upon a "deny creation" impossibility and other opposed to CSD. If you were to clarify that you didn't mean the first, and you've already clarified that you are fine with a PROD rather than a CSD argument, I could count up the opposition and show how few are opposed to a sticky prod proposal. However, it would be awkward for me to do so, and then have you disagree, so I wanted to make sure I understood what aspects were key and what aspects were "negotiable".--SPhilbrickT 21:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to require refs

This is an excellent idea. Will generate less work and get new user going down the right path. Keep at it you have my exceeding strong support. People seem to be counting the adjectives :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully with some tinkering of the fine print, more people will come on board next time - ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 10:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at ClueBot Commons's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK images

I noticed here you were having trouble adding rollover text. Sorry, that's my fault. It's no longer necessary to specify rollover text; the alt-text and rollover text for DYKs should be the same, so it's only necessary to specify one "caption" which performs both roles (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 68#Image alts for background). When updating to the new nomination system, though, I had forgotten to update this new version of the nomination template to reflect that change. It should be ok now. From now on, you only need to specify one "caption" when nominating an image (and that is why the preloaded template on the DYK nomination page only includes a space for |caption=). r?ana? (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You may want to double check because IIRC the caption line doesn't show up in that preloaded template. Cheers, ??o??ia? ^t _¢ 10:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It should show up, indented beneath |image=, as specified in Template:T:TDYK/preload. You can verify this by going to T:TDYK and creating a fake nomination page for "stuff" or something like that (it's not necessary to save the page, just to click the button to check the preloaded template. r?ana? (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN request

This is to let you know that there is a post involving you at the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Rschen7754 05:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of consensus issue

In this archived discussion it is claimed that, in this other archived discussion, "the consensus has been to avoid geocoding the articles until a satisfactory way to display the coordinates without cluttering the articles is found.". I wonder whether, as a participant in the latter discussion, you could kindly say whether or not that was your conclusion at its end, and if so, on what grounds? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, since that's your article. --Rschen7754 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 31, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Don Valley Parkway is a controlled-access six-lane municipal expressway in Toronto connecting the Gardiner Expressway with Highway 401. North of Highway 401, it continues as Highway 404 to Newmarket. The parkway runs through the parklands of the Don River valley, after which it is named. It was the second expressway to be built by Metropolitan Toronto (Metro). Planning began in 1954, the year of Metro's formation. The first section opened on August 31, 1961, and the final section on November 17, 1966. The parkway operates well beyond its intended capacity of 60,000 vehicles per day and is known for daily traffic jams; some sections carry an average of 100,000 vehicles a day. Planned as part of a larger expressway network within Toronto, it was one of the few expressways built before the public opposition which cancelled many of the others. (more...)

Congrats Floydian on having played a big part in getting the article to this status. -papageno (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)