User talk:Ingolfson/Archive2009A

Bouncer (doorman)

[SIGH]

I'm getting the feeling you're about as done with this article as I am, yeah? It just seems there's some sort of unstoppable force out there that doesn't want it to succeed, and now some guy who's clearly had a nasty run in with some bouncer is taking his frustrations out on Wikipedia and has added a cite tag to the end of every sentence in the "Character" section. I've just got nothing left to give to this article and, frankly, the worst part is that I don't really care what happens to it now. Apathy is scary, huh? The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So? Kick the cite tags out - we don't have to respect every bullshit. I'll continue working on this, but I agree that the "Good article" stuff is really a bit like applying for masochism. Ingolfson (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just received Ingolfson's message. Re the "Good article" stuff being a bit like applying for masochism, that's not normally true - 2 days to a week is more typical in my experience. I admit I proposed one where a real battle with another editor developed, and I suspect in the end the reviewer passed the article as GA out of sheer exhaustion. In that case luckily my opponent was intelligent and well-informed, so I was able to treat the battle as a game.

The sensible course is (a) play it really cool; (b) look honestly through the comments to see if there some valid points concealed within the ranting, and quietly act on any that you find.

You already know what my attitude was when I first looked over the article - it had a lot of potential, but some gaps and read a little like an advertisement or defence of the "profession". Our "friend" has a point about "profession", it's more like a job which the entertainment industry is trying to professionalise in the West - more careful selection, training, codes of practice. I see the article's structure is now similar to what I suggested a while ago, although I have not yet re-read it in detail. Give me a message when you want me to go though it again.

Re GA status, only one reviewer's agreement is required. There are processes, some quite formal and less informal, by which GA status can be removed. However AFAIK ranting is not one of them. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I took so long to reply, Ingolfson. I just got home from work now. I would like to add, Philcha, that this is certainly not any fault of yours. I'm glad you've contributed, as you seem to care about the article's condition and subject matter, and you've been nothing but helpful. The problem (for me anyway) are people like our "friend" who has, out of nowhere, joined the fray. People who clearly and distinctly dislike certain people or occupations, as I believe is clearly the case here. What frustrates me the most is that policy is technically on his side, and we really must make that effort to pander to his demands, even though he is almost certainly only here now because some bouncer has given him a hard time on the weekend or some such nonsense. And when I tried to make the effort to look for that first reference, I realised I just couldn't care enough to bother. I'd really like to tell this guy to shove off, but common sense is telling me to play nice. But playing nice means doing what this guy asks or fighting him on this. Do you think the profession stuff is really worthy of attending to here? Because I think I speak for both Ingolfson and myself when I say that we're pretty much fed up to the teeth, and dealing with bullshit from some jackass with a chip on his shoulder just isn't a possibility. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 12:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the guy just rants, then you have to go looking for the odd useful item in the garbage. I remember a similar problem in a chess article, and regrettably at Talk:Clade a couple of people who are too sympathetic for their own good ignored my advice not to feed the troll - which was annoying, because I'd just about got him on a choke-chain. None of which has put me off the subjects concerned, it just increases my interest in anti-troll techniques.

As I said, you should play it really cool and act quietly on any useful items that you find in the rant. That way he gets neither the satisfaction of an argument nor the satisfaction of explicit concessions. However I suggest reducing the use of "profession" etc. in most of the article; and then you could hit back by pointing out the industry- and in some cases government-backed professionalisation of the job (codes of practice, training and possibly certification) for which you already have the refs. At that point if he continues to rant, I'll deal with him, via the WP:DE route if appropriate. >-)

Of course all this assumes you guys want to carry on. If not, ask at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations whether there's a procedure for withdrawing a nomination without getting a "did not meet the GA criteria" at the top of Bouncer (doorman), which is what this troll really wants - you may need to explain why you want to withdraw. If that drops the ranter in the you-know-what, I think only the ranter would be upset. --Philcha (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to drop it. It would make me feel like I'm letting everybody down (oh hey! look! I do still care!) Sooo no, let's not drop it. I think we should press forward. I'll sift through this guy's nonsense and maybe change a few things up to make this guy go away. Honestly though, I'm on a hair trigger fuse at Wikipedia these days, so feel free to add logic to the argument if I become... uncivil, okay? The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 15:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the nuisance and focus on the article. If that doesn't make him bored enough to go way, it's very likely he'll set himself up for his comeuppance. --Philcha (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you guys have seen it yet, but I have already covered his "profession" issue (without, I hope) being too pandering about it. So my main objection is that I don't want to literally spend many hours out of my life to comply with his other laundry list of change requests to then have him say "Nannananaaanaaa - Not good enough!". Thank you for the response, Philcha, we will continue working on your comments. Ingolfson (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're finding your refs, but you're having a hell of a lot more luck than I am just turning up two. After an hour of Googling, I've turned up a couple of articles on recent club security incidents in ENGLAND! Nothing for the east whatsoever. What are you typing in your Google searches? Maybe I'll have better luck if I follow your lead. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 09:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've used Google Books a lot. Also, it helps when there are country specific Google websites - then you can force the search to be in that country only. This page has the links at the right. Also try Google scholar - I haven't yet, maybe worth it. Ingolfson (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also - if you aren't having any luck, maybe alternate by working in some of the links Pilcha has provided us with. That will give you some progress even if the other stuff is going slow. I will be back at this tomorrow, I think. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a "Google Books"? I've got to start using the Internet more. Thanks. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 11:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the stuff you found. Pretty damned good. I was going to say that page 131 would be excellent for Philcha's request regarding criminal association, but I clicked the article and realised you're one step ahead of me again :) We could Harvard reference this stuff if we wanted to. Like how the book itself is referenced. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm going to bed now, already way past my bedtime, gotta be at work in a couple hours. But you may have some additional look by googling (or google booking, even better) - combinations like "triad" and "bouncer" ("bouncing" fails for some reason). Or "yakuza" and "bouncer" or ... well, maybe dig out some other crime groups (non-western preferrably, maybe South America) via Wikipedia's category system and do some searches there.

My personal feeling is that we can leave off standardising the references for now, but feel free to work on that if you want. I admit that I have my own style and don't like some of the official ones - if we start changing we should adapt ALL to achieve consistency, and that is a bit of a task! Ingolfson (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna try that now, since I'll also be in bed soon. Er... the Googling, that is, not the referencing. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AWW YEAH! Eastern culture hit! Yakuza involvement with bouncers AND some extra UK stuff. Sweet as. I'm gonna get this one in before you! The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 12:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You bugger! You've already used that book as a ref! The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 13:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I found some stuff about bouncers working as private military contractors in Iraq, but I can't view the page. Guess that's a copyright thing. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley

See Rastafarianism#Diet. Marley was a vegetarian for religious reasons. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - that was just a drive-by editing regarding something I found odd. If it was for religious reasons, then it should explain this in the article section where it is used, not only in another article. Maybe you could change it to make that clear as you see fit? Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I could, but I won't. I just wanted to let you know. Take care. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Oh well, I will add the explanation then. Ingolfson (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the free time. Thanks for fixing the text. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, stop watchlisting my page then and enjoy life. Obsessive watchlisting / too much Wikipedia-related self-imposed pressure is bad for you - I should know ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

East Coast Basin/Trans-Orient Petroleum/oil shale

Hi, Ingolfson. I knew you are from New Zealand and therefore I'd like to ask your opinion. just find this article and discovered that there is no article in Wikipedia about the East Coast Basin or about Trans-Orient Petroleum. I have a feeling that probably they are worth to have their own articles. What you think? As I am not familiar with New Zealand's topics, maybe you are interested to create these articles or may recommend somebody who may knew this topic better? Regards. Beagel (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As an inclusionist I am always pro new articles - however, I have no special interest in this, so I won't be the one creating them, sorry. Maybe it will be worth your time to produce stubs with those references? Ingolfson (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Devonport, New Zealand

You rated this article as "start class" a couple of days ago, but I think it's better than that. The article has a substantial amount of content, it's well referenced, has some organisation (ie sections and an infobox) and has photos. I would think that would make it C class very easily, and I really don't see why it shouldn't be considered B class, since it seems to meet the criteria laid down at B-Class criteria. I have added some content since your rating.-gadfium 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium. Did I DOWN-rate it? Sorry if I did. I just gave it a sort of "minimum" rating. Feel free to assess and rate higher. Ingolfson (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rating was the first it had received. I'll upgrade it.-gadfium 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for some help

Dear Ingolfson,

As far as I know you're a Kiwi-Wikipedian. I want to ask you some help. I work on some (rather specialized) NZ issues, for instance Eastwoodhill Arboretum. I've done some other (small) NZ things as well. I'm a native Dutchman, and my fluency in English is not too good. May I ask you to have a look at some of my articles from this point of view? Especially Bob Berry (dendrologist), that does not seem to meet some standards. I think it is an important person here in the Gisborne region of New Zealand in the specialized field of trees. It's difficult to get information on / from him. I tried my best on it. But I'm perhaps a bit too involved to have a proper look (I'm working as a volunteer in his arboretum a few months a year). So please, feel free to edit it as rigorous as possible. Same for: William Douglas Cook, who has been of even more importance for NZ (Eastwoodhill and Pukeiti). I like to continue this work, but I'm not really sure if I'm working in the right direction. So please let me know.

Thanx in advance.

Greetings from a fellow Dutch Wikipedian, staying in Tiniroto every now and then for a couple of months, Dick Bos (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dick Bos, not Dutch but happy to help. I have done some work and wikification on Eastwoodhill, hope you like the changes and additions. However, I have too much to do elsewhere on Wikipedia to delve much deeper. Please feel free to ask others for more help at Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board. Also try Google Books as a reference search tool for Bob Berry, maybe. Ingolfson (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:HMNZS Cantebury

Just to let you know, the reason I removed those fields is because in my experience of editing warship articles for the Royal Australian and Royal New Zealand Navies, these fields are either:

• inappropriate for the type of ship (i.e. In/Out of Service is a duplication of Commissioned/Decommissioned, and is appropriate terminology for civilian vessels as opposed to warships, and unless Cantebury moonlighted as a submarine, a test depth value does not exist)
• inappropriate for warships of these navies (as far as I am aware, Commonwealth-based navies do not 'strike' their vessels when leaving service)
• inappropriate for the ship's history (Cantebury was never captured, or if she was, the RNZN has done an amazing job covering it up)
• or are so rarely used for RAN/RNZN ships that either (a) any editor who finds this information to add will have sufficient familiarity with the ship infobox to add the fields, or (b) will add the information instead to the body of the article, and somebody who knows the infobox can come along and add the field.

I approach the infobox by looking at the first-time contributor, the 'inexperienced editor' you speak of: you click the 'edit' button, and the first thing you are confronted with is a screen and a half of heavily-coded gibberish...quite scary for the first-timer, and sometimes scary enough to put them off adding the info in the first place. Also, by removing irrelevant or rarely-used fields from the infobox, it reduces the 'edit window' and 'file' sizes of the article, which in turn reduces loading times and strain on the Wikipedia servers.

On another note, the changes I made to the headings were improve the article's readability and structure, as well as standardising it with other warship articles, both of the RNZN and across Wikipedia. As an example, look at the structure of HMAS Voyager (D04) for what I eventually hoped to achieve with Cantebury

However, I do understand that these changes, while clear-cut in my mind, are not so elsewhere, and I welcome the efforts of others to improve both the content and structure of any article. -- saberwyn 07:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_New_Zealand_suburbs

Just saw the template start popping up on Wellington suburb pages. Wanted to thank you for that, as it is so much nicer than what was on them. Great work! Lanma726 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries - now I would only need to find the time to finally port all Auckland suburbs over! Ingolfson (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruapehu

Hallo, I'm Pifoyde from Italy, your photo of Mount Ruapehu is a photo that you made in winter or summer, because the image says january (summer for you) but I see the snow. Can you answer also in this your page. Thank you. 93.144.31.194 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we are confusing something here - I haven't taken any photos of Ruapehu, at least none that I have uploaded / have on the article. And these mountains are very large - they have permanent snow zones, so January and snow are perfectly feasible. Ingolfson (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:923.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:923.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Christchurch City Council

Thought you might be interested to know that I have changed it to being a article. See here Christchurch City Council —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz26 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good on you. Needs a bit more meat, though. I have added a wee note - I suggest you also hunt around in Newspapers (online or elsewhere) for articles partly or mainly ABOUT the Council if you want to expand the stub. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bridges in New Zealand

I see that you moved Bridges in New Zealand to List of bridges in New Zealand. The article is not really a list since there is some actual prose and I would like to see the article text expanded. I can see the need for two separate articles: one for an actual list of notable bridges and one with info on bridges. Would you consider undoing the move? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think at the moment, it still tends more towards a list (especially with the lists all at the front). I won't oppose you moving it back if you prefer, though. Ingolfson (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Fact" tags for one's own work

Hi, I'm curious about an edit of yours to Auckland Harbour Bridge today in which you added material and tagged it with "fact" ("citation needed"). Is this because you are unsure about the info, or are you pretty sure the info is correct but just don't have a citation to hand? cheers Nurg (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally, the second case. In this case, it almost blends into the first case, as I am not sure if that was just rumour. I'll hunt it down now.Ingolfson (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

index of refraction

Ingolfson- Hi, I just saw your request over at the Talk:Refractive index page. Your request was: "from the above section, I don't get what the EFFECTS of a negative refractive index would be. Anybody can make a try at explaining this a bit more? It certainly sounds like it couldn't mean that light suddenly gets quicker than light..."

I also desire simpler explanations across the board at wiki physics pages. Anyway see if this helps - My explanation starts with refractive index and then goes into negative refractive index. Here goes:

A very important effect of the metamaterials is that these produce a negative refractive index. A negative refractive index is important in the field of advanced stealth technology known as a cloaking device, or an invisibility cloak. This is not possible with natural materials.

(By the way, Ingolfson, physicist have actually created a cloaking device. See the articles listed below.)

Here is a simplified explanation. Refraction is the bending of light as it moves through some sort of transparent medium, such as the lenses of eyeglasses, or a glass of water. Looking at an object, such as a finger, through the glasses the finger probably looks bigger. Stick a pencil in a glass of water, and it seems to sharply bend at an angle. What is happening is the speed of light slows down traveling through the eyeglasses. The same happens as it travels through the glass and the water. In essence the glasses and the glass of water are bending light, or, in other words, refracting the light.

According to Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist, "The speed of light in a vacuum always remains the same, but light traveling through glass or water must pass through trillions of atoms and hence, slows down." The index of refraction is a comparison of the speed of light in a vacuum, to the slower speed of light as it travels through the transparent medium. "The speed of light divided by the slower speed of light inside the medium is called the index of refraction." Since light slows down in glass, the index of refraction is always greater than 1.0." therefore:

• Light in a vaccum = 1
• air = 1.0003,
• glass = 1.5
• diamond = 2.4

Notice again the index of refraction in these natural materials has a positive value. A negative index of refraction would, then, be the exact opposite. In other words, a negative refractive index would, and now does, result in a negative value. According to Dr. Kaku, "every optics textbook says this is impossible." In 1967, when metamaterials were first theorized, by Victor Veselago (from the Soviet Union) they were thought to be bizarre and preposterous.

Usually when a beam of light is bent entering a glass of water it keeps going in a straght line at the angle that it entered. In other words, the index of refraction is constant. Suppose, with a new material the "index of refraction could be controlled at will, so that it could change at every point". As light moves in this new material it could wander, do loop de loops, or multiple "S" curves. With metamaterials the index of refraction can be controlled to move light around, in front, and behind the object, so that the object becomes invisible.

Ames Laboratory in Iowa created a metamaterial that has a in index of -0.6 for red light (wavelegnth = 780 nanometers). Which means that the object cannot be seen in red light. Prior to this physcist were only successful bending infared with metamaterial at wavelength 1,400nm - outside the visible light range. The core concept behind invisibility is twofold. First, no light can reflect off the object, and, second, "the light must bend around the object so that people would see only the background and not the cloaked object itself." quoted from an article in an online science magazin

Here are two articles, with links, that may help also:

Duke Engineering news release "First Demonstration of a Working Invisibility Cloak" http://www.pratt.duke.edu/news/?id=792

Office of News & Communications Duke University. "First Demonstration of a Working Invisibility Cloak" http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/cloakdemo.html

The above explanationtiion I wrote recently and contributed it to an article in wikipedia. There are related topics in other articles that I wrote, too. This explanation has some additions to it though. So, maybe you can see that light is not moving faster than light. Ti-30X (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Ti-30X (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I know more now, but do not understand more yet. The "light with a positive refractory index is slowed down by atoms in objects" makes perfect sense. But I still fail to understand the (apparently not linear) relationship between that speed and the refractory index - as the above quote would still imply that light gets faster on the negative side of the equation/index.

IF I am on the right track, then the relationship is actually less linear in terms of speed, and more about the deflection - i.e. a negative index means a harsher deflection, including backwards (but why negative then, wouldn't that just be a higher value?). Am I on the right track?

Next, I am a bit unsure about how such metamaterials would make an object invisible. Wouldn't it rather create a sort of hole in the images?

Finally, in addition to my above questions, there's still the challange to move all that explanation into the article! Hope you can find the time to make an attempt. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)