User talk:Jheald/Archive 9

Nordic_R1a_Y-DNA_Project

FYI- I am moving to delete the Nordic_R1a_Y-DNA_Project article. It never should have been created and seems to be abandoned.--RebekahThorn (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

States or parameters

You reverted my edit here with a remark.

The reason for the original edit, replacing "parameter" by "state" was because the title of the article is Functions of state and indeed the article is about the state of a thermodynamic system. How, then, can these states be suddenly be called "parameters" by means of your undo? Should the need be to describe a system where the parameters are indeed a function of something (are you familiar with parametric amplifiers? I am.) then you may well have a case. But that is definitely not so in this instance since the title of the article is "Functions of state", not "Function of parameters".

I suggest you replace my edit, please. --Damorbel (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the article talk page. diff Jheald (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create template: Clifford algebra?

Hi! I notice you have extensive knowledge in this area, so thought to ask: do you think this is a good idea to integrate such articles together? It could include articles on GA, APS, STA, and spinors; there doesn't seem to be a template:spinor, recently I may have overloaded the template:tensors with spinor-related/-biased links, although there is a Template:Algebra of Physical Space. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (and haven’t had much chance to look..). Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 22:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I fear too many of the articles may not be ready for prime-time yet. Does advertising them expose too much that isn't really up to scratch; or, alternatively, does it help to get the articles fixed? Not sure. Jheald (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't particularly like sidebar templates. I think they can be confusing if people get dissonance between them and infoboxes -- ie summaries of the article at hand. End-of-article templates can be quite useful though. Jheald (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there's no rush, and the format can be a footer since you and Quondum prefer that (I don't mind). The main reason for starting this idea was because I added too much on spinor topics to the tensor template, and thought an analogous template could apply for spinors or more generally Clifford algebra, for the same reason the tensor template was created. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Tribes

Thanks for contacting me, I'm flattered that you have such a high opinion of my abilities as an editor. I'm not sure, though, I want to get into creating a whole new article - maybe it could be done first as a new section in Israelites, and then hived enough if there's enough to say?

I did a little research - it seems NP Lemche has some useful things to say about the tribal nature of early Israelite society, but that's perhaps not quite what the section/article should be about - it should treat the literary 12 tribes, with whatever can be said about that. I'll see if I can find a few basc books that can serve as an entry point. PiCo (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaac ben Abraham of Dampierre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dampierre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jheald (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jheald. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - Mr X 02:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chatan Bereshit

A tag has been placed on Chatan Bereshit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 21:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Fixed. Jheald (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hornby early logo.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Hornby early logo.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hospice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of haplogroups of notable people

Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a reaction to my comments there on the need for guidelines in this area. I'm struggling with one editor right now and can't find any guidelines other than the usual RS, NOR and copyvio ones to aid me. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user:Maschen/irrep

Just so you have it to hand, I thought to start my own subpage, using a bit of your crystal-clear phrasing in one place - hope it's OK. I don't want to steal any of your work or ideas, just trying out my own thoughts. If we agree, we can merge mine with yours to produce the real mainspace article. Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 21:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracy in your statement about American vs. British punctuation

Hello. Your statement about whether the Wikipedia Manual of Style should continue to require British-style punctuation in all articles contains a factual inaccuracy. In British English, placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks is "just plain wrong." In American English, however, leaving them outside the quotation marks is just plain wrong. One of the threads in this discussion provides a long [| list of sources] confirming this. The main argument in favor of changing WP:LQ is that it requires editors to use punctuation that is "just plain wrong" right now. I realize that this might not change your preferences for British-style punctuation, but it would be best if that preference were not based on misconceptions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. And no, there was no misconception at all. Jheald (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. You might decide that it made more sense to spell "freight" without the g, but you'd be wrong. The real common sense way to write is the way that will communicate effectively with one's readers, and no one's been able to show that American punctuation has any impairments in that respect. If you care so much about accuracy, then you should care about accurate use of the language in which you write. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAP

Please remove that image - Moonriddengirl protected the article pending a decision in the discussion, not pre-empting it. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See talkpage, and edit summary. Best to leave the image in place while it is discussed (as we do for WP:FFD), so the nature and relevance of the image can be straightforwardly assessed. Jheald (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the edit summary says the article was protected to prevent vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on WP ("compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia" -- WP:VANDAL), which this image does not. Jheald (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who Moonriddengirl is? She is the "go to" person for anything relating to copyright on en-WP and it is she who provided whatever edit summary was given. If you want to go wikilawyer with her then feel free but making point-y, pointless changes to the article for spurious purposes is typical of the sort of thing that happens on these articles. I'm surprised to see you doing it. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Actually Moonriddengirl tends to deal more with text than images, focussing on actual copyright and plagiarism problems rather than the intricacies of WP:NFCC, which she tends to leave to the more regulars at WT:NFC. There's no copyright law problem here - in U.S. law terms it's clear fair use. WP's own NFC policy is stricter, but I think it's really only a zealot would argue that presenting the image that the party needs to identify itself with at the polls isn't something significant -- at least as significant as showing a corporate logo, for example -- for the purpose of the key NFCC #8 requirement.

This isn't "making a point-y, pointless change to the article" as you put it. It is restoring relevant, valid content to the article; and facilitating the discussion of it, just as we do when images are up for consideration at WP:FFD.

It also prevents the possibility of the image being auto-deleted for being NFC not currently in use, which can be a pain all round while discussion is still ongoing. Jheald (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is also point-y. There is being bold and there is being silly. Propose the change, by all means, but don't make it. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely appropriate to correct a fair-use rationale, eg replacing not quite right boilerplate text with something more bespoke, in order to better reflect how and why the image is being used. Articles or image pages don't freeze just because a discussion has begun -- often in fact being listed at WP:AFD can be a catalyst for radical improvements in an article, which is entirely appropriate. Similar can be said for amendments to a fair use rationale. Jheald (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party debate

Can you please go through the talk page of this article & comment your opinion on 'battery operated rickshaw driver's protest'

Summary of it is as below.

Topic- Which of the two versions be preferred to go into the protest section of 'Article'

Option A -

ADD - The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi.

KEEP - the rest of the 'protest' section as it is.

Option B -

ADD - On 16 September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported e-rickshaw driver's demand in Delhi that there should be a policy on battery operated rickshaws in the capital city to stop their exploitation by Delhi Transport Department. Party also said that a subsidy should be given to manual rickshaw drivers who want to purchase e-rickshaws. Earlier in June 2013, the party had supported agitations of rickshaw drivers against ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws alleging that the ban is imposed because most rickshaw drivers supported Aam Aadmi party & carried their banners.

remove - On 10 June 2013, Kejriwal supported the agitation of Delhi auto rickshaw drivers, who were protesting the Delhi government's ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws. Kejriwal claimed that, auto rickshaw drivers supported his party and they carried AAP's advertisements on their auto rickshaws and this is the reason for Delhi Government's ban and he challenged that volunteers of AAP will put 10,000 advertisements on auto rickshaws as a protest.

There is no conflict over the validity of citations.--ratastro (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I have any strong interest in. It was the earlier question of images where I felt there was something that needed to be said. Jheald (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Jheald. However I urge you to check this topic as well if you have time, for the improvement of the Article & hence Wikipedia.--ratastro (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Sigh. How do they work? Do they even do Google searches for books, etc? I've found Bulldozer archaeology which first claimed the term was coined by Simcha Jacobovici, and now that he reintroduced it. You wouldn't know it's a common term that's been around since at least the middle of the 20th century, or that Israel was attacked for bulldozer archaeology several years ago. And it should obviously had the archaeology category added. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Tikuko's talk page.
Message added 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]