User talk:Sambc/Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello Sambc! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Evilclown93(talk) 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Offering adoption

Hello Sambc, I'm a relative newcomer (editing for 6 months) here myself but I'm getting the hang of it and would be happy to adopt you if you like. Have a look at my User and talk pages if you want to find out what I've been up to and what my interests are. I've had a quick look at your contributions and I must say it looks like you're getting the hang of this very quickly, and may not need much adopting!! Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

YFGM

I've made some changes and hope that they are useful to you. The book by Thomas Kennedy, to which I refer, is in Friends House Library and I intend to return it soon. Best === Vernon White (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Maidens railway station

Hello, can I ask why you, out of all pages, have deemed Maidens railway station to be non-notable? It is part of an ongoing Wikiproject regarding Scottish transport, past and present. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. There are articles like this for all over the UK (and the world), why have you singled this one out? --Dreamer84 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was simply doing a new pages patrol. AIUI, from my readings of guidelines, we don't have pages for non-notable things even as part of a series. As for being 'singled out', it's the only one I came across on a new page patrol. SamBC 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a historical railway station, it's a partial name-sake for an entire line in Scotland (Maidens and Dunure Light Railway), it has a published source, infact it has several published sources that I haven't gotten round to adding yet, after all it is just a stub. What is it exactly that makes it less notable than Pardshaw Young Friends' Centre, for example? --Dreamer84 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points - firstly, as I've mentioned in the page's talk, I accept that I used teh wrong template, proposal for deletion was too strong, so I've just questioned notability. Secondly, in relation to PYFC, I don't know whether it's notable or not, but it doesn't establish the notability. I'm also not judging a page I've created, and if you want to question the notability of that page, that's fine, if that's what you honestly believe. SamBC 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly to be honest. All I'm really wanting to know is what, specifically, you think makes the Maidens article non-notable? --Dreamer84 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there's nothing to suggest that it is notable. From WP:NOTE, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.". Logic would also seem to suggest that no evidence is required for something to be non-notable, as evidence inherently supports notability. SamBC 22:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Prescott Baronets

Hello. I see that the tag you placed on Prescott Baronets has been removed. There has been a debate on whether every Baronet is notable but I don't think the concept on having an article on every baronetcy has ever been questioned. Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies to find out more. I see that you have been adding deletion tags to several articles on different subjects and also that you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. I would advise you to have a look around to see if there are articles on similar topics before adding a deletion tag to an article. Regards, Tryde 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

V Gupta

Comment moved to appropriate article talk page and replied to. SamBC 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Chafik

Please read the external link about Mohammed Chafik. He is a scholar with a great reputation and the author of many articles and books.S711 09:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well?S711 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my French isn't quite up to it, but seeing as the page in question now redirects to a perfectly good (at the very least) page, I have no issues. SamBC 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.S711 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

sampling deletions

I've got some experience with this sort of thing too, but if you will take a look at the deletion log you will see that sorting out the relevant types of deletions is the problem, not doing the sampling. I have some experience doing log analysis, once some computer type has prepared the extract. If you know how to do that we could work out some criteria. DGG (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have some experience of statistical coding, but the difficulty I have is that I can't get all the information necessary to define a coding scheme as I'm not an admin. If I had some sample data of the data that's available (other than the full page history - delete log info including comment, and where there was a speedy tag the specifics of the tag, then I could define a coding scheme that's fairly idiot-proof, and any admin who wants to cooperate can do some sampling. I can also provide support as to making a random selection, if that's necessary. SamBC 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I emailed you a sample.--it is perfectly legit for me to send you any amount of material for analysis, but as you will see, Im not sure what would help. I could just as well scan for the relevant items, and then click the link. DGG (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And see [1] DGG (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, I can't see any mention of deleted pages on that link, and the material you sent implies that there's a feed specifically for deleted pages. SamBC 06:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that problem. we may have to ask one of the developers.DGG (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Hi. I noticed you removed my vote on the change of upload features. You say the Village pump is not a place for votes, where then? Wasn't there an active vote on change of the talk page name? I need consensus from people to get this live. I tried the Village pump, I tried MediaWiki talk:Common.js and I tried the Village pump again. Everywhere I get sent somewhere els. Everyone seems to like the idea, but I can't get it trough. No one want's to make the change. Can't we just have a vote on the Village pump? --Steinninn 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When I said 'here' I meant wikipedia - consensus != vote, and in general people don't create sets of blank sections. Because consensus is reached through debate, rather than voting, oppose comments are often direct replies of support comments, and vice-versa, so don't want to be in seperate sections. Nor should anyone really be counting the number of supports and opposes. SamBC 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So, if my last message goes trough the Village pump without a reply (again), would you add the feature to the js? --Steinninn 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally wouldn't do it, but then I don't much care and don't have the know-how ;)

However, I guess it's a case of being bold. No-one has supported, no-one has objected, if it's within your power to make the change then make it and be ready for people to revert it. That usually manages to kick-start a debate. SamBC 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If I had the power I would have. I'm only an admin on is:, not here. I feel trapped in this. I'll leave this for now. Thanks for the help. --Steinninn 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

quick note: your monobook.js

I just made a minor edit to your monobook.js page, to add nowiki and /nowiki tags to two comments so that your page wouldn't be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The problem was with the Easy DB script in particular. As other users are usually restricted from editing one's monobook.js page (admins aren't), I'm making sure you know exactly what I did - please contact me if there are any related problems whatsoever. Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.l) 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

modafinil

Please check the suggested wording in the talk page. Jclerman 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

I appreciate it is hard to judge what will be contentious and what will not be contentious, but when it comes to policy pages it is generally best to discuss and build a consensus on the talk page before making changes. Not only that, but if the changes are reverted, then it becomes clearer that the changes are disputed and that a consensus will need to be demonstrated and that an agreement will be needed before amending the policy. Please don't edit war on our policy pages. Our policy pages really shouldn't be protected, especially not for long periods of time, it can prove disruptive to the project and that's not good. Yes, it can be annoying that the policy doesn't read to your satisfaction at a particular instance, but your actions will last longer and be less disruptive if you discuss and build a consensus, or come to some sort of an agreement first. Given the recent history of Wikipedia:Verifiability I am of the opinion that rather than protecting the page it is now time to consider issuing blocks to prevent our policy pages being disrupted in this manner. If established users cannot get their heads together and settle disagreements amicably on these cornerstones of the project, what example does that set the rest of our users. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if that means a page exists in the wrong version for an hour or a day, so be it. Where this impacts upon the wider encyclopedia, for example where someone amends policy forcibly to prove points in an ongoing debate, then the appropriate action is to raise the matter at the admin's noticeboard to seek a neutral consensus on the issue. Please consider this a friendly pointer; we're all working towards the same goal. Happy editing and good luck with the discussion. Steve block Talk 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, which edit are you referring to? If it's the quotations bit, I was trying to prevent a meaning-changing edit that hadn't been consulted on, and changed it to what it seemed to be saying; certainly I'm in no doubt that it was nearer to the meaning of the original version than the change that had been made to claim that only contentious quotes needed citations. The previous editor hadn't built a consensus, and following a revert made another edit that had the same affect on meaning. I'm going to assume good faith that you didn't see the flow of edits around the one I made. If it's other edits, then I've only been reverting, because I completely agree that we need consensus first. SamBC 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I apologise unreservedly if my form letter upset you and was worded inappropriately, or that it did not apply to you. I can only ask that you understand it was written because I don't want to see the page protected again. The page has been protected too frequently for my liking recently, and for me it's neutral to simply treat all reverters the same, so as not to be seen picking sides. Hope you can understand. Steve block Talk 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

SamBC, your revert with the edit summary "A bit of vague agreement in talk over a few hours does not equal consensus" was uncalled for. The edit does have consensus so far as I know. The "vague agreement in talk" that you refer to is not the days long discussion that established cocsensus over the substance of my edit. And we don't typixally discuss ahead of time every slight rewording that preserves substance. Please stay out of editing a page if you can't keep up with the contents of its talk page. WAS 4.250 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point to the discussion that established consensus? I've read the talk page, I've been following for quite a while, and I can't see consensus. While people are making sincere objections backed up by reasoning (that aren't simply repeating points that have been well-refuted and accepted as such) then it's not consensus. Consensus might not mean everyone agreeing, but it does mean that everyone (less genuine troublemaking) is okay with the proposal. If someone objects and refuses to listen to reason and engage in debate, then fine, ignore them (sort of), but if people are being reasonable be reasonable back. SamBC 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the various sections starting with "Blanking unsourced articles and tagging them for speedy deletion as empty?" starting 7 July 2007 and pay attention to newbie editor named Until(1 == 2) and the consensus against him by established editors. WAS 4.250 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's certainly a consensus that blanking and speedying articles was bad and shouldn't happen (except, presumably, in cases of rampantly abusive pages that exist only to be abusive). That doesn't immediately lead to consensus towards the language you suggested, especially as there are more recent discussions that seem to be inconclusive, especially with Jimbo weighing in. SamBC 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy reform

Can you think of what or two easily implementable obviously desirable reforms to start out with? DGG (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean in relation to the current discussion, or the earlier discussions about lone-admin deletions? SamBC 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Matador (toy)

I edited a page Matador_(toy), a user named user:Jimfbleak deleted it. You notified me. I put a hangon on that page, but the same user deleted the same page again only two days later. Thats not like Wikipedia ought to work. FranzN 14:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right that it's not; I recall that I tagged the page once, but I did not delete it (not being an admin), and was not involved in any later deletion in any way. I think there may be a cause for concern here; perhaps you should try approaching the deleting admin in good faith to figure out a way forward. There if, of course, always the deletion review process as well. SamBC 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments on proposal re: unsourced stubs & articles

I've just posted a recommendation that addresses the issue of encouraging proper sourcing which sidesteps (for now) the matter of pushing for deletion. Based on your earlier comments, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption:

Hello! I saw that you were looking for adoption, and I have decided to offer my services to you. If you do not want me to adopt you, please notify me on my talk page and I will think nothing of it. If you would like to consider my offer, then I'd like you to look over my program at User:HAL2008/Adopt, and decide whether it looks like the right kind of program for you. I see that you've already got a few edits under your belt, and that's great, as such, I would like you to specify things that you would like to go over on the list of steps in the program. Feel free to get back to me whenever, I'm only a click away. --HAL2008talk 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification:

Hi, I saw your comment on the Kunt and the Gang (band) deletion article. I am happy to add the things you suggested but please can you advise the best way/how to do this properly? I checked out another band I like on here Thunderstone (band) and they don't seem to have any proof they have released albums, been on tours and had reviews in various press. They also don't seem to have a deletion article about them. I know Kunt and the Gang are a bit more risque but surely that doesn't change anything? does it?

If you could point me to the relevant help files it would be great. Thanks a lot --Catten666 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta very much, think it's OK now.--Catten666 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Editing and Formatting Help

I would like to thank the person or persons who helped clean up this article. Since the author is new to Wikipedia, it is very difficult for new and inexperienced authors to include all of the editing and formatting used on Wikipedia. Thank you.--JSHibbard 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hand hygiene tags

TAG

This article or section contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Please help improve this article by removing or rewriting the how-to content, which may qualify for a move to Wikibooks.

I do not understand why you keep insisting the hand hygiene article is teaching. It is debunking myths and misinformation and presenting the facts "truths" about hand hygiene.

The hand washing article teaches the following:

Personal hand washing To maintain good hygiene, hands should always be washed after using the toilet, changing a diaper, tending to someone who is sick, or handling raw meat, fish, or poultry. Hands should also be washed before eating, handling or cooking food. Conventionally, the use of soap and warm running water and the washing of all surfaces thoroughly, including under fingernails is seen as necessary. One should rub wet, soapy hands together outside the stream of running water for at least 20 seconds, before rinsing thoroughly and then drying with a clean or disposable towel.[1] After drying, a dry paper towel should be used to turn off the water (and open the exit door if one is in a restroom or other separate room). Moisturizing lotion is often recommended to keep the hands from drying out, should one's hands require washing more than a few times per day. [2]

Why was the hand washing article accepted by Wikipedia? There is some inconsistency here. Please explain!--67.65.59.153 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're actually JSHibbard, just from context... but if not, it doesn't matter. To answer your question, it's a matter of encyclopedic tone; that is to say, whether it is written in a way one would expect content to be written in an encyclopedia. It's hard to pin down, but the wikipedia Manual of Style tries to give a good guide. I think the problem with Hand hygiene is that it reads like an information leaflet. Personally, though, I think the content is very much salvageable. SamBC 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Howe (headmaster) nominated for deletion

You might like to look at this given further expalnation of references. Tallum 02:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sir Johnathan Major

Thank you for your comment. The name is, in my opinion, wholly unacceptable under the wiki policy currently in force, and, with respect, I do not see a need to reverse my block. You will notice that he is only softblocked, and is perfectly free to edit under another username. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardison

I switched to neutral pending improvements. I'll look in tomorrow, but then I'm offline until Sunday night, but I don't think it will close until after that. But even if it does, my neutral won't count either way. If he's not an academic, try to fit it into WP:BIO . There are a couple of links to some good news and periodical searches on my user page. - Crockspot 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at those. SamBC(talk) 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WT:COI

Sam, per WP:TALK, please move your talk page comments to the end of my remarks, instead of breaking them up so that they are harder for other people to read. It's unclear which comments are mine and which are yours the way you did it. Thank you very much. THF 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No. 5, "This reasoning should be as complete as you can manage." contradicts the general WP consensus that it is better to state talk-page reasoning in a short and concise manner. Experienced editors will know to disregard this recommendation in the right circumstances, but I worry about the newbies, many of whom need no encouragement to be unnecessarily verbose. Just a suggestion, not enough to make me oppose it. THF

Thanks, you're right, I wasn't sure how to word that. I've tried a different way now. SamBC(talk) 01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi. I see that you've requested adoption, and I'd like to offer to adopt you. If you wish to accept, please leave a message on my talk page. --Sopoforic 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but I didn't want to leave you all alone, if you still wanted adoption. I'm glad you've found your place here. Happy editing! --Sopoforic 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

EFD

This does not really misrepresent Wikipedia policy, because the page it links to (WP:EFD) has a humour tag on top of it. If you want to make it more obvious that the template is humorous, please propose it on the talk page. If you want to delete it, nominate it for MFD. Thanks! Melsaran 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Notability of Gregory Reyes

Hi. I don't believe that it matches the criteria you suggested as there is a clear claim of notability that the individual is the former CEO of a notable company, which has an article on Wikipedia, and has been subject to a high profile case, covered extensively by the media. This must surely count at least as a claim to notability. AugustSauce 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - put that explanation on the article talk page, and it will be reviewed by whichever admin decides to look at it first, and it will influence their decision. SamBC(talk) 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already done that. It is not a question of whether you are convinced of the claim, it is a question of whether there is or is not a claim. If there is any doubt it should not be deleted. If you read the criteria more closely you will see this. AugustSauce 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know that, I'm saying I'm not convinced that it constitutes a claim to notability, nor that the court case is; the court case is probably notable in itself, mind you. It's just that there's no shortage of major CEOs who've committed fraud. But if you're sure, then you have my blessing to remove the tag. SamBC(talk) 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Warren Article

This is in regard to the Jim Warren (Artist) article that was deleted.

I'm not sure what is required to "assert notability". I can provide some links which I believe satisfy the notability requirement, but I'm not really sure how to incorporate them into the article.

Some Amazon.com links:

• Painted Worlds

• The Art of Jim Warren

• Making Friends (Disney Giclee Print)

Internet Speculative Fiction Database bibliography.

Warren's painting for the cover of the Bob Seger album Against the Wind won the 1981 Grammy Award for Best Album Package.

I don't think assertion of notability should be a criterion for speedy deletion. Deletion, perhaps, but lack of assertion is not lack of notability. I don't get to WP every day; if there had been more time, at the very least I could have added this information to the External Links section, if nothing else.

Firstly, a speedy deletion doesn't prejudice against recreation, although one must take care to avoid meeting the same criterion again. Assertion of notability is required to avoid speedy deletion per WP:CSD, the policy for speedy deletions. If you look at criterion A7, it states that articles about people (and a few other things) may be speedily deleted if they do not assert the notability of the person. That is, it should be obvious to a reader why this particular person should be in an encyclopedia. Links and references don't fulfil this unless there is a mention of some particularly notable characteristic within the article text. You may also like to review the notability guidelines. SamBC(talk) 16:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Balls4balls

Balls4balls is blatant because it describes...well, a man's testicles. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Or rugby balls, football balls, tennis balls... hence, not blatant. SamBC(talk) 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The name means "somebody cuts your balls off cut theirs off". I've stuff like that before. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a colloquial phrase that isn't commonly known, mention that in your submission at WP:RFCN. SamBC(talk) 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave it there and see what an admin thinks of it? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read WT:UAA, you'll see that it's considered appropriate for any user to remove usernames they consider non-blatant, and that it's not appropriate for a user to re-add that name. SamBC(talk) 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like an admin to look at it is all. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It it's not blatant, it should be on WP:UAA, it should be on WP:RFCN. Admins are not the only people equipped to challenge the blatant-ness, although only they should determine definitively that is, by blocking the username. SamBC(talk) 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just contacted an admin, see what that guy thinks. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He can't decide either, so I'll go to RFCN. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Connel MacKenzie blocked my wiktionary account

Could you look into why wiktionary user Connel MacKenzie blocked my wiktionary account "Hollow are the Ori"? Can someone be blocked from Wiktionary for removing the unref tag? I thought you were ok with its removal after I changed "often" to "sometimes"?

Note: I was banned from Wikipedia (not wiktionary) for 1 year but have served more than my time and I do not think it right that my Wikipedia history somehow gets me arbitrarily blocked from wiktionary. zen master T 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you were blocked from wiktionary, especially as Connel MacKenzie seems to agree with you (asking for a reference that it can be used non-pejoratively). I'll have a look into it. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is all a part of the conspiracy to prevent the truth behind the phrase "conspiracy theory" from being exposed. :-) Allegedly I was blocked from wiktionary for "POV" pushing, since when did that become a blockable offense? What specific wiktionary edits does Connel MacKenzie think are a problem? An indefinite block from Wiktionary for doing nothing is a severe injustice. zen master T 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that, unless there's a conspiracy to spin it in each direction... anyway, POV pushing is certainly seen as blockable (to a point) here, dunno about wiktionary. It's something bad to do, if people persist after being warned then a block (a short one) is usually seen as reasonable. This situation does not seem reasonable. I've contacted him, so now it's a case of waiting for a reply. SamBC(talk) 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't possibly be blocked for POV pushing if all you are doing is discussing on the talk page? zen master T 01:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

civility

re your most recent comment - since it follows mine, some may thin you are addressing me. Well, okay, if you think it is necessary - but you should be clear. It is ambiguous. i request that you name whomever you are addressin the comment to. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reindented it, and the context makes it pretty clear. I didn't actually notice your comment when I made mine, but I'll edit to clarify who's being addressed, as you raised the concern. SamBC(talk) 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

How is my behavior here on Wikipedia different than on wiktionary? Just because my conspiracy theory/title neutrality proposal is unpopular doesn't mean it is wrong. No one has yet come up with an argument that successfully champions the usage of "conspiracy theory" in the title of an article in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. zen master T 01:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they have come up with such arguments, they just haven't convinced you (or you haven't accepted them, which is much the same thing). They follow logical consistency and make sense, and you seem to simply refuse to address them. The key point is that just because a term can be used pejoratively, it doesn't follow that all uses of it are (for example, "nazi"). You seemed, on wiktionary, to be able to accept this as a compromise position and work to represent it. Here on wikipedia, you seem to be doggedly sticking to the argument that, because it might be seen pejoratively it mustn't be used in an article title. However, the definitions given in several respected dictionaries are in line with the basic, matter-of-fact definition that others in the discussion are using - a theory positing the existence, or details, of a conspiracy. SamBC(talk) 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are countless examples on wikipedia talk pages of "conspiracy theory" being used pejoratively in reference to most "conspiracy theory" titled articles. Phrases that have more than one meaning shouldn't be used in a title especially when there are numerous non ambiguous alternatives. zen master T 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous rebuttals of your assertion that the term is being used pejoratively, and reasonable arguments have been made against every alternative phrasing you have suggested. Please note that support has been indicated for retitling to the form "conspiracy theories regarding X". SamBC(talk) 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Their rebuttals fall short I believe. Why are only non "mainstream" theory articles on wikipedia titled with "conspiracy theory"? Politically inconsistent application of a phrase is evidence it's being used pejoratively on wikipedia. An official explanation for something can just as easily be labeled a "conspiracy theory" in the literal sense as an alternative explanation if both explanations allege people conspired. For some apparently political reason the phrase isn't applied to "mainstream" theories/explanations on wikipedia. zen master T 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello Sam, I noticed that you added yourself to the list of potential parties in the White people mediation case. I presume that this means you'll be willing to mediate with me? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the case; I've been involved in the debate quite quietly on the article talk page, and I now feel led to wade in and try to (very politely, and figuratively speaking) bash some heads together. I've been trying to do this a bit on the article talk page as well. SamBC(talk) 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're willing to be involved, by the way, I'm a new mediator, so please be patient if I screw up. Thanks, Neranei (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems fine so far. SamBC(talk) 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And, by the way, if you want something to be private regarding this mediation, please email me. Thanks, Neranei (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem, mayhap?)

Up yours! --Kevin Murray 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke, or a personal attack? If you feel my edit summary was a personal attack, I apologise, it was not meant as such. Retaliating with a profane personal attack isn't a constructive way to deal with it. If your response was meant as light-heartedly as my comment was, then I think we ought to clarify that's the meaning to clear the air. SamBC(talk) 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see either comment as light hearted. I resent your unfounded and semi-hidden implication. I'm happy to let the matter drop, but if you have a problem with me or question my motivations, please contact me with your concerns at my talk page, but don't make snide accusations in the summary. Peace? Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs).

Let me assure you that my use of the term "ad hominem" was a reference to the logical fallacy, and like (almost) all logical fallacies there's no judgement on the person using them unless they're trying to make a formal logical argument, which virtually every discussion on wikipedia isn't. No offence intended, and I have no problem with you our your motivations. SamBC(talk) 14:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. But I'd say that your summary should not include concepts or comments not included in the actual comment. But let' let it go and work togeher for a better result on the project. I appologize for an over reaction. --Kevin Murray 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, no worries. SamBC(talk) 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there. Yes, I'm the Marnanel you think I am. How's life these days? Marnanel 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Complicated... hopefully I'll catch you on IRC at some point. SamBC(talk) 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Horrors of War is back

FYI - Richfife 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You already noticed. - Richfife 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

White people

Please don't create temp pages in the article space. You can either create them in the Talk mainspace or your userspace. For now I have moved the article to User:Sambc/White people/Compromise version. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. Please see the discussion I mentioned at Talk:White people - bottom of the page. SamBC(talk) 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR talk

I didn't mean to be obnoxious but i just want to see this debate resolved so people can move on, and not have the talk page turn into thirty different threads again. I know you were making a reasonable point, I just think we really need focus on resolving specific conflicts now. Any talk should be supporting one resolution or another ...Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind you or anyone proposing alternative solutions to the conflict - I just think they should be presented as alternative solutions to the conflict i.e. concrete proposals or arguments for or against concrete proposals rather than abstract discussion. There has been a month of abstract discussion. It is time to start resolving disputes, even if only (as indeed is the nature of Wikipedia) provisionally. My hope is it will be easier to do it if we focus on just one or two disputes at a time, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB and White People

I admire your patience, tenacity, and reasonableness. Nevertheless, your recent edits on the talk page, noble in intent and sound though they may be, amount to feeding a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My intent with the last one was to give him one last attempt to show that he's not trolling by actually answering the question. My plan from there is to ignore, and if he disrupts in non-ignorable ways to consider more formal DR. SamBC(talk) 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will try to do the same, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

I just added something to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not.

Does that serve to do what you just suggested, at least in part? --Minasbeede 10:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of... I've responded there in general. I think we need to address the discussion at NOR directly as well, which is what I was trying to imply (heavily) to people. SamBC(talk) 10:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

cracking nuts

Your choice of words makes me wonder if you've read Fowler's "Modern English Usage"

(copied from a newsgroup where I quoted it long ago):

Fowler, "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage," 4th printing (1950):

"prig is a word of variable and indefinite meaning .... A p. cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. ... On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things -- the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, & the blindness to the difference in value between different things."

I should have looked: it's quoted better in the Wikipedia article on "prig." --Minasbeede 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

gender-neutral proposal

Sam—I've compromised in two places, because I'm keen to achieve consensus. [2] Tony 02:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, and thoroughly unobjectionable (except to people who like tradition for tradition's sake). Here's hoping it's found acceptable! SamBC(talk) 09:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Missed seeing your invitation to collaborate that you made on the talk page for WP:NOT until just now.

I think the talk discussion for WP:NOR is going well: it should work out well to a good consensus resolution. I've made suggested contributions at NOR and at NOT: any of that found useful can be grabbed, altered, and put in a policy.

I see you believe in jury nullification. Some time ago I added the last reference (Moglen) to the John Peter Zenger page. While that's directly not about jury nullification it is about one of the milestone cases for jury nullification and in any case it's interesting to read. The deviousness of the government is shockingly apparent and it's fascinating even to me (An American) to see a lawyer's summation refer to Star Chamber decisions. Of course at the time of the Zenger trial that was a British court: the US was still far in the future. --Minasbeede 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"One"

Hi Sam. Thanks for the info. (I'm rapidly losing my French and really shouldn't comment on it in detail.) I should have written "gallic phrasing" rather than borrowing. I don't believe the word itself was imported (indeed, un and one are no doubt cognates from Indo-European) but I believe English speakers took to using it in speech in imitation of the French in the ME period. However, the usage has never fully settled into the language and five hundred years on people are still not comfortable with it. Ditto the of genitive: 'Oxford University' is "real" English, while 'University of Oxford' is gallic phrasing. In this case, it has entered ordinary speech.

So I've heard anyhow :). Marskell 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam

So you can place CSD11 tags on Userpages, when it applies? I'm a bit vague on that area (I thought you prodded instead)? -WarthogDemon 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"G" criteria can be put on anything, if they apply. At least, as far as I'm aware. SamBC(talk) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The principle of principles

I am developing a new essay at Wikipedia:The rules are principles. Your input and advice would be quite welcomed. Cheers! Vassyana 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry about that! Didn't mean to remove those names too. -Yancyfry 02:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, there'll usually be someone paying attention after all ;) SamBC(talk) 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Midge Potts. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

Since Jinxmchue refused the mediation request, I would like a vote on your thoughts on whether or not I should file an arbitration case here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there. SamBC(talk) 16:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR disputed section tag

I saw that you added a disputed section tag to NOR again. In the past, other editors have used disputed tags essentially as trolling devices, fighting over whether or not a disputed tag should appear even though it was clear that there was consensus for the guideline or policy. So you should be aware that editors like myself have come to view the placement of a dispute tag, with great skepticism, as the equivalent of yelling "wolf!". When you continue to reinsert the dispute tag, you run the risk of identifying yourself with former editors who have abused it by continuing to add it when there was no real dispute, just as the boy who cried wolf wasn't believed when the wolf came to eat him. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What situation, exactly, is the disputed tag appropriate for, in that case? SamBC(talk) 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it's useful for very much anymore, because of its history of abuse. One possible positive use would be as a compromise if everyone agreed to let the tag remain while an issue was discussed, as a sort of compromise. I'm sure that there must be other possible positive uses. But if there is no sign that the dispute tag is helping to move discussion forward, there's no reason to use it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea is that when there's an active, non-trivial dispute regarding a section, it's useful to the rest of the wikipedia population to know that when they're reading the policy page. SamBC(talk) 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, just as I agree it's useful to yell out "wolf!" when there is a wolf approaching... unless so many people have done it falsely before you that the main effect of doing it is to associate yourself with those people rather than alerting anyone about a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my impression from the talk page that even those who disagree with the idea of removing that section are agreeing that it should be reworded... are you essentially saying that the tag might be justified, but because of general misuse the tag really shouldn't be used at all anymore? SamBC(talk) 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. If it's clear that everyone agrees there is a dispute, then the tag doesn't hurt anything and might inform someone that there is a discussion going on. So I think it would be OK to use the disputed tag then. But when people start adding and removing the tag over and over, it's only a distraction that doesn't help reach consensus on the actual content being disputed. The most recent example was with Wikipedia:Article message boxes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

UAA

No, you're not too critical at all. I am a neophyte, and am trying to learn my way around UAA. Thank you so much for your concern and help! I really appreciate the feedback. Don't hesitate to tell me if I screw up. Thanks again! Love, Neranei (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

List of nontheists

Hello Sambc! How are you? I think you should look at my argument on AfD for List of nontheists. Thank you. RS1900 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You've got some! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Fair enough - was in a bit of a hurry. Apologies. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that template message meant for someone else? Looks like all the names I reported were blocked. Blueboy96 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed at least two... if someone else ended up blocking them anyway, that's not my call, and I can't recall them all, but there was at least one that really wasn't blatant, in terms of what UAA is for. SamBC(talk) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rescue tag back onto article pages

hi, thank you for your insight. I'd rather have one conversation than two so what would be the most sensible step to take to get the template back on the article page? I've heard mention that the project and the tag should be separate and iI kind of thought they were as the template was free for anyone to use on any article but if some step should be taken to solidify that then maybe that should be entertained. Any thoughts or energy for helping start this effort? Benjiboi 08:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seperating them would be the best bet in my opinion. I have no specific ideas as to exactly to get this established, although I seem to recall there being a forum for "standard" article templates. I'll have a look for that and let you know; watch this space. I may propose the template as such if and when I find the place to do so. The catch-all place for discussions is, of course, the Village Pump. SamBC(talk) 11:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to help however so if nothing else let me know and I'll be happy to prod things. I doubt that anyone cares if the ARS and template are officially connected, the goal is the save appropriate articles so that agenda keeps in check the rest. Benjiboi 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:TM about where to try to talk about it. Let's see what people say. SamBC(talk) 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Username Report

RubyTuesday425 (talk · contribs) closely resembles the Ruby Tuesday chain of restaurants in the United States. STORMTRACKER 94 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

edit to WP:U

I don't think that phrase (about real names that seem inappropriate) is necessary because real names are never actually inappropriate. Yes, theoretically, someone could actually be named something offensive, or they could have the same name as a company, but this doesn't actually happen (and even if it did, would such a person want to use their real name online?). The "real names" section doesn't say anything because it's not needed. Frankly, the only purpose I can see in that phrase is to give trolls a chance to try to cause more trouble by wikilawyering. If you disagree let's have a discussion on WT:U but I'm hoping you'll understand my point and self-revert. Mangojuice^talk 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think there's somewhere we need to meet in the middle here. I'll start a section on WT:U. SamBC(talk) 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment from January 10 on the WP:UAA/Bot talk page. Yes, I think there needs to be a concerted effort to get AzaToth to change Twinkle. I've complained about it several times already but he never responds. Do you want to have a go at it? Mangojuice^talk 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried at least once before, some time ago now... possibly twice... It would be better, I think, if we could present to him a consensus on the matter from regulars at WT:U and WP:UAA. Then there's an implicit possibility of taking further action to compel, not to mention the fact that it can't be brushed off as one person griping. SamBC(talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA template

I was trying to leave a {{shortcut}} template, like the one at WP:ANI and so forth. However, the div style I used probably displays differently based on browser; I'll look around and see if there's anything that works uniformly. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. I readded the shortcuts, and they display properly in Internet Explorer and Firefox. How does it look for you? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks fine, now that it's inside the instruction box. SamBC(talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HannahMontana13

Sorry, I made a mistake in my research. Not a big fan, and i thought that was her name. Oops, :)Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I Goofed My Research Too

I need to brush up on what's acceptable and what isn't. Sorry about the error. :P -WarthogDemon 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

advice please

Thanks for your post to my page. Where should I file my complaint? Administrator noticeboard? Thanks, Renee (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think that WP:AN/I is a good place to go. SamBC(talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I notice that I did not follow the steps properly. I've posted a request on his talk page and then I'll do the RFC for usernames. Renee (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Teabagger99 (talk · contribs)

See Teabagging. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I undid it (Vector (physical) )

rescue template - reasons for deletions not compatible with rescue I'm willing to learn more about the governing policy. But I don't think the intent of WP deletion policy would want a link to a deletion discussion removed while it was ongoing. So that is why I have undone your change. If you can site policy (including links whenever possible) that might help me understand where you are coming from. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The link to the deletion discussion is also in the AFD template, so no linkage was lost. SamBC(talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bitemerance71

Is a sockpuppet (see User:Runtshit) with over 350+ incarnations thus far. I realize I should have been more descriptive, but Bite me Rance (which is a barb against RolandR (talk · contribs), a respected contributor here) seems pretty straightforwardly offensive to me. Regards, Tiamut^talk 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of WP:UAA do make it clear that, however obvious you think it is, an explanation is needed. Looking at that name, I certainly wouldn't have seen "bite me rance" without it being pointed out; that is one reason for requiring explanations. On the sockpuppetry issue, issues of sockpuppetry are not for WP:UAA. SamBC(talk) 11:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks you for the clarification. Would you recommend that I refile the report over the offensive user name, or let those dealing sockpuppets respond to the template appended at User:Bitemerance71's talk page? Tiamut^talk 12:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave it to the sockpuppet issues to deal with, but that's partly because I wouldn't be too happy with it being it UAA even with a full explanation; as a username concern, I think it would otherwise be best dealt with through discussion and recourse to WP:RFCN if necessary. SamBC(talk) 12:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations

• Comment Google Scholar finds about 28 results for "Myrzakulov equations", a number of which are cited by authors other than the 5 writing papers on these equations. Just for information, I'm still not sure where I'm coming down on this article. SamBC(talk) 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• To get an idea about "notability" via Google Scholar, try checking the individual, rather than the coinage. To get some perspective in this case try first: "R. Myrzakulov" (or just "Myrzakulov"); then try, e.g. "P. Winternitz" (a colleague in my laboratory, of sound, but modest "notability"), then try "E. Witten". Then draw your conclusions about notability. (I don't hear of anyone speaking about "Witten equations", although he has discovered, and studied, plenty that are fundamental in Mathematical Physics, and has won, amongst other things the Fields Medal ). R_Physicist (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to argue in any particular direction, and I'd prefer the discussion of this AfD stay on the AfD page, thanks. No point fracturing discussion. I'd appreciate you duplicating your response above on the AfD in question. SamBC(talk) 13:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just noticed this request now, since I have been a bit preoccupied, on this Easter weekend, with other things (like family). When "tuning in" to this debate I realized that I was now under the continued "attack" of a VERY disruptive individual, "Cheeser1" who has been vandalizing my entries, and those of others, and reorganizing the thing according to his tastes and inclinations. I must say, this us turning into a very unpleasant experience, and has made me and, I think, others think twice about whether we wish to ever have anything to do with Wikipedia again. You may have seen my post "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" (which has been several times vandalized by "Cheaser1"), which pretty well summarizes my feelings at the moment.

In response to your request, I think I would rather not transfer this to the AfD page, because that is becoming too cluttered and confused by now, and we never know when something will be removed or relocated by friend "Cheaser1". Also, since I mentioned a colleague by name, I would prefer to keep this as a more-or-less private exchange, although anyone, of course can read it, if they wish. It was just meant as a hint as to how to more effectively make use of such sources as Google Scholar. It should never be used on a "one shot" basis, since that provides no standard, or scale of comparison; it should always be used within a group of somewhat similar nature, otherwise, the numbers mean nothing. I have learned this from trying to use it in things like grant evaluation committees. Even in very neighboring disciplines, the scale of citations within the two groups may be an order of magnitude different, so using such figures naively could lead to gross misunderstandings of their significance. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Part of the point is that wikipedia doesn't require any sort of relative importance within a field; the threshold for inclusions is, fundamentally, the wikipedia definitio of notability. SamBC(talk) 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM: IEC Prefixes

Sambc, I recently commented on Talk:MOSNUM that I rather appreciate what you said with your point #2. Unless it was a Trojan horse—and I have no reason to suspect you intended it as such—it reveals to me that you see very limited utility for the IEC units of measure because they have been so poorly adopted in the real world. So what exactly is it about the current proposal that is a deal breaker for you? Is it over its hard-line remedy for deprecating existing articles? Greg L (my talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a hard-to-describe combination of things, but there are probably two main points:

• I'm uncomfortable with both the "fixing" of old articles, which is very likely to generate bad feeling, and the phrasing which can easily be read as outlawing the units in anything except direct quotes. Those points I have already mentioned.
• While it makes sense to significantly discourage the use of IEC prefixes, something as strong as your proposal clearly doesn't have consensus, and we follow consensus even when it clearly doesn't make sense; mischievous and trolling arguments can be discounted, but that isn't what people are using.

I am confident that a sensible result can be achieved, but at the moment we seem to have a bit of a problem with some parties being very hard line, on both sides of the debate. Compromise is at the heart of consensus. SamBC(talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Current articles

Sambc, can you provide me with an example article which exemplifies “articles where the primary cited source uses the IEC 60027-2 prefixes”? Greg L (my talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked; but if we can write a guideline that takes care of the real-world behaviour changing without making our guideline really ridiculous, that's a plus. We don't know everything that's happening now, let alone what will happen in even the near future. Fnagaton seems to get what I'm getting at with this; real-world consensus might change, and we can make our guideline allow for that, and we should. If you're right that that won't ever happen, then nothing is actually lost and the practical meaning won't change. SamBC(talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, understood. Of course, the policy could always be modified in the future if circumstances changed in the future (only too easily if the involved authors weren’t so inflexible). Given how strongly the proponents of the continued use of the IEC prefixes are on this, it seemed an unnecessary loophole given that there may not be a single existing article that would have its use of the prefixes preserved by that caveat.

  The new caveat is essentially a somewhat more specific application of “use the units employed in current scientific articles on that subject”. With the caveat, if a dominant or influential player in the Linux world adopts the IEC prefixes, then—without going through a new holy war on revising the policy—it would already be giving its blessing for Wikipedia articles to begin using the IEC prefixes. Wikipedia would be using the methods of communicating and disambiguating used for that audience. I note that “German 217…(whatever)” pointed out an Apple-written paper that used the IEC prefix. Of course, that paper was written by a programer for programers. The newly added caveat would pre-address situations like this: if a particular readership like professional Apple programmers are routinely using the terms because Apple does or visa versa (and I don’t yet know if that is truly the case), then a Wiki article directed to that readership may (and certainly should) also do so.

  Now my question becomes this: is doing so going to change your vote? Continuing as we are will just result in this horse crap coming up again and again. Further, I don’t see an alternative, “split the baby down the middle” proposal as being any more successful than current policy at resolving future conflict. The “Oppose” crowd is quite intransigent on their views; they want their IEC prefixes and think they should be used for any readership because it’s good for them once they learn them here. That is so not the way encyclopedias work. I think it’s time to put the current policy out of its misery and adopt one that essentially gives more specificity to the broad principal of “use the terminology, units of measure, and methods of disambiguation typically employed for the intended audience; that is, use the communication techniques currently used in the primary literature in that industry for a particular readership.” Hey, I kinda like that wording; the whole damn proposal could be replaced with that once sentence and could be added to #Which system to use. But that’s for later; the “Oppose” crowd won’t allow it because of its implications—at least not until after this is passed. Are you on board? Greg L (my talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'd say I could get behind that, unless I notice another odd, presumably unintended, meaning in the text; I haven't yet, and I've re-read it a couple of times. However, it's important here to remember that consensus isn't voting, and while it isn't unanimity either, there is a sizeable group of editors who don't support this, and they find your arguments as meaningless as you find theirs. Personally, I can see both sides of it, I just think the ultimately most useful way is where you now seem to be coming down. However, the idea of "how an encyclopaedia is supposed to work" isn't something anyone can claim uniquely authoritative insight into, especially as wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopaedia. Having more people supporting your view doesn't make a difference, unless it's vastly more people, or the opposers don't have a good-faith reason to oppose. I don't think either is the case yet, so I couldn't in good conscience see the guideline changed to match. SamBC(talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• One author at a time. Greg L (my talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sambc, regarding your statement that “Having more people supporting your view doesn't make a difference, unless it's vastly more people, or the opposers don't have a good-faith reason to oppose.” I assume you are referring to current Wikipedia policy regarding what defines a consensus (near unanimity). I note that the original vote to go with current MOSNUM policy (archive here) was 20 for the policy and 7 against. That wouldn’t qualify either as a Wikipedia-style “consensus” (where it must be nearly unanimous); yet the policy was adopted anyway. In fact, I see that Omegatron wanted to slip in the proposed policy promoting the IEC prefixes without any vote whatsoever and just see how it became one. I don’t see the need for a double standard for voting here; if there is a clear majority in favor of the new policy, it should be able to be adopted per the same standard that was used to adopt the current policy (a clear majority). Greg L (my talk) 22:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's generally considered a truism that two wrongs don't make a right. What the new guideline should reflect is whatever position gets as close as possible to consensus. Both extreme sides (and by my reckoning you're on one of them) need to back down from their entrenchments and find a middle ground. Some folks believe it's absolutely wrong to use the units (in general) and some folks believe it's absolutely wrong not to. A middle ground must be found. SamBC(talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just for clarity SamBC, do you think Omegatron's original proposal shown in the archive was wrongly accepted as the guideline? Fnagaton 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked into it in any detail, and haven't time to right now; remind me in a few days and I might have time to then, if I haven't by that time of my own accord. SamBC(talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Sambc, that sounds like sensible advise. However, I think we need to find the right kind of middle ground. The current policy seems to have been quite successful in keeping editors reasonably happy as it allowed the articles at that time to stay as they were. As a result however, there is no article-to-article consistency. When a reader lands on any particular article and encounters an instance of “MB”, they have to look around in the article in an attempt to discern what sort of convention that particular article uses. And, as you know, the current policy of splitting the baby down the middle hasn’t worked; this issue has come up before and likely will again. I support a middle ground that results in a coherent, Wikipedia-wide policy (or at least starts us heading down that path). As for flexibility, I’m all ears. I had earlier modified the proposal to accommodate a suggestion of yours but that didn’t seem to materialize into any votes changing. Just let me know what further suggestions you think would be helpful. Greg L (my talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm actually pretty much happy with the result of that change, although there's clearly strong feeling that it isn't right, so couldn't support it being implemented. To be honest, at this point I see two routes in line with wikipedia's over-arching policies:
        1. Write a guideline that doesn't actually say anything, just documents the lack of consensus and lets people argue it out based on the "which units to use" stuff on a case-by-case basis, or
        2. Somehow get wider participation so that a broader consensus may emerge. Part of the problem seems to me to be that most of the people in the discussion are firmly on the side of either recommending IEC units or all-but-banning them (except direct quotes etc), and people with views like that don't tend to move in the face of reasoned discussion.
      • It's all a bit of a mess, really. SamBC(talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S. While I agree that “two wrongs don’t make a right,” that truism can’t ever be allowed to permit a wrong to go uncorrected. The courts are perfectly willing to set murderers free if the police improperly used coercion during an interrogation. The stakes aren’t nearly so high here. The proponents of a failed Wikipedia policy (this issue keeps on coming up and results in article-to-article inconsistency) that was improperly adopted in the first place can’t now argue that it enjoys the shelter of a Wikipedia-style, near-unanimous consensus (a virtual grandfathering in), when the failed policy was improperly rammed through in the first place without the required consensus. Another editor sounded the caution alarm when he wrote “No, nobody cares [about this IEC/traditional issue], and anyway the result would be that we should go with MB but change things when (and IF) MiB becomes more common.” (my emphasis). Well, someone did care: Omegatron and it is there in black & white that he was perfectly anxious to ram “it into print” without any vote whatsoever, let alone settle for a vote that was properly supported with a Wikipedia-style consensus. What we are going through now is the product of that sort of attitude. The above caution (from Master Thief Garrett) was soundly trampled over in Omegatron’s stampede to get his way because he was convinced he was right. Greg L (my talk) 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, it seems that there hasn't been a guideline that accurately reflects any sort of consensus regarding this for some time; I would suggest that, as an interim, the MOS should be silent on the issue until a consensus can be discerned. SamBC(talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry to be dense, but are saying you think the current policy (Binary prefixes) should be deleted in the mean time? That makes a lot of sense to me. And how would that be accomplished? Greg L (my talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
          • By getting general acceptance that there isn't consensus on the matter (and no-one can disagree with that) and therefore that the MoS should be silent on the matter. This would not, however, acheive the goals of either side of the debate, merely move the debate to innumerable article talk pages. With what's left in MOSNUM, it's arguable either way. SamBC(talk) 20:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
            • At the time of writing there is complete consensus on some aspects of the debate. The problem for some is that if the guideline was written to reflect only those parts where there is consensus then IEC prefixes won't be mentioned or the phrase "there is no consensus to use IEC prefixes" would remain. Now I think it is rediculous to ignore that there is consensus on some aspects just because some people will moan that their preferred units are not mentioned (or mentioned with the phrase as just shown). Fnagaton 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
              • At the same time, it is improper to have a guideline indicate things that do not have consensus. No mention of the IEC prefixes does reflect consensus, however, and some people not liking that doesn't alter it. They can't claim there is a consensus to mandate or even recommend their use, so what's left is, and I hate the tone this term conveys but can't think of a better one, simply whining. A wording that explicitly doesn't forbid or require their use is an honest reflection of consensus, though, especially if it contains a précis of the reasons and uses that are generally viewed as inappropriate. It's just a shame that there are no situations which everyone agrees are unacceptable, and similarly none acceptable except those effectively required by policy or common sense (quotes, articles mentioning (rather than using) the units, and articles where the sources tend to use them). SamBC(talk) 09:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
                • "At the same time, it is improper to have a guideline indicate things that do not have consensus." - That's not accurate though. When the current guideline text was being decided it is a fact there was no consensus on that issue and that is why that specific wording was added, it needed to be written in the guideline to reflect the conclusion of the debate. Thinking about it, it would be more accurate for the guideline to say "there is no consensus, amongst Wikipedia editors that were involved in the debate, to use IEC prefixes". Also to possibly include the phrase "in the real world IEC prefixes are virtually unused" is a more accurate reflection on what the siutation actually is. Fnagaton 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
                • "That were involved in the debate" is always assumed, really – decisions are made by those who turn up. SamBC(talk) 12:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." Any real consensus would have to represent the viewpoints of all the people who have contributed to discussion in the past, not just the 10 or so that are active on talk:mosnum this week. — Omegatron 05:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My perspective:

A long time ago, in a land far away, User:Thax started a vote about use of binary prefixes in Wikipedia, since the traditional usage violates SI, and we've generally solved unit disputes by recommending SI in most contexts. There was no real consensus. 20 people thought we should use IEC prefixes for binary quantities everywhere, while 6 thought we should never use them anywhere. So we made the guideline say "IEC prefixes are recommended, but are not required". (And I don't know what the hell you're claiming I "rammed" into something else.)

As more people became aware of the guideline, consensus changed, discussion polarized, people became enraged, engaged in sweeping edit wars (for which some were banned and others were not), wasted days of their lives discussing the same points over and over, etc. Last time I looked, it said something more along the lines of "There is no consensus on which style to use, so discuss on an article basis and decide which style is more appropriate based on the article's context". This is similar to our policy on variants of English, which does not just jump into saying "defer to the first contributor", but says "if the article's about something American, use American English. If it's about something Canadian, use Canadian English".

I think this is acceptable, but people obviously still aren't happy with it, and it's not as clear-cut as deciding whether Tolkien is a more American or more British subject. In Commodore 64 articles, the traditional prefixes are more appropriate. In articles about bandwidth, the standard prefixes are more appropriate. But what about everything else? For many topics, there's no clear standard or common usage to follow. — Omegatron 05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye, from R_Physicist (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please note my final comments on the User talk:R_physicist page. There is perhaps something for you to reflect on there.R_Physicist (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on Exalted Article.

  Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC): Could you please be more specific? Thank you.  :)

apologizing for rollback on WT:FICT

Sorry, I had no idea how that the rollback that I did happen. I know I was looking at the diff you had made, and scrolled back to click at the top like I normally would to return to my watchlist, but I had to turn away for a bit; next thing I'm seeing that I rollbacked something and your completely appropriate re-revert of that mistake. I in no way meant to even mark that as anything, much less vandalism, so I fully apologize for the accidental removal. --MASEM 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

apology accepted, I was pretty indignant, but now you've explained I'm really just very amused. SamBC(talk) 19:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Flaming

I would be grateful if you would refrain from flaming at WT:FICT in discussions with me about the notability of fictional toipcs. Everybody is entitled to an opinion (even me), so sweeping generalisations like "Gavin, remember that we're supposed to do whatever makes the encyclopaedia better" is patronising. If you have a disagreement with something I have written, say you have a disagreement rather than being uncivil. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoah! When I saw this heading, I thought you were referring to something else I said, which I though was slightly over the line, although short of actual flaming. In all seriousness, I envy your online experience if you class anything I've said lately as flaming :). I sincerely apologise if it came across wrong; it's not rude to be concerned that another editor might have lost track of guiding principles like that. The issue here isn't the disagreement, it's trying to suggest looking at things a different way to see where we do agree, and building for there.

I certainly never meant to cause offence, so I wholeheartedly apologise. SamBC(talk) 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the characterisation of my words as flaming, I would like to quote the lead of that article: "is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others." Now, while I realise it may not have persuaded you, it was intended to be constructive, specifically by clarifying (in fact, re-framing) the discussion. I know you've taken a lot of crap here, but try not to knee-jerk against those of us who, while we disagree with you somewhat more than we agree, try to be constructive and cooperative. And if you don't think I try to do those things, I'm not sure what else I can say. SamBC(talk) 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could delete or cross this out, as I would prefer it not to set a precedent.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete or cross what out? My comments here, which you haven't said there's anything wrong with, or the problematic comment, which I've tried to clarify my meaning of? SamBC(talk) 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, SamBC, thank you for your persistence and your civility in discussions with Gavin collins. (The above is not a flame in my eyes, but a reminder which all of us need to be bonked with from time to time.) Let me buy you a beer if we ever meet. I don't normally drink, but it's the principle of the thing. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate further why, as judging from our previous interactions Collins would likely take it as a covert attack on his credibility, and I don't want to do that. --Kizor 11:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of monthly updates

Hi Sam—I'm stuck as to how to reproduce the three monthly updates in the WP Signpost Featured Content Dispatch for 21 April. Can you advise?

[3] TONY (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually very nearly got the January one right; just you put the word "Editing" before the page to transclude, presumably a copy-paste error. I've fixed that one; if you have more trouble, let me know. If that page is where the summaries are going to live long-term, though, you probably want to move the per-month pages to subpages of that one. If you want me to do that, just let me know. SamBC(talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffoon I am. TONY (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam, would you like to whizz through the draft and provide feedback, if you have any? Wikipedia:FCDW/April_21,_2008 Also, I have a number of queries:

• I'm unsure what to do with the existing text in the April template (Editing User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes/April 2008]])—Usage? Report? Will these appear at the transcluded locations?
  • Everything inside <noinclude></noinclude> is omitted when transcluded. Add the text you want in the report at the bottom of the existing text.
• What is all of that code? (#ifeq ...).
  • That's what makes what the usage section says will happen, happen. So you transclude it as {{pagename}} if you're providing a title, or {{pagename|title=std}} to get a default title ("Changes for April 2008"), or {{pagename|title=Yay, a title!}} to get a title of "Yay, a title". I made some mistakes with that code, but I think I've fixed them now. I think that if you use one of the title options then the edit link will work.
• How do I edit the text for the previous months? In the edit box, all that's there is the transclusion thing in curly brackets.
  • Just go to the page manually (typing or pasting things in the search box or address bar), that works. SamBC(talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mea helpa. TONY (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's a test of April for my sake as well:

Okay, looks like the edit link doesn't appear in that case... I'll look into it when I have time (a few days from now, I imagine, remind me if I seem to have forgotten). SamBC(talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Test transclusion

Manual of Style (main page)

Titles. Clarification that common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized.

Acronyms and abbreviations. The terms "abbreviation", "acronym" and "initialism" were clarified.

Quotation marks. Clarification that (block-quoted) multiparagraph quotations "must be precise and exactly as in the source. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Instead of HTML tags, {{quotation}} or {{quote}} can be used to render block quotes.

SI symbols and unit abbreviations. This was added:

"A lowercase s is the SI for seconds; thus, kgs means "kilogram-seconds"."

SI symbols and unit abbreviations. This was added:

"Exponentiation is indicated using a superscript, aⁿ; do not use a caret, a^n" and "Do not use E notation".

Disputes over people's proper names. The previous statement:

"Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible"

was replaced with:

"Disputes over the proper name of a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Naming conventions where the name appears in an article name. When there is no dispute, use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself.

Alignment of images. The last four words were added to the statement:

"Right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment for the lead image."

An exception was added:

"Wherever possible, images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eye will tend to follow their direction."

This was added:

Where the lead image is a portrait with the face looking to the reader's right, it should be left-aligned, looking into the text of the article. Where this is the lead image, it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}."

Pronunciation. The last three words were added:

"For ease of understanding across dialects, fairly broad IPA transcriptions are usually provided for English pronunciations."

This sentence was added:

"For English pronunciations, pronunciation respellings may be used in addition to the IPA."

Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Decade abbreviations. Two-digit abbreviations for decades may have a preceding apostrophe only in reference to a social era or cultural phenomenon as a stock phrase that roughly corresponds to or defines a decade (the Roaring '20s, the Gay '90s), or where there is a notable connection between the period and the immediate topic (a sense of social justice informed by '60s counterculture, but grew up in 1960s Boston, moving to Dallas in 1971). [This is now inconsistent with the main page of the MoS.]

Units of measurement. A new section was inserted:

"Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.

This was marked with a dispute tag and has been the subject of an edit war and page protection.

Units of measurement. The recommendation to use "sq" and "cu" with US-unit abbreviations was removed; now superscript exponents may be used in that system.

Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

The piping of disambiguation pages. Clarification: piping may be used to add italics to the part of an article name inside parenthetical clarifiers (for instance [[Neo (The Matrix)|Neo (''The Matrix'')]]); until now the guideline only allowed italics and quotation marks for the part outside the parentheses.

Featured article candidate instructions

The third bullet was added to the instructions (underlined here):

"A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved; or
• consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met."

Featured portal criteria

The following sentence was added to the Featured portal criteria:

"It should include links to other Wikimedia Foundation projects when applicable. Portals that focus on a specific group of life-forms (other than humans) should contain a link to Wikispecies project."

Non-free content

The phrase that was removed from Non-free content Criterion 8 last month (underlined here) was reinstated and is currently under discussion:

"Significance.' Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sam, if you want to be an involved party in the RfM (assuming we even do it...), please sign your name here to indicate as such. :) I know you signed on the other page, but the talk page is what most people are looking at right now. BOZ (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Synthesis cleanup template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Synthesis cleanup template from the article Kender, an article which uses fictional sources that when put together serve to advance the position that "Kender are a fictional race unique to the Dragonlance world". There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template as the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and this position is original research. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address this problem, as you do appear to have neither added any reliable secondary sources to support the position, nor to have removed any of the synthesised content. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be asserting that the article provides precise analysis of this position without providing a reliable source in relation to the topic, as your explanation for removing the template ('"already been challenged to point out the synthesis, and have instead pointed out poor sourcing" [4]). This explaination is not supported by the guidelines WP:SYNTH and WP:RS which apply to this topic. Unless you adding citationsfrom reliable secondary sources or removing synthesis from the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the template and refrain from removing it until such time as cleanup is effected. The template was placed there to alert other editors who may be able to cleanup the article, and so its removal is actually self-defeating. I would suggest in future that you respect my viewpoint, such that if you disagree with it, you seek a Third Opinion, rather than simply reverting my edits without making any improvements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, at least two other editors on that talk page (myself and one other) have explained why synthesis isn't applicable; why should your view be respected more than those others? Extra citations are needed, and there's a template for that applied; there is no indication of synthesis, which is a much more specific problem. You want it tagged to encourage more citations, and it is. SamBC(talk) 00:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The explainations of a thousand editors are worth nothing compared to one reliable secondary source, which is why I put the cleanup template there. This article asserts that ""Kender are a fictional race unique to the Dragonlance world" without citing any sources that do not explicitly reach the same conclusion. You may disagree with my opinion about whether this is synthesis or not, but since you have not added any sources to the article, I don't think reverting the cleanup template is justified. I don't profess to be infalible, but I think I have put forward a clear and reasoned argument that WP:SYNTH does apply in the the article Kender. If you disagree with my view on this, I request that you get an independent opinion. I feel the discussions we have had entitle me to more more than dismissal and reversion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed

I have no idea if a bot will tell you, so I might as well post here.  :) Just remember that you must sign the request within 7 days or the case will be rejected. You may add any additional content-related issues that you also feel need mediation in the following section: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender#Additional issues to be mediated. BOZ (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

IP Unblock Request

{{unblock-ip|1=194.80.32.9|2=[[meta:No open proxies]]|3=DerHexer}}

It should also be noted that this is a web cache for Lancaster University, one of several used in load-balancing fashion. As such, my ability to edit is currently random, as not all such caches (seemingly only this one) are blocked. I have emailed DerHexer, but this block is very disruptive to my ability to edit. The caches are not, afaik, open. Certainly if I forget to change my settings back after using the VPN from home, the cache is unreachable. SamBC(talk) 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've just checked with some of our network admins, and the proxy is certainly not an open one. SamBC(talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I've unblocked the IP and I'll pop over to have a chat with DerHexer. There's obviously no problems with you, so please get on with editing in the mean time. I can't see how the IP is an open proxy, but I'll see what DerHexer says. If the IP's going to be reblocked, I'll make sure we give you some notice. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I would've complained earlier, but I've not been in work or a uni lab for a while, so didn't know about it until this morning. SamBC(talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Reporting

It does indeed look like its out of date especially with the new policy update.

Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Heavy handed response

I think your response to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries is very heavy handed and can be described at best as a borderline personal attack, and is not within the spirit if not the rules WP:CIVIL. For instance, singling out my comments for a section call Gavin's POV is not pleasant and rather disfuctional. How is anyone supposed to respond and feel comfortable under section heading? I think you will agree that it was not put there to welcome me :p
Could I propose that this section is removed, or at least reedited. I know that a lot of people disagree with my views, but if you disagree, say so and say why. Once it becomes clear that this is the tone of the discussions is normal, I don't see how you are going to get any other contributers to come forward with views that differ from your own. Please consider removing this whole section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin...

1. I didn't create that section. That was Ursasapien.
2. The section heading, while the tone is perhaps debatable, accurately reflects what is being discussed therein: your opinions.
3. People have been saying they disagree and saying why. It does not appear to make much difference to you.
4. Removing a whole section of discussion is hardly constructive. The content of the section doesn't seem objectionable in any way, as it is people politely refuting your points.
5. Making accusations of me comitting incivility seems remarkably rich given your recent accusations of bad faith on my part.

Hope that helps. SamBC(talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards as evidence of notability for Elements of Fiction

With regard to the discussion you have been participating in at AFI 100 as an example, I would be grateful if you would make your views known regarding the inclusion of awards in Elements of fiction.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate?

Rather than going in circles, you can contact Vassyana for advice. :) BOZ (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Did that, albeit by email. SamBC(talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Did not know that.  :) Carry on! BOZ (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late

Dang it, Kevin beat me (by 20 minutes!). I was going to say something like "for being by far the most productive, constructive, and probably other -ctives (e.g. proactive) participant in the RfC at WT:N." Thanks! (Sorry for the misplaced comment, I can't figure out how to get it below the barnstar box instead of inside it.) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An award for your hard work

		The Barnstar of Processes
		I hereby award you the Barnstar of Processes for your constant and diligent efforts to improve the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia (AKA: Processes) --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the issue... and thanks :) SamBC(talk) 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Life Cycle

I have posted some thoughts on how specifically to handle the Life Cycle section.[5] Opinions are welcome. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Got a direct response for me, at least? :) BOZ (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will respond there, shortly; I stopped to cook dinner, which I am now eating. SamBC(talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'm just hoping that getting back on track will move things along more smoothly. :) BOZ (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lose optimism; when there's fundamental disagreements as to the nature of original research, and the appropriateness (or not) of any in-universe content, it seems unlikely that things will reach as reasonable conclusion. SamBC(talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I told you I couldn't say the same, but I'm hoping that my well of optimism runs deeper than it seems at first glance. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I could do with some support in this discussion on original research; assuming that I am right (and I am), it may be more convincing if everyone else agrees. SamBC(talk) 10:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course I agree, but I was trying not to get sucked into an argument over it. :) BOZ (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this? :) BOZ (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. :) I have posted some thoughts on kender Handling. See here. BOZ (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender is being closed as partially resolved/stale. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim moved to Talk:Kender/Draft for use outside of mediation. If further assistance is needed on the Kender article or the broader topic area, I remain available on a case-by-case basis to help out on an informal basis. If some outside assistance could be used to resolve a dispute in the topic area, please let me know and I will do my best to help out. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you were involved in the Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Look of scientific notation template

Hi,

Back in 21 March 2008, as memorialized here on WT:MOS Archive 97, you, Srleffler, and Tony had differing opinions on the best looking format for scientific notation. Some thought no spaces on each side of the times (×) symbol worked and/or looked best (see examples, below), and others thought a space worked and/or looked best. At that time, I suggested a compromise using thinspaces and all agreed that was a workable solution.

The template that eventually came out of all that originally used thinspaces but was later tweaked to use non-printing, non-selectable, Cascading Style Sheet-based visual gaps (using <span>‑based gaps. It appeared to me that the CSS gaps were exceedingly close to the full-width regular space and this might displease those who prefer no spaces at all. So I want to run the proposed tweak by you and see if you are at peace with what I think best achieves the spirit of that compromise.

Here is the proposal (bottom) with comparative examples:

• 6.0221412579×10⁻²³ kg (no spaces)
• 6.0221412579 × 10⁻²³ kg (full-width, non-breaking spaces)
• 6.0221412579 × 10⁻²³ kg (Original compromise: thin spaces)
• 6.0221412579×10⁻²³ kg (Proposed: The tweak of the CSS version of thinspaces)
  

If you are satisfied with the appearance of the proposed tweak, please advise here on WT:MOSNUM.

Greg L (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

United States Geograhical MOS

A while back ago, you were involved in a discussion about how to refer to the United States Geographical locations on wikipedia. A similar discussion is taking place here. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just wanted to offer you my personal thanks for supporting the title change over on Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. I understand that you fought long and hard for your position - and for what it's worth, I'd have supported Mega Drive if it stood a chance of overturning the present title. It takes guts and a desire to make this a better encyclopedia to do what you did. Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. SamBC(talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

UAA

Regarding this edit [6] I didn't reply there because the bot removes reports after a user is blocked. They created an article about a band of the same name. That's pretty much why admins handle these reports, we can see the user's deleted contributions as well, although there was also a note on their talk page about the deleted article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Partly on principle, I feel people ought to give slightly better justifications of reports than they often do. Promotional ones are stated as if it's obvious, sometimes, along with claiming things are offensive with no justification (for example, the user screwball-whatever-number-it-was). SamBC(talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree about offensive names, The one you mention in particular was ridiculous. With promotional names, the edits are pretty much always used in conjunction with the name to make a decision. We do get a lot of pretty silly reports, but luckily they usually just get declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GURPS

You might be interested in this thread given your past activity in the subject area. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)