Jump to content

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sarah Darlene Stefanski

I win ;P - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Second time you've done it in the last 20 minutes or so ;). Not a problem though, I guess there's a certain speed you can tag (properly of course) at, and we've both reached it ;) - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

7669

I have declined your CSD nom of this page. Speedy deletion is for clear cut cases where there is no reasonable claim of notability. This article may not firmly establish notability, but it does assert it. If you have doubts about a csd nom, then the article probably isn't a good candidate. Also, you added "talk" about the nom to the article itself instead of the talk page of the article or the page creators talk page where it belongs. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I thought it was as well to be sure. I know I added the "talk" - and I did so to ensure that the article creator saw it, that the admin reviewing the speedy tag saw it, and that my reservations were on the record in case anyone were to think that I was a complete idiot in posting it. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I sometimes add hidden comments using<!-- --> after the speedy tag in such situations. That way anyone editing the page will see it but it's not actually in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:RM Logo.svg

I've declined to delete this image. There are rather a lot of SVG logos on Wikipedia and saying that they allow the image to be used in a larger size than appropriate under fair use is kind of like saying we shouldn't sell knives in stores in case someone gets stabbed. Feel free to FFD it. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question

Your question has been answered.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, thanks a lot! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cooper Black

You can find the download link here. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's amazing - thanks a lot! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Clue Bat

My clue bat just flew down and nudged this user with her wings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a menagerie there, now! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Off task

You recently nominated the page Off task to be deleted, should it not nominated for speedy deletion? The quicker the page is gone the better i guess :) NPervez (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What criterion do you think it fails? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Realised that it doesn't really fail any criterion. I guess deletion or transwiki'ing the page is the best option. My bad :)NPervez (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No probs, we've all made that mistake before! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, would the article fail A5criterion? I'm just asking to get a grip of wikipedia really :D NPervez (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It would only qualify as an A5 if it had been moved to Wiktionary (as in, already actively moved over) - which it hasn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. Thanks a lot. NPervez (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Music Choice

I apologize for my edits to the Music Choice page. As of yesterday, I cannot login to the online player through the Comcast website. 169.233.58.204 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Careful with your dummy edits

this introduced a preceding space and that silly box –xeno talk 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, dear, I should have been more careful than that! Thanks for the heads-up. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
no worries. Personally I prefer removing or adding spaces either between 2L =='s or after them. –xeno talk 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it something you said?

[1] Bencherheavy (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, lovely. Thanks for pointing that out ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

contraception

Hi. If you want to make alterations to 'Contraception', then great. It's a pretty major topic, and a great deal more than I'm comfortable undertaking. I don't believe that it makes sense to merely delete the page as you have done. Merely redirecting to 'birth control' has left no way of differentiating between 'birth control' and 'contraception', and in a reference work as comprehensive as this, I would think that that would be entirely unacceptable. OckRaz (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've nominated it for deletion, as I think that the unreferenced essay that has been left on the page is redundant to the article on birth control. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing on the birth control page that explains the difference between contraception, contragestion, and abortifacients. In fact, I couldn't find an entry anywhere in en.wikipedia that differentiated these terms, which is why I added the page. Is the explanation of these distinctions what you're calling an 'essay'? I hadn't thought that definitions of words needed references. We're not expected to link to a dictionary for every entry. Is there a different standard for technical terms? I suppose I could just use a medical dictionary if that's your only objection. OckRaz (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, I've made my decision, which was to nominate the article for deletion. Another user, at the deletion discussion, agrees with me, and is concerned about your general editing pattern: "I have been looking at the editor's contributions, this is basically a POV fork to separate contraception from post-conception birth control, lots of articles are being affected." I'd suggest that you carefully consider how your actions fit in with our core content policies. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have. There's no NPOV issue there. OckRaz (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the redundancies with 'birth control', put up links and added definitions. I don't know if this adresses your concerns or not. It took me a bit to figure out how to put the references up, and it isn't pretty. I'm sure there must be a more elegant way to have done it. Let me know what you think.

Also, regarding "a POV fork to separate contraception from post-conception birth control"...

I honestly believe that explaining that there is a three tiered approach to birth control in the medical literature is a useful addition to wikipedia. I don't know if you follow US politics or not, but since most people only think of the contraceptive/abortifacient dichotomy, there is now a political controversy dealing with the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Legal_implications Do you not agree that differentiating between forms of post-conception birth control is worthwhile?OckRaz (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My concerns are not alleviated in the slightest. Contraception is exactly the same as birth control in common parlance. Your "source" for the tiered approach, whatever, doesn't appear to be the reliable source that our policies require; it is, in fact, self-published. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


I don't know what more you'd want added.

Why are any of the sources 'unreliable'?

The fact that two terms can be treated as synonyms (although they can also be treated as nonsynonymous) in common parlance does not in any way mean that the technical distinction is trivial. There is even mention of the fact that contragestion is still a technical term and not in common usage in the entry.

I take issue with your characterization of this as an essay. It is just an giving an overview to a set of definitions that are well sourced.

--OckRaz (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Is there a standard for "chatter"?

for example...

"Yes, I see now, I have been looking at the editor's contributions, this is basically a POV fork to separate contraception from post-conception birth control, lots of articles are being affected. Drawn Some (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)"

versus

"I hadn't thought that sourcing was necessary for definitions of words. Maybe I was wrong. I'm not clear what the policy is. I put sources up.

The main article on birth control does not make the contraception/contragestion/abortifacient distinction and I could not find it anywhere on en.wikipedia. If it were merely a distinction of medical terminology it would merit inclusion in wikipedia, but there is also a connection to politics."

or is that just you editorializing?--OckRaz (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to an AfD shouldn't be paragraphed, they should generally start with Keep, Delete or Comment or whatever. Long diatribes are for the talkpage. Please don't contact me further about this issue here; it's been passed to the community for consensus, in the deletion discussion. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

chatter

I asked for a guideline on chatter vs not, and you said that non-chatter will "start with Keep, Delete or Comment or whatever" so I deleted those things without it. I'm starting to think that 'chatter' is defined however you feel it should be. --OckRaz (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no firm guidelines, but what I just wrote on your talkpage a few minutes ago is a general rule of thumb. If you're not too firm with it, then trust that more experiened users know what they're doing. This isn't something that needs a huge amount of argument; let's stop bickering, here, there or on talkpages, and let others chip in as they wish. (archive-now) Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu outbreak

Hi,

It looks like you rolled back my series of changes rather than the one that you seemed to object to (the use of trade names for drugs). I rewrote several section to comply with WP:SS and WP:NOT#HOWTO, while retaining the information, but per MOS:TM and WP:MEDMOS kept the trade name (removing it in the first place was my bad) but removed the registered trademark symbol. I could be mis-understanding your edit summary, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally rolled back all your edits, when I meant to only undo the latest one (so that the trade-names would still be there). As they are now there, everything seems to be good ;-) Apologies ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
'Kay, and I'm pleased that I guessed how it happened. Yay for me :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New articles

I'm pleased to see that your content contribution skills have come on a long way. However, you ought to add categories to your new articles; I would've done this myself but, frankly, it would be more advisable for it to be done by someone who is knowledgeable in this area – while some categorisation can be done by any trained monkey, sometimes expertise is required. 212.32.115.254 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness, I forgot that! I did intend to do so... BTW, are you a user who accidentally logged out, you talk as if you know me! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...
Hi. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Clue [horizontal rule in AfD]

A horizontal rule does not "bring special attention to any comment". It signifies, and brings attention to, something rather different, and it is a convention that has been employed in AFD and MFD discussions for at least the past five years. I suggest that you think long and hard about why it's a hint, what it is hinting at, and what it could possibly be signifying. Please employ such thought in the future. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • There is absolutely no need to patronise me (I suggest you think long and hard; what it could possibly be signifying; employ such thought in the future). Both myself and another experienced user were mystified as to the purpose of the horizontal rule. I have personally never seen it employed (and I invite you to look through all my contributions to deletion discussions to verify that I've not encountered one before!), and presumably neither had Allstarecho. I'm sure that you'll appreciate there was cause for confusion. It wasn't just me being dense, it was two people unclear.

    You saw it was removed, and presumably saw the edit-summary; I would, therefore, have hoped that you would have exercised the courtesy of explaining your revert in an understandable way. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    It was explained in an understandable way. It is a hint. It was restored. "Restored hint." is not exactly an opaque explanation of that. My suggestion stands: When someone provides a hint, and explicitly says that it's a hint, think about what the hint is for. If someone does not say "Restored special attention drawn to Nick-D's comment." then it's a fair bet that what the edit is is not a way of drawing attention to the comment preceding it, and that the idea that it is is obviously wrong. Indeed, it's obviously wrong just from knowing what a horizontal rule is. It's not an underline or an emphasis. It's a division. It has been used as such, in books, and manuscripts, for some centuries now. This is not exactly a new and mysterious typographic phenomenon.

    The only way that your statement that you've never encountered one before in deletion discussions could be true, by the way, would be that your deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God In Fiction was a drive-by one, and that you didn't pay attention to the subsequent discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't understand it, and neither Allstarecho or myself understood the original use of the divider. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I removed the AfD you cited above from my watchlist after I saw the delete' !vote from Biruitorul (talk · contribs) — it seemed that the discussion was going along nicely, with people arguing 'my side' (those who !voted delete were commenting and actively participating) and I considered that my time could have been better spent elsewhere at that moment.
I'm none too delighted to be accused of "drive-by deletion" and of "not paying attention" to subsequent discussion (which anyway isn't against policy, as far as I'm aware). I would point out that I currently have four deletion discussions on my watchlist, and if you were going through my logs with an intent other than to dig up the worst possible example and thus prove your point, you would have seen such discussions as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, in each of which (all from my last 500 Wikipedia-space contributions and the last two months) I took an active role. I look forward to receiving your reply ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to throw in my view here - once I'd looked at a few examples shown here the purpose of the horizontal rule did in fact become clear, but I have to say I was mystified as to its purpose too. Surely a brief statement as to the changes made accompanying it would be rather less opaque? In short, I don't see a reason to leave hints when you can just state things! Cheers ~ mazca t|c 20:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Treasury,

Thank you for your suggestion of Zoho writer. I can access this site from inside my firewall (corporate firewall). I will use that site rather than the scratchpad I'd created! KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Great—good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IP edit

Treasury, I saw that you reverted my edit to my anonymous visitor. Don't worry. It's just like you left it. I was curious about the comment in the edit summary referring to a threatening message. My message wasn't threatening, I was just letting him know an IP can be traced. (His is static too! ) :) KoshVorlon 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that "letting him know an IP can be traced," is threatening. The fact that it's a static IP doesn't make it any more of a joke, it makes it a serious business. If you were to leave a message saying, "I've traced your IP to Sisters, Oregon," that would be threatening, and what you did wasn't enough less to make a difference IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape banknotes

I just saw you post on the ref desk as I was doing the archiving. Thought I would reply to you here as you are probably not watching the archive. You get to this feature in Inkscape on the menu Effects/Render/Spirograph. If you are familiar with spirograph the settings should be self explanatory, if not, you will soon find what they do with a few experiments. SpinningSpark 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much!! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:@@ and subpages

Hi, the template you objected is part of a proof-of-concept for an alternative proposal on how to handle bibliographic citations. The half-line templates like Template:@@/63318-s are meant to be displayed in popups when the mouse is placed over a citation link. Sure, this is not the best way to implement the idea, but it was the only way I found within the current wiki software. All the best, Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the source of User:Jorge Stolfi/Oxocarbon test. One of the main goals is to make the source easier to edit by taking the references out to separate "ref-pages" like Template:@@/63323. The name of the main template "@@" has to be short and easy to type/read, otherwise this goal is not achieved. Ditto for the names of the ref-pages: experience in other databases (CAS, GENBANK,etc.) seems to indicate that, once you have thousands of enrties, "mnemonic" IDs are less convenient than purely numeric IDS. (The mnemonicity advantage decreases and the hassles of typying/looking up/remembering/avoiding collisions/ etc. increase as the database grows.) Anyway all those funny-named templates are merely subpages of the "@@" template, so they should not be a big bother. And hopefully they will be either thrown away or replaced by a better solution. All the best, Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why your T____T is showing up at the top of WP:AN?

Don't know if it is just my browser, but your T____T thing is showing up at the top right of WP:AN. Syrthiss (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor briefly transcluded his userpage onto AN before fixing it. –xenotalk 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
OIC. Syrthiss (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for working that out, Xeno! That was exciting :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI about me has closed

I hope we can just forget it and be over with it. I apologise if you've found me uncivil. I appreciate you were trying to get some resolution and unfortunately we created some conflict. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have resolved issues with all these users, the contexts were different. but let's leave it. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

thanx

if there's a link at the end of this, then thanks for your help {{subst:user|OckRaz}} (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

that doesn't look right to me - does that look right ?{{subst:user|OckRaz}} (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying again [[User:OckRaz|]] (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The box has no check mark in it and I copied what you put to copy [[User:OckRaz|]] ([[User talk:OckRaz|talk]]) (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if it works this time. (I have a good feeling about this.) OckRaz (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you. OckRaz (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Thanks again. OckRaz (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Contraception AFD

It is not a matter of good faith; it is a matter of correct procedure. In such a case, you should first engage in discussion on the article's talk page. If this does not work out then you should engage in dispute resolution such as WP:THIRD. Bringing such a matter to AFD is inappropriate as AFD is only for hopeless cases - it is not a general clearing house for editing conflicts and article discussion. This is not the first time that I have observed you bringing inappropriate matters to AFD. Please reread the relevant processes such as WP:DR and WP:AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:WP:ANI

How can you tell me not to post there? I'm the subject for christs sake!Drew Smith What I've done 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved! No way! False and baseless sockpuppet accusations are generally accepted as a personal attack, and something should happen to CUTKD and RCS or whatever his name is. That can't go unchecked.Drew Smith What I've done 10:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure it can. Ignore it, like I'm ignoring your allegations of personal vendetta and stalking.
TT, I came here to offer kudos for the tidy way you marked the sections resolved - clever that, linking the post at both headings. Nice solution to a messy thread! KillerChihuahua?!? 11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Always a pleasure, see you around! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/May&oldid=1073933383"