G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!
|If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond there, I am watching your talk page. That's of course unless the message at your talk page was a mere heads-up as to progress on a discussion here or on another talk page, in which case probably best to continue the discussion where it is.
I prefer to discuss issues regarding any particular article, policy etc. at its talk page, so if I'm already involved in a discussion there's no need to fork the discussion to here, and if not then a simple heads-up here with a link to the relevant talk page and section is best. Be aware of the canvassing guidelines, but if you're just asking me for advice rather than a whole list of people there should be no problem there.
Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.)On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
- 2 List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion
- 3 Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources
- 4 Merger Proposal
- 5 You've got mail
- 6 Road Case/Flight case merge
- 7 Wrestling
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for October 30
- 9 VisualEditor newsletter—November 2014
- 10 Re: ad hominem
- 11 TU Berlin
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of current IPL team rosters. Since you had some involvement with the List of current IPL team rosters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).
As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.
2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization
"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."
It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor:
The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were:
"The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."
The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore:
"median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation
You've got mail
Road Case/Flight case merge
Agreed. I think that someone looking for encyclopaedic information on this topic would not differentiate between a flight or road case and would want all the information available in one article. Indeed, it would make Wikipedia more concise to merge. A visitor may not know there's any difference anyway, and not look for the other article at all.
Hi. First, sorry, because English isn't my native languaje, so I'll do my best. About wrestling, i udnerstand your point, but isn't right. Wrestling is a sport, true. However, Professional wrestling is the entire definition for the SE (Sport Entertainment). It doesn't mean (Real) Wrestling in a professional level. The (real) Wrestling is Amateur Wrestling (and various subsections, like Freestyle or Greco Roman). You'll never find a source talking about pro wrestling as sport, because the entire term (Professional wrestling) is the name for the sport entertainment. It's like... you argue against Sea lion beacuse isn't a lion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and similarly french toast is neither french nor toast, and that's a good point. Professional wrestling is an acceptable title and an acceptable disambiguator. But it may not be the best title, nor the best disambiguator.
- The argument is slightly stronger for avoiding the term as a disambiguator than it is for avoiding it as an article title, and that is to say that if we were to get consensus to move professional wrestling to wrestling (sports entertainment) it would then settle all the other issues; On the other hand, if we reject that move, that doesn't necessarily also mean rejecting sports entertainment as the best disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- See also the new page at Styles of wrestling. Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, if I may de-lurk. It's really unfortunate that the wrestling-based theatrical entertainment form has come to be called "professional wrestling" or "pro wrestling" in English, but we're sort of stuck with it, per WP:COMMONNAME. In an article, though, I would prefer to refer to someone as "a professional actor in wrestling entertainment" or something, not as "a professional wrestler". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flower drum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and requests, and worked on support for editing tables and for using non-Latin languages. Their weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org. Informal notes from the recent quarterly review were posted on Meta.
The French Wikipedia should see better search results for links, templates, and media because the new search engine was turned on for everyone there. This change is expected at the Chinese and German Wikipedias next week, and eventually at the English Wikipedia.
The "pawn" system has been mostly replaced. Bugs in this system sometimes added a chess pawn character to wikitext. The replacement provides better support for non-Latin languages, with full support hopefully coming soon.
VisualEditor is now provided to editors who use Internet Explorer 10 or 11 on desktop and mobile devices. Internet Explorer 9 is not supported yet.
The keyboard shortcuts for items in the toolbar's menus are now shown in the menus. VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme from the User Experience / Design group. The appearance of dialogs has already changed in one Mobile version. The appearance on desktops will change soon. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" design and the new "MediaWiki" theme which will replace it.)
Several bugs were fixed for internal and external links. Improvements to MediaWiki's search solved an annoying problem: If you searched for the full name of the page or file that you wanted to link, sometimes the search program could not find the page. A link inside a template, to a local page that does not exist, will now show red, exactly as it does when reading the page. Due to a error, for about two weeks this also affected all external links inside templates. Opening an auto-numbered link node like  with the keyboard used to open the wrong link tool. These problems have all been fixed.
The tool for quickly editing TemplateData will be deployed to all Wikimedia Foundation wikis on Thursday, 6 November. This tool is already available on the biggest 40 Wikipedias, and now all wikis will have access to it. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation. When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Manage TemplateData" button at the top. Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.
You can use the new autovalue setting to pre-load a value into a template. This can be used to substitute dates, as in this example, or to add the most common response for that parameter. The autovalue can be easily overridden by the editor, by typing something else in the field.
In TemplateData, you may define a parameter as "required". The template dialog in VisualEditor will warn editors if they leave a "required" parameter empty, and they will not be able to delete that parameter. If the template can function without this parameter, then please mark it as "suggested" or "optional" in TemplateData instead.
Basic support for inserting tables and changing the number of rows and columns in tables will appear next Wednesday. Advanced features, like dragging columns to different places, will be possible later. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. To help editors find the most important items more quickly, some items in the toolbar menus will be hidden behind a "More" item, such as "underlining" in the styling menu. The appearance of the media search dialog will improve, to make picking between possible images easier and more visual. The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap.
The user guide will be updated soon to add information about editing tables. The translations for most languages except Spanish, French, and Dutch are significantly out of date. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language. Talk to us if you need help exporting the translated guide to your wiki.
You can influence VisualEditor's design. Tell the VisualEditor team what you want changed during the office hours via IRC. The next sessions are on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC and on Wednesday 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC. You can also share your ideas at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Thank you!
— Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: ad hominem
Regarding your comments at Talk:Flemish Giant rabbit#Requested moves, I think you need to review the meaning and applicability of the fallacy ad hominem. It's the use of personal criticism in place of logical argument, to make the opponent's argument appear weak or invalid without actually addressing its merits. "Calling foul" by observing that a debate opponent is using ad homimen (or any other fallacy) in place of substantive debate (and doing so consistently across a closely related series of debates) instead of defending their actual position with reason and facts, is not itself an ad hominem argument, unless in doing so one also avoids addressing the issues at hand and relies solely upon their own personal criticism as if it were substantive, which is something I certainly did not do. I followed the observation about ad homimen with a logical argument against the substance of the position taken by that party.
Your making a big point of trying to label me ad hominem (and then making no substantive argument pro or con the reasoned position I actually expressed against theirs, after I noted that the other party was engaging in ad homimen arguments), was itself precisely what you were wrongly criticizing me for. It did nothing at all useful in an RM discussion, serving no purpose other than personal criticism.
I also have to observe that the fuss you made months ago over my old AE restrictions means that you are by definition also aware of the terms of WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions, with which you were impliedly threatening me. I've enjoyed us not having any conflict for some time, and even quietly agreeing on things in many cases (including most of that same RM). Let's keep it that way. I have to think you have better things to do than pop into not-necessarily-random AT/MOS-related discussions and make personalizing and aspersion-casting commentary about me. It's precisely what ARBCOM concluded to prevent in the ARBATC decision. Unprovoked bashing of me is not a legitimate pastime for you here. You won't find me doing this with you. Even when I have to mention the fact that the thread that concluded with WP:BIRDCON was started by someone else, yet I keep getting blamed for it and for people quitting Wikipedia over it (at least for a while - two of them come back periodically to attack me and do little else), I don't mention you by name. I want the scapegoating to stop, not to shift to someone else's head. You also won't find me doing this with others. One of the most personally antagonistic thorns in my side during those breed-name RMs, and among those who pilloried me at ANI for undiscussed moves, has in turn been making the same kinds of moves, directly against how RMs on the very pages in question closed. Rather than filing my own vengeful "gotcha" request at ANI, or even mentioning said party by name at RM, or revertwarring their moves, I've simply quietly filed RMs to rectify the situation. Nor did I fire up any AE processes despite truly despicable and continual personal attacks by three of those people, unrelenting for months despite administrative warnings to at least one of them to stop, and me mostly quitting editing for an entire month to get away from it. I have better things to do than play WP:DRAMA games. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, we've been discussing the move of TU Berlin last year. After everything has gone very quiet I wanted to check back on this and ask if there is still an interest in resolving this issue. Looking at this a year later, all I see is that the whole Talk page of the TU Berlin has become a discussion wheather to use the Technische Universität or Technical University variant. I still think that "Technical" is a poor (but easy and common) translation. I still believe there is a chance for Wikipedia to resolve this naming issue (in general). Maybe the correct way actually is to discuss the guidelines instead of arguing for a single case. The last time I checked (a year ago) there were no specific guidelines that lead to a wiki-wide uniform handle for a university. In either case, are you still interested in this topic? Cheers, Maderthaner (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)