User talk:Dicklyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar-camera.png The Photographer's Barnstar
To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png All Around Amazing Barnstar
For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Surreal Barnstar.png The Surreal Barnstar
For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar-camera.png The Photographer's Barnstar
For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking my break more seriously for a while...RL calls. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


I archive by deletion; see history if you care. Everything before 2014 is archived now.

Please make new sections at the bottom.

Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

List of eponyms (A–K)#Dashes[edit]

Thank you for letting me know that you undid my edits of March 24, 2007. I disagree with WP:MOS on two points on dashes. I strongly prefer em dashes spaced — the majority of U.S. newspaper websites that use em dashes at all (some use double hyphens) — space the em dashes. I abhor the use of en dashes where Chicago Manual of Style calls for em dashes. However, I became aware of WP:MOS many years ago and have since followed it, at least in article space. — Anomalocaris (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the "for Dummies" book, I'm not aware of any guides that advocate spaced em dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Chicago Manual of Style 14th edition's examples of em dash usage all use unspaced em dash, but the book doesn't state that the em dash should be unspaced. From List of newspapers in the United States by circulation, here is what a quick check right now shows on the websites of the top 20 U.S. papers: uses unspaced em dash. uses spaced em dash. uses spaced em dash [1] although sometimes sloppily uses spaced en dash [2]. uses spaced em dash. uses spaced double hyphen. uses spaced em dash [3] and sometimes spaced hyphen [4]. uses spaced em dash. uses spaced em dash. uses spaced em dash. uses spaced em dash. dallasnews uses spaced em dash. uses spaced em dash, although it uses spaced hyphen in datelines [5]. uses spaced em dash. ocregister uses spaced en dash. uses spaced en dash. uses spaced em dash. uses spaced double hyphen. uses spaced hyphen [6]. uses spaced em dash [7].
So of the websites of the top 20 U.S. newspapers, only one ( uses unspaced em dash. Three use spaced single or double hyphens primarily. Two use spaced en dash primarily. All the rest use spaced em dash primarily or exclusively. At least compared to U.S. newspaper websites, WP:MOS is far out of the mainstream on the symbol and spacing to use for interruptions in thought and related uses. The great majority call for spaced em dash, not unspaced em dash, not spaced en dash. I made this point years ago on the MOS talk page, and asked to be notified the next time the issue was discussed, and I believe such discussions did crop up from time to time but I was never notified of them. — Anomalocaris (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that lots of web sites use spaced hyphens and double hyphens really dilutes your case, essentially backing up the idea that web sites have done a crappy job of implementing decent typography as recommended by a wide range of classic guides to publishing style. Through the attention of editors to the MOS, WP has done better. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Also note that the newpapers' use of spaced long dash to separate a by-line from a story is not the situation that we're talking about in the MOS. That seems to be what some of your links are pointing at. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Keightley (historian) move request[edit]

I would like you to reassess your "oppose" comment on move request on Talk:Thomas Keightley. The talk on the move has been merged to Talk:Thomas Keightley (historian) page, having relisted it using {{move-multi}}, following procedural protocol advice.
A more in-depth rationale is now given: my own analysis of usage based on Google search, and secondary reasons. You may consult these if you like. However, it might be simpler for people weighing on the issue to conduct their own cursory Google search etc. themselves, rather than reading my long-winded "opening arguments". Hence my refraining from giving out my bag of wind, initially. ---Kiyoweap (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

I have been in touch with the author of a book, which contains images I wish to upload for use in WP. The author owns the copyright of the images and would like to see them used. He lives in Australia. He has emailed them to me. Can you advise me please? Would "fair use" be an appropriate designation to use? --Greenmaven (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you could get him to email an explicit statement about what license he gives. Better yet, have him upload the images himself, if he created them, and he can state what license he is giving (e.g. Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0); see WP:TAGS. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Even thought the Niners are still in the playoffs, they will not host the NFC Championship Game if they advance, since the Saints were eliminated and they are now the NFC's lowest seed. Candlestick is effectively closed, which is why I made the edits. Richiekim (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, "effectively closed". But we base WP on real sources about things that have happened, not our conclusions about what the future holds. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

instead of reverting it, add the things that were missing[edit]

Dicklyon, you recently reverted some changed I made. I understand the not wanting the external links, even if they are relevant, but the text should probably stay. The one in particular in the "Brain Fitness Program". The product is no longer available in its original form, the exercises are now part of of an online brain training program called BrainHQ. The page doesn't accurately reflect that, it implies you can purchase the Brain Fitness Program. Thats all. I was adding the external links because they are directly relevant to someone who is searching for it, but I understand that objections to having those. Can I add the part about the Brain Fitness Program now part of BrainHQ? Thanks, a204801

You should follow my suggestion and use the article talk page to ask other editors to consider the changes you want, in light your apparent WP:COI. Follow that link and find where it says: "If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steam Machine#Requested move[edit]

I'm contacting you to ensure consensus is clear. You've agreed it should be moved, but I've later pitched the concern of a definition issue. I'm instead proposing Steam Machine be renamed and moved to Steam Machine (hardware platform). I'd like your thoughts if this is okay on the bottom of that talk page. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

vitamin D[edit]

you are very close to WP:3RR if not over already. (i am not a big counter but i don't like edit warring). please stop edit warring and talk. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I started the talk already, before someone again removed the content that I had restored. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dick, you are calming down which is happy but there is still no need for exaggerations like "gross error" and your continuing use of "ridiculous". People can disagree in good faith about how to state things, especially when the data is weak, as it is here. I am (a little) sorry to keep pushing back on you, but Wikipedia relies on collaboration to exist and WP:CIVILITY is a pillar for good reason. Harsh language only makes collaborative solutions harder to reach, and slows the process down - and everybody is busy. You will of course choose to discuss things in whatever style you like! In any case I am glad you pointed out that the current description of the relationship between Vitamin D and cardiovascular disease could be improved. We will keep working on it. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but "could be improved" greatly understates the problem and diminishes my own good-faith attempts to work on it, so I got a bit pissed at you guys. Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the "yes". i have a hard time seeing the "great" extent of the problem. the difference between "is unlikely to help X" and "may help X but further research is needed" (which based on both reviews is the most we can say) is pretty slim - both are very very far from something like "is recommended for X". anyway, we will get there! Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you are at 4 reverts now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Per this edit [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I was speaking about your edits when I concluded jokingly that "I think we'll need to send Doc James (User:Jmh649) back to statistics class to learn how to interpret statements about hypothesis tests and statistical significance." That's an attack now? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello Dicklyon, thanks for your recent de-capitalising in the List of inventors specifically this de-capitalising. I guess i have been adding many capitalised inventions. I am not sure if I completely understand, how would you like to see it done? So what I added often looked/s like this: Inventorname (years), Country - Invention1, Invention2, Invention3, etc. Would you suggest that only the first invention be capitalised, or none of them? I think so far I have been adding all inventions with a capital, partly because it is a pleasant visual signal (well, for me) that another link is coming up. This will be a tad tedious to de-capitalise for me but not impossible :-) --Poepkop (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Either capitalizing the first one, sort of like we do in heading style, or none of them, would be OK, I think. There's quite a mix now, and I haven't gone so far as to take on making it consistent. Pick one, or discuss it on the article talk page first. Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your revision of my edit Bulb (photography)[edit]

Of course, you don't care my legal problems using pictures with copyright violation. I removed these pictures because I loaded them up illegally. Now you arrogantly decide, that my reason is unimportant for you and revise my edit? Who are you?-Frank Gosebruch (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain at the deletion nomination discussion. Of course if the deletion nomination is supported the images will be removed from articles, but there is no need to get ahead of things. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Sorry to hear the edits are a problem. What *are* the problems, exactly? (I am not any of the other accounts you list on incidents, or related to them, nor am I a student) GoWP (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

GoWP, thanks for talking. No particular problem, just that you showed up as a new user about the same time and on same article as some of the others. You probably noticed already that you contribution was editted to close up line breaks, so that they don't show up as separate lines in the diffs. Welcome to WP. Dicklyon (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Elbe-Weser Triangle etc.[edit]

Hi Dick. I think I see the logic for all your recent moves, but having created the portal and many of the articles for the Elbe-Weser triangle I would have appreciated being contacted beforehand to at least understand the logic. For example, Elbe-Weser Triangle is quite often spelt with a capital "T", but that was not included in the lede. The correct English rendering of German names is a tricky area and I have a lot of experience that may help. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check sources and found that it's also quite often lowercase (in books, looking past those that mirror Wikipedia). So per MOS:CAPS we should not be treating it as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I did the same and found it to be 2:1 in favour of the lower case version of Elbe-Weser triangle, so fair enough in that instance, but the same is not true of the Elbe-Weser waterway, where there were no sources supporting that and it's not an accurate translation either. All I'm saying is, it's good to talk before making sweeping changes. --Bermicourt (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The only use of "Elbe–Weser waterway" that I found in a book was in 1969, lower case waterway, en dash in Elbe Weser, which is exactly as I would have done it per WP:MOS if it was in no sources. I don't have an opinion about whether there's a better or more common translation; on checking, it looks like Elbe–Weser canal might be best. Minor corrections to case and punctuation are not what I consider "sweeping"; in the rare cases where someone thinks I got it wrong, they'll hopefully pipe up and help work it out. It doesn't sound like you think I did wrong in this case, so it's not clear what you're getting at. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that many articles on German topics go too far in importing German capitalization, or making up proper names in English that have no precedent in sources. For example, Wiesbaden City Palace is a trigram that I find in zero books, but the "city palace" lowercase is often described in Wiesbaden. I'm not seeking to find and fix all such things, but when I come upon them for some reason, like a connection with something else I'm doing, I sometimes go ahead and fix them per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
My original point was that I was a little surprised to find a portal and its main articles moved to new titles without being involved as the person who set them all up, especially as there appears to be no overwhelming support for any of the new names. Having translated over 3,000 articles from German to English, I have some experience in this area and am very familiar with the difficulties that sometimes occur - few authoritative English sources; alternative names; variant spellings and capitalization; literal translation or even no translation because of a lack of awareness of the English equivalent. It can be a tricky area that merits discussion unless the answer is clear-cut. I'd just be grateful we could do that in future. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What is this portal that you refer to? Ah, here it is: Portal:Elbe-Weser Triangle; I didn't see or touch that, and I broke the link to it (now fixed). I suggest you fix the case and punctuation to be more MOS compliant, but I'll stay out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi Dicklyon,

I am trying to understand why you said ArtsFaire in the Las Cruces, New Mexico is not CamelCase. The organization's literature over the years uses CamelCase. The Doña Ana Arts Council is the supporting organization and uses CamelCase whenever mentioning the ArtsFaire, the latest example is the 2014 notice]. I have followed the ArtsFaire since 2003 and I can only remember CamelCase. Any help will be appreciated.

Best regards,

--Joe (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going by the source that's cited in the article. Feel free to change it and cite a better source if camelCase is right. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Good eye! The citation page uses Artsfaire twice at the top and ArtsFaire seven times throughout. The top should rule. I will change the citation to 2014. It is consistent throughout. Thanks. --Joe (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced edits[edit]

Hello, I had to revert some of your edits from February because they were unsourced. Please make sure you always add a source before you edit something on Wikipedia. I know you are well meaning, but I'll have to continue revising your edits for unsourced material. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you made someone angry :-) Anyways, all his/hers contribs ([9]) have been undone meanwhile, by me and others, except this very usertalk. Poepkop (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's funny what fights some people pick. I wonder what IP address he'll be back on next. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am completely replaceable. The zealot who started and escalated this was you. You followed my IP and reversed all my edits without sourcing your decisions why the martial I added had to be deleted. I am gone now because I have given up on Wikipedia. But you and your personality are the problem and you are still here. Even if you don't perceive yourself as a problem. You don't see your actions and your personality from the outside. You need feedback to learn who you are. And this feedback has just been given.

@Dicklyon: I assume this is an earlier version of the Deutsche Telekom IP who has recently been messing around with your brother's article. Please let me know if you see similar activity. @ the IP: this isn't a place to pursue vendettas. If you harass other users, your editing privileges will be removed. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on the Sandstein thread at ANI[edit]

I have refactored the discussion at ANI noticeboard, to make it look a little less like herding cats. [10] I was unsure of where to move yours, if I got it in the wrong place feel free to move it. —Neotarf (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perfect fifth[edit]

Hi there,

I just thought I'd thank you for your well thought out and well sourced input into our discussion in the Perfect Fifth talk page. I believe I had once been bothered by a minor disagreement with you involving RGB colour theory, but now I see your reasoning skills and citations from the other perspective, I have a newfound respect for your input.

So thanks for your work on Wikipedia! We should discuss RGB colour theory again some time ; )

InternetMeme (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


My handle is nothing to do with Smer! Actually the similarity hadn't even registered with me before your comment - I am getting dozy in my old age. Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

de Broglie's wave mechanics[edit]

You said about the Valeriy Sbitnev article, "per discussion, still not OK; it's not even a published, and not particularly relevant". It's not published and it will remain out. However, once it is published it will be back in as it is extremely relevant. As far as I am aware, Valeriy Sbitnev is the first to state in terms of wave-particle duality it is the aether which waves. He does this by figuring out "the oil in the bath plays a role of aether for the droplet that moves on this surface". Valeriy Sbitnev will be the first to publish an article stating de Broglie's hidden medium is the aether. In a double slit experiment, it is the aether which waves. Mpc755 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews and Philosophy[edit]

I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a link to a suggested way forward on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. ----Snowded TALK 09:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dicklyon. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

 Velella  Velella Talk   08:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I Have Mentioned You at The Administrator Incident Noticeboard[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Duxwing (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please notify me again if/when you actually make an edit at WP:AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dicklyon. He has now posted, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please Temp-Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are the frequencies that they use[edit]

Maybe I should rewrite that sentence. I think it is important for readers to understand the type of radio waves used.--Wyn.junior (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should link an article or a diff so I'll have some clue what you're talking about. I feel like Dan Rather. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing Duxwing's copyedits[edit]

You'd mentioned on AN/I that additional eyes reviewing Duxwing's copyedits would be a good thing. I've been looking at some of his older edits to articles and undoing them where I felt they made the article worse. Because in most cases there have been intervening edits I've been doing undos manually.

I hope that this is OK with you. I realize that it would have been better to contact you before I started looking at these articles and I apologize for not having done so sooner. If you prefer that I stop then just say the word. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have no particular interest in Duxwing or his edits, so it's good to see someone else helping to fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me![edit]

Hi there. Thank you for reverting my edit on Hyphen. I guess I have to say sorry for that one; I didn't know that my edit was unnecessary, and please be aware that I'm still getting familiar with editing. EmilyREditor (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when you see oddly mangled text, it's good to look at the history and see if the best fix is to revert one or more recent edits. Several bad edits there had gone unfixed before you tried to improve on the mess. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contesting my WP:RMTR request![edit]

I know this may sound odd, but thanks for contesting my WP:RMTR request for Columbia City Hall. Thanks to that, I was able to spend some time reviewing WP:PRECISION to realize why it did not apply to that move request, and this changed my reasoning. Yeah, there's probably a city hall somewhere in another Columbia, whichever one that may be! Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The B2C theory of precision being bad, and his WP:UNDAB theory, are not uncontroversial. And it's not OK to move a technical request back from contest to uncontroversial. If you want to move it you'll need to use a WP:RM. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I had changed my reasoning, as I had stated in a future edit on that page, so my WP:PRECISION reasoning was inapplicable. By the way, I almost never start WP:RM discussions; all moves I tend to do/propose are technical since I try to fix disambiguation issues in titles. (But yeah, I know you wouldn't know that unless you knew my editing style, so no worries.). And actually, it doesn't matter anymore: Columbia City Hall (Missouri) has been created ... which is what I was waiting for. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Distortion (optics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • known as the Brown–Conrady model based on earlier work by Conrady.<ref>Conrady, Alexander Eugen. "[ Decentred Lens-systems." Monthly notices of the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


I see you've added hyphens at New wave music. To my (UK) eyes, that is just simply wrong - but I'm aware of unnecessary and (in my eyes) incorrect hyphens being added elsewhere recently as well. Is there some new discussion or guidance of which I'm unaware? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just the discussion at Talk:New-age_music#Requested_re-move where SMcCandlish wanted to go the other way; I usually agree with his styling points, but not on this one. The hyphen signals the reader in the context of compound used as adjective that we're not talking about wave music that is new, or a wave artist who is new. It's just a lot easier for an unfamiliar reader to parse if this conventional hyphen usage is not dropped. As is well known (and McCandlish himself sometimes points out), in a more specialist context where people are assumed to be familiar, the hyphen is often dropped from such constructs. Sometime caps are used instead ("New Wave music") to make the two words parse as a unit, but that would be very much contrary to MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Whether there are grammarians who think the term should be hyphenated is of no relevance whatsoever. The fact is that it is never hyphenated. Find me some examples, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I showed evidence at Talk:New-wave music that implies that your fact is incorrect. It's really not so unusual to hyphenate compounds when used in adjective context, to help the reader. Even in British books by British musicologists you'll find this done with new-wave music. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
As your diagram shows, only very rarely. As others have said, to the great majority of readers it simply looks like an error. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It's hardly rare. Many sources use other mechanisms to get the two words to hang together when used as an adjective, including caps, double quotes, single quotes. These are not really compatible with WP style, which is to use standard grammar and punctuation mechanisms to help unfamiliar readers. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm signing off for tonight. Clearly this needs a more centralised discussion where this can be hammered out. "Standard grammar and punctuation mechanisms" should not be imposed when they introduce terms which are simply not in common use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The hyphen is new-wave music is in common use, as I've shown; yes, even in the UK in writings of British musicologists. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
MOS:HYPHEN does not give clear guidance on this point. Perhaps you can point me to the specific discussion in this list where it has been discussed. In any case, if you want to pursue the point, the discussion will need to be reopened. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)



I remember that we had some interaction in the past which led me to conclusion that you should be able to help with English language grammar, if necessary. I sincerely appologize if I am wrong. In that case please discard my message. But if you are able to give me advice, I would appreciate your opinion regarding capitalization of the title of two articles:

All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It would take a very strong cue from sources to make me think either of these uprising should be treated as a proper name. I'd use lower case. But "Eastern" is probably more appropriately capitalized in that context. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Cochlea Traveling Wave.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Motorola 6800[edit]


Nomination for deletion of Template:India document comparison[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:India document comparison has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

El Paso[edit]

I see you removed a lot of data from the El Paso Texas page i had put in. Could you explain why? BanditRider22 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I cannot explain. It was my intention to just fix dash problems. Did I perhaps start with a wrong version? Sorry, no time to sort out right now. Do with it what you will. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's highly likely it was an obsolete starting point or an unflagged edit conflict. From this diff, it appears that only the dashes and minor formatting was fixed. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla[edit]

Greetings Dicklyon

Several years back I edited an article on pitch with you. Even though things got somewhat testy (probably my fault for dragoning the lead without first stating my intention on the talk page!), I was very impressed with your engineering expertise and willingness to revise articles in ways that would make them accessible and interesting to a general public. That's important.

I'm currently collaborating on the bio of Nikola Tesla--again trying to help revise it in such a way that everyone, not just smart engineers--can grasp the significance of his contributions. I was wondering if you felt that you had the competence to answer questions about his work or, if not, could recommend an editor who can. For example, how the AC induction motor that Tesla built differed from the motor built by Galileo Ferraris.

--Atlantictire (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really know anything about these motors, or induction motors generally. Not sure who is into that, but look for other editors on relevant articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks anyway.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Well, first i would like to apologize for the grief you have been experiencing off late thanks to me. I would like to assure you that most if not all of it is unintentional as i do try to see if another article exists before i create a new one.

However at time mostly due to being in a rush or compromised by fatigue, it would seem that i have overlooked certain details. However if you look at atleast 3 of the articles where such mistakes have taken place then you will see the vast difference in the way & contents of the articles such as Chennai–Mysore Shatabdi (1042 bytes) & Chennai Central Mysore Shatabdi Express (6784 bytes) among other articles.

In such a scenario, should not the better written article of the two remain, the date of creation not withstanding?? And does your move have anything to do with the list of articles created by me reducing in number?? It was 208 yesterday now it is showing as 202.

Superfast1111 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No prob. In order to maintain a proper history, you should convert the older article into a better article, even if it means just replacing all the content with better content. Most likely, there will be something worth preserving, and a bit more of a merge will be appropriate. But creating a new article and deleting the contents out of the old one is not the way. I don't know about your list of articles; possibly it is no longer counting the ones I converted to redirects. You can recover your text from the history of those and merge it into the old articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

[The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Hello; because you commented in this discussion, I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your name taken in vain[edit]

Hello. Just thought you should know that I've referred to you and your edits on the Main Page talk page: [11]. Someone wants to put a comma inside "Like a Rolling Stone", claiming WP:LQ. Thanks. -- (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So when will you be moving the NFL and NHL draft articles to proper capitalization[edit]

Some time back you made a really big deal with lots of argument to move every NBA draft from "XXXX NBA Draft" to "XXXX NBA draft" over opposition. I want to know when you plan to do the same for the NFL and NHL? As of right now, the NBA is the only North American sport with this particular capitalization scheme and now I want to know why your passion around this issue stopped there. What's the deal? Rikster2 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall it being a really big deal or lots of argument, but it sure was a ton of work. I'm not so passionate about drafts and sports leagues, but I do think that MOS:CAPS out to be more widely respected and implemented. Are you offering to help? Or arguing for a North American sports league exception? Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you point to which part of the MOS:CAPS you are relying on to make these changes? I really like the second sentence. "Most capitalization is for proper names" In case you need reminding, "A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity". Each year's AFL Draft is a specific & unique entity of a sporting draft. Notice the correct and subtle use of capitalisation there? You have wasted a lot of your time doing this mindless and incorrect change. I don't think it's isn't important enough for anyone to bother changing back, so now we will be left with thousands of redirected links and it all could have been avoided if you just posted something to WT:AFL or WP:AWNB. "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is a great philosophy for one edit. Bulk edits like this should be "Discuss, Do or Don't". User:Anthony Appleyard should know better too. Regards The-Pope (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Papa, most better sources don't agree with you; "2000 NBA draft" is not treated as proper in a majority of books; see [12]. I expect similar results for other years. In general, adding the year to the descriptive name of an annual event doesn't make it a proper name. As MOS:CAPS says, "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." It's easier to get summary stats for the general case than for the specific annual one: [13]. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, got the NFL all done. I have to get back to work. NHL will have to wait. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

ESU Hornets and Lady Hornets[edit]

Dicklyon, I know I was suppose to wait, and I'm not sure why I went ahead and moved the page after one comment. I think I was just frustrated that no one replied within a few days, and it took 7... I was just glad someone replied!! What did you think of the name change? CorkythehornetfanTalk 01:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't like it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
May I ask why? CorkythehornetfanTalk 01:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I answered with an oppose at the RM. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unconstructive comments[edit]

I think the first of your most recent posts to Wikipedia talk:Article titles was constructive, but your second one that starts "A much more effective way "to minimize time consuming pointless debates" would be for B2C to shut up...." is not. That sort of comment is better in user talk space or at ANI, because it is nothing to do with the development of AT, and it invites a retort from B2C which if cleverly constructed will demand a reply by you. I think you should either strike it or remove it. -- PBS (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a proper counter to his claims; complaining on his talk page or ANI would not allow countering his claim in the discussion, and based on history would probably also do nothing else useful. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings... reply (NCS)[edit]

Greetings Dicklyon. Thanks for your note. As requested, I have broached the matter at the corresponding talk page and would appreciate your feedback there. I must confess that I was, at first, slightly dismayed to see that you had simply reverted without waiting for my reply, but on checking out the history I now see that there had been an issue only a few days back, so I understand your haste. That said, it's clearly a mistake to remove the link to the company's official website and/or calling it spam. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Belinda. I'm writing to apologize for my modification on Adder (electronics). I thought it was wrong because I took A and B as two individual numbers and I assumed that you tried to add them. Thank you for your notification. I really appreciate your work! Gubelinda (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move[edit]

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

British Rail Class 66[edit]

Please could you help me to understand the rationale behind [14]. —Sladen (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a slow start, but I was moving toward the guideline of MOS:CAPS to only use caps for proper names. My impression on checking sources was that this is not one. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Voter ID (India)[edit]

You had this article on your watchlist? I have just reverted to your version. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editors[edit]

In your opinion, is it advisable to revert edits in a talk page? I'm thinking that the editors on the Talk:Negative feedback page could start systematically reverting posts by User:Brews_ohare that are heavy on personal comments (as many of them are.) I hesitate to take this approach, so seek your advice. Trevithj (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to just never respond to him; the rest of us just need to work around his noise. Reverting will just escalate the disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. GliderMaven had made the revert threat a while back, and Brews' recent goading got to me a bit - so I was tempted. (sigh) But it would be unwise. Thanks. Trevithj (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)