User talk:Gaba p
|This is Gaba p's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Gaba p.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
- 1 Timothy Ball
- 2 A barnstar for you!
- 3 Falkland Islands award
- 4 Reviewer
- 5 Review of Seyfert galaxy article
- 6 Does the thin disk contain the bulge?
- 7 Dear User Gaba - On Nova - again
- 8 ANI notice
- 9 Your request for rollback
- 10 Imprints
Thanks for your remarks while deleting my edit to Climate Change Denial. I'm trying to surface anybody active in suppressing information about Timothy Ball. Good articles on Timothy ball exist in other WP languages, but articles in the English WP are removed by unknown persons. Santamoly (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Santamoly, although I did not remove any of your edits I do agree with the editors that did. Such commentaries made inside a WP article are very disruptive, specially if made more than once, and you could be blocked if you continue making them. Furthermore, climate change articles are subject to discretionary sanctions as NewsAndEventsGuy pointed out in your talk page.
- If you feel an article about that person is needed you are welcome to create one, but please go through the log of the deletion of that article that NewsAndEventsGuy posted in your talk page. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|Thank you for supporting the reversal of an unfortunate outcome. MarshalN20 | Talk 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)|
Falkland Islands award
Hi Gaba. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. I'm excluding myself, and also those that are either out of the project or not contributed in a long time (thereby making you 10 out of 10). Congratulations.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're too kind Marshall, compared to you I hardly contributed anything to that article but I'm definitely glad I made the cut :) I'm very glad to see the FI article promoted to GA and of course most of the credit for that goes to you my friend. Cheers! Gaba (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
- Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
- Administrate article feedback.
Please remember that this user right:
- Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
- Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
- You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of Seyfert galaxy article
Hello Gaba , I am working on the Seyfert galaxy article as part of my Honours project in physics, and one of my targets is improving the quality rating of the article. When I started working on it it was rated as C class, and it still has the same rating. However, I think it's quality now is above C. It has a general introduction meant for all users and more advanced discussions further on in the article. All the information is referenced back to astronomy and astrophysics journals and web publications, such as the NASA website or lecture notes from top universities. It now contains more photos and a table of examples of galaxies, and it talks impartially about the current theories regarding Seyfert galaxies. I don't know exactly what the procedure for asking for a review is, which is why I'd really appreciate if you can have another look at the article and tell me if you think the article could go up one or two classes on the quality scale, and how I go about asking for that. Thank you very much, Careless Torque (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Careless Torque I'll be glad to review the article but I won't be able to do it until Tuesday. After a quick glance I can tell you it surely looks like it can be upgraded to B-class. If you are in a hurry you can ask for assistance at the WikiProject Astronomy talk page, otherwise I'll look it over on Tuesday. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Does the thin disk contain the bulge?
Hi, in your edit to thin disk you added the information that the thin disc contains the bulge. To me this seems counter-intuitive – I have the feeling that the bulge is the bulge, and not a part of the thin disk, right? After all the bulge is quite decisively not "thin". Therefore I just wanted to ask you if could take a look and see if the sources do support the claim that the bulge is part of the thin disk.
BTW, thanks for adding the info/link to the spiral arms – much appreciated (I do hope though that this based on sources).
- Hi Tony Mach, thanks for the note. I checked what you mentioned and although I was sure the sources I used mentioned this, I could not find it. I removed the claim until I can find a suitable reference. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- It happens. Sometimes we are so sure of a fact about reality, yet it is only a trick of our minds play on us. At least you looked it up and I did not have to argue with you :-) – as I am not an expert (and have only limited energy to spare), I probably would have probably given up quite quickly, and would have left it stand as a "fact". Kindest regards, Tony Mach (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the word "contains" is (was) being used poorly. I'll try to find a source which makes this clear, possibly mentioning the vertical axis of the bulge and the position of the spiral arms along the disk. Don't have much time right now but possibly during the week I'll get to it. Thank you again for the note. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear User Gaba - On Nova - again
in insisting on the word lowest you absolutely distort the SENSE ranking of book publishers over the last years. Your disrespect of the work of others is really untenable in a public place like Wikipedia: in vandalizing my versions, you utterly ignore the facts
1) University of the South Pacific and Nova Science
In December 2012, the USP President and Vice-Chancellor Professor Rajesh Chandra awarded Fiji National University’s new Professor in Economics, T K Jayaraman, the Vice Chancellor’s annual prize for excellence in research for Professor Jayaraman’s study on a single currency in the region, published in 2012 as a book by Nova Science Publishers, New York (From Fiji National University Newsletter, Dec 21, 3(51), 2012, page 5, available at http://tkjayaraman.com/docs/books/Dec%203%202012%20Award%20by%20Univ%20of%20the%20South%20Pacific%20to%20Professor%20Jayaraman.pdf] The opinions, expressed by Ms. Phillips, quoted in the article, certainly do not represent the official opinions of the USP nor the opinions of the head of its Library, since Nova Science published none the less than 142 titles from authors of that University (see: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/advanced_search.php?osCsid=f99d1a911db62adacfc4660d3425bb39], including three books by the Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of the South Pacific, Professor Biman Prasad (see: http://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=2606&type=98)
2) The SENSE Publisher Ranking and Nova Science
The Dutch Research Consortium SENSE http://www.sense.nl/qualityassessment makes the first international effort at a credible international publisher ranking. The 2010 Report was based on 5 categories, and the latest is built on that.
A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers C: Refereed book publications published by other publishers D: published for an academic public (professional publications) E: mainly published for a non-academic (general) public
What they call C-publishers ("decent international publishers and excellent national publishers") – 1 credit per book chapter starting with Aalborg University Press and ending with Zed Books includes - on page 4 of 17 of the 2010 Report Nova Science Publications (Source: http://www.sense.nl/uploads?&func=download&fileId=855 ). It would be an absolute distorsion of the SENSE classification system to call category C in a derogatory fashion "lowest class" since the 2010 ranking makes the 5 categories clear - and defines them. C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers) include such well-known book publishing companies in the social sciences as Amsterdam University Press; Berg Publishers; Dutch University Press; Fundacao Getulio Vargas); Flacso; Fondo de Cultura Economica (Mexico); Garland Publishers; Greenwood Press; Indiana University Press; L'Harmattan, (Paris); Leiden University Press; Leske & Budrich; Lexington Books; Lit Verlag; Marcel Dekker; Melbourne University Press; New York University Press; NIAS Press; Nijmegen University Press; North Holland Publications; Norton Publishing; Ohio State University Press; Peter Lang; Francis Pinter; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and CIRAD, Bogota; Poznan University of Economics; Prentice Hall; Presse de l'Université de Lyon; Presse de l'Université de Quebec; Roskilde University Press; Rozenberg Publishers Amsterdam; Rutgers University Press; Siglo XXI Editores, Mexico); Stockholm University Press; Suhrkamp Verlag; Sussex University Press; Syracuse University Press; Tilburg University Press; Transaction Publishers; Twente University Press; UNESCO Publications; Universidad de Chile; Universität Hamburg; University of Birmingham; University of Bonn; University of British Columbia Press; University of Canberra Press; University of Cape Town Press; University of Copenhagen Press; University of Groningen Press; University of Hawai Press; University of Illinois Press; University of Kwazulu Natal Press; University of Leeds Press; University of Manchester Press; University of Massachusets Press; University of Ottawa Press; University of Stellenbosch Press; University of the West Indies Press; University of Washington Press; Utrecht University Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Verlag Otto Harassowitz; Vervuert; Wageningen University Press; Wageningen Academic Publishers; Witwatersrand University Press; Zed Books.
In talking in such a devastating way about the scientific works of others, I'd understand book companies very well if they take such matters to court. Within the Wikipedia community, legal threats are not very well appreciated, but certainly Wikipedia is not above the law, and I'd very well understand if companies like Amsterdam University Press; Berg Publishers; Dutch University Press; Fondo de Cultura Economica (Mexico); Greenwood Press; Indiana University Press; L'Harmattan, (Paris); Zed Books etc. - if called "lowest category" in public in reference to a Dutch SENSE Report, which in reality talks about decent international publishers and excellent national publishers, they take the matter to courts [and author's patience with the matter could run out shortly as well]. Not only the private but also the criminal law of many countries protects the creditoworthiness of a person, and in distorting facts so ruthlesslessly you open a pandora's box. Best wishes and reconsider please your wordings
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi Gaba p. After reviewing your request for rollback, I haverollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Gaba p,
Imprints were recently added to Nova Science Publishers. And then get deleted immediately by you. Please see Springer for selected imprints, as an example of what can be posted on Wikipedia -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Science%2BBusiness_Media
I do not understand your explanation for deleting, which is unfortunate. Please explain. I am sure I am missing something from your side.
- Hi AnnaCRittenberg, regarding your edit: 1- you can't use Wikipedia as a source, you need a reliable source for every piece of information you want to add to an article, 2- the material you added on imprints is irrelevant and adds no value to the article, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Finally, you should give WP:BRD a read, when your edit is reverted you go to the article's talk page and start a new discussion about said edit, you do not revert it back into the article (this can be considered edit warring and could even get you clocked from editing). Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)