User talk:Harryzilber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Enjoy some jazz while you're here....
Unless requested, I'll respond to posts on the page where the conversation started as a means of keeping it together. If you leave me a message here, please watchlist this page for the duration of the discussion. If I post a query or comment on your talk page, then I'll watch your page for responses.

[Small toolbox: {reply|User_talk:Harryzilber#topic} .....]


Contents

Volta Laboratory and Bureau[edit]

The stairs and front entrance to an impressive Renessaince Revial era institutional building, with brass plaques on both sides of the portico.
The 1893 Volta Bureau building in Washington, D.C.

Did You Know: ... that Alexander Graham Bell's Volta Laboratory, funded by France's Volta Prize, invented the world's first non-electrical radiophones and tape recorders during the 1880s? 5x expanded by Harryzilber (talk) at 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nice additions, but no 5-fold expansion in last 5 days (gradual expansion since Dec. 2009). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded to a conscientious editor who is always on the lookout for ways to improve article quality. Johnfos (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


{telecommunications} template[edit]

Please, note that your recent actions were contested. Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we improve the value of the telecommunications template by putting it in every article that has anything to do with making signals. Eventually it will creep into battery and generator and table and chair, all of which may have something to do with telecommunication. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wtshymanski: are you trying to imply that electric chairs didn't help people communicate?
Meteor burst communications and smoke signals are on the esoteric side for general telecommunications subjects and can be easily eliminated. Some of the network articles are highly specialized and likely of little value to lay readers. Do you carry care to nominate a few others to thin out the template? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd just hit the main overview articles for technology of communications and not tag every sub-article. Radio for example, but not every modulation scheme. Telephone, but not answering machines and pay phones. Etc. I would focus more on articles that talk about telecommunication as an activity and not so much on documenting every nut, bolt, brick and nail that might have been used in some telecommunication context. --Wtshymanski (talk)

This is another case of zealous template spam, that almost borders on vandalism, since the author does not seem to have any sensible idea of what is appropriate. Please stop spamming articles with this template. With similar intent, every article on WP could have dozens of templates attached. Kbrose (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Kbrose: "...zealous template spam...borders on vandalism...". Your insinuation of spamming and vandalism is patently silly; please look up the words in a dictionary and recognize that Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom, and that article edits shouldn't be reverted because you just don't like it, as with your reverts to transmission medium and similar which bore no basis in the English language. You've now removed the general telecommunications template from data transmission and serial communication, amongst others. Exactly how are those two articles unrelated to telecommunications? The word 'telecommunications' is used in the very first lede sentence just in case you haven't looked -will you now delete any references to 'telecommunications' in such articles so they only appear to be software and computer-related?
An editor with a PhD should be able to appreciate that telecommunication-related articles bearing a collapsed navbox on general telecommunications helps readers better understand the full scope of the topic. Perhaps you don't care about lay readers –however that's your issue, not Wikipedia's. Unfortunately your conduct now verges on edit warring. HarryZilber (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree. Navboxes are usually only trans lyres in the articles that are included in the navbox. The idea of a general link would be better served by a link to the telecommunications portal. That would allow readers to explore the topic without placing an overly large navbox (which loads slowly) on the page. oknazevad (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A navbox, like a photo, takes extra time to load? -that's not new. The same can be said of every other navbox in WP, about 1.5+ million of them, including this very long telecommunication box: {Mobile telecommunications standards}, which appears twice as long as {Telecommunications (general)}. In the present day era of high speed broadband, navboxes add negligible bandwidth to the downloads; and since they're principally text they're also small enough not to significantly impact those who are using dial-ups. If you have strong negative feelings about navboxes you're free to suggest they should all be banned, but I doubt that many others will agree with that. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Well not everyone has a high-speed broadband connection. Don't forget, Wikipedia is read from people around the world. That, along with the potential for creating unneeded distraction is why they should be used judiciously and with a focus on relevance. Adding the full telecommunications navbox to a single Verizon or AT&T operating company, which is what brought my attention to this, is of questionable relevance. A portal template would be better focused and more beneficial to readers, I think. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of telecommcompanies in the world. Not all of their articles need to contain the telecom navbox; it's really just a bunch of irrelevant links for many of them. oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I second Kbrose's words. You are acting in complete disagreement and ignorance of each other editor that commented on this issue, and you continue to add the telecom navbox to articles clearly dealing with subjects that are studied under computer science and computer networking. As I have said before adding the navbox to each and every article is not helpful; any reader interested in an overview of telecom subjects when reading a very specific article such as VoIP is going to look up those articles by him/herself. Arguing that the navbox will help readers "explore the topic" of telecommunications is just plain wrong. Considering this ongoing attitude of you I will support any other user bringing this up at AN/I or a similar place. (I just don't find the time and energy to start it on my own.) Cheers. Nageh (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding to this, inserting the navbox into an article is useful and helpful when the article itself is covered by the navbox, so it is possible to jump between these articles. If the navbox were helpful in articles of more specialized subjects then why wouldn't it cover also an outline of that subject's related articles? Because that is what more specialized navboxes would be for. So in the end you would accumulate more and more navboxes in an article the more specialized a topic it covered. Not helpful. Nageh (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you feel that computer networking and science is unrelated to telecommunications, while I feel that it plays a direct part in some of those fields, e.g. email, SMS and text messaging. Never-the-less I'll avoid adding this particular navbox in the future to computer science webpages unless they're overtly related to telecommunications. Best HarryZilber (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks[edit]

Why do you remove the redlinks from IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal? Ntsimp (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ntsimp: a webpage with a few redlinks that will be converted to normal Wikilinks when a new bio article is created is not a great visual burden, however this particular article is years old and the four people who just had their redlinks removed are unlikely to have articles created about them anytime soon. The redlinks themselves detract from the articles appearance, red generally being a codified colour for something that is errant or incorrect.
The Wikipedia webpage on redlinks says: "Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article..." .....and...... "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created..."
If you or others create new bio articles on any of the four laureates, by all means convert their names to Wikilinks at that time. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of 'Category: Aircraft flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry'[edit]

Category: Aircraft flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought, knowledge for change[edit]

Hello, Harryzilber. I read your suggestion for rewarding contributors and other stakeholders in Wikipedia [1] and I immediately thought, this reminds me of Project Xanadu. The Wikipedia article doesn't really convey the richness of the Xanadu idea, but it lists 17 rules for Xanadu documents including (relevant here) #5: "Every document can consist of any number of parts each of which may be of any data type," and #9: "Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies ("transclusions") of all or part of the document."

Rule 5 (with rule 10) means that every word of every edit to a Wikipedia article (or anything else on the Internet) can be a "document" in the Xanadu universe, each with a unique address and a registered 'owner'. Rule 9 means that the owner can specify if and how that document may be used or reused and put a price on it. In the context of your 'food for thought' proposal I suppose the owner of each document (sentence, word) would be (say) Wikimedia_Foundation/Contributor_UserName with the Foundation setting the rules and the contributor getting the pro-rated credit along the lines you suggested.

I gather that the problem with Xanadu (as you will discover should you follow the links from the article) is not in its conceptual quality (quite brilliant) but in the difficulty of its software implementation. I can't help thinking that somewhere in the multiverse there is a parallel world where Wikipedia is implemented inside a Xanadu framework and that the two could still merge in this world, should people with better technical and organizational skills than myself start talking about it.

According to Xanadu creator Ted Nelson's current Transliterature website Xanadu (in the Transliterature form -- I'm not sure about the distinctions) is now being developed open source at: University of Oxford; University of Southampton; Project Xanadu; Xanadu Australia; Liquid Information, London; and University College, London. As you probably know, the Wiki software is open source and it is within the Wikipedia license to fork the entire Wikipedia, which means that a proof-of-concept Wikipedia under Transliterature could certainly be attempted. I venture to say that everyone at all of these projects is familiar with Wikipedia, but who knows if they would agree with me that a marriage would be possible and desirable? I will copy this message to Ted Nelson at the address he posted at Transliterature.org and I'll let you know if I get a response, or better, perhaps he would leave a comment here on your page: User_talk:Harryzilber.

More food for thought? —Blanchette (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blanchette: your post is interesting as a study of the development of the WWW; I hadn't looked closely at its link to similar projects such as Xanadu although I'd seen it mentioned in the Vanabar Bush article.
However, you're proposing the forking and cloning of the WP project as a separate entity to allow for incorporation of Xanadu features, which appears to me as an infeasible step, I suppose mainly because of the huge infrastructure required to implement it. I also believe that several previous attempts of forking off the WP project into improved versions have essentially gone nowhere -if any have they certainly haven't become widely known; I don't know when I last looked at Google's Knowl project or the one started by Jimmy Wales original partner.
I'd rather work at pitching the concept to the higher level admins within WP, to implement (on a voluntary basis) Rule 9 in conjunction with (mandatory) tracked and cited changes as shown here, which is a proposed system compelling editors to provide inline reference sources for each revised or new sentence incorporated into an article. Since WP is basically a complete information system in itself, there'd be nothing to stop our programmers from incorporating Transliterature's rules as future upgrades. It will be interesting to see if they'd like to contribute resources to WP. Good luck.
Incidentally, a micropayment system created by MuCash is currently in use, in websites such as Cleantechnica, where you can see a Java-linked "Donate 25¢" button at the bottom of each article. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, Harryzilber, and Ted Nelson also agrees with you. He replied to my inquiry and writes:
"As to WIkipedia: they have their own methods.
Just try to change somebody else's software !-)
However, note that Wikipedia is entirely based on THEIR
kind of transclusion (look up there: 'Wikipedia:transclusion')"
Mr. Nelson also informed me that although the latest version of Xanadu is about to go into beta testing, payment schemes will not be in any initial release. So it's clear that some micropayment system like the MuCash one you mentioned coupled to user contribution data under the current Wikipedia software is the most direct path to your goal. For all I know it would not be too difficult to write the software to connect the elements of your suggestion on Wikipedia, and I share your view that such a system would be beneficial to The Wikimedia Foundation. I see no practical, moral or legal impediment to allowing editors to sign up as independent contractors to the Foundation and the motivational effects — even if the payments amounted to little more than "honoraria" — could be substantial, whether or not the level of donations was high. —Blanchette (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback from TN and for your comments. Any assistance you can provide in putting these ideas forward in the relevant WP forums would be appreciated. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, Harry! How can I sign up to receive my payments? -- -- -- 22:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(MMM), feel free to contact 'Jimmy' over here, and he might set you up. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Wikimedia_Foundation does not seem to be the place to contact Jimmy personaly. -- -- -- 22:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Please contribute towards this goal whichever way you can. Thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Harryzilber. You have new messages at Talk:Gyrocompass. Kubanczyk (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Videoconferencing‎[edit]

fwiw - unlinked numbers in [brackets] are a dead giveaway to a copy/paste, usually from a wiki page. I just didn't have time to hunt down the source. --Versageek 20:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It turned out that the section you excised was apparently just a vandalism edit from an I.P. who copied a previous section earlier in the same article and pasted it into a lower section. I only realized that after my revert when I spotted the duplication. The duplicated material has now been exculpated again. Please forgive my confusing edits. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


Telephone Pavilion (Expo 67)[edit]

Harry, I think you're being unreasonable here: it's a pavilion, not a film. Can I suggest you create a redirect for the film which was shown in the pavilion? That way, we can categorize that and it will make sense. I'll even help you. We could add a section on the film to the article. In time, it could even become a stand-alone article, if merited. What was the name of the film, again? I saw it as a kid, but that's all I know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

'Revert vandalism' button ?[edit]

Harry, you said "I recommend that when we revert those edits, we click on the 'Revert vandalism' button, so that 'vandalism' shows up on the history tab."

I could not find a 'Revert vandalism' button. Where do I look for it? Or do you mean I should put the words 'Revert vandalism' in the comments field? Greensburger (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:DreadnoughtHoaxCartoonDailyMirrorFebruary1910.jpg[edit]

Hi there, I see you changed license for above to {{PD-because|the drawing was likely a Work For Hire first published more than 90 years ago.}}. I originally used PD-US because it was published in Britain before 1923 but drawn by a cartoonist who died in 1953 (i.e. less than 70 years ago) - which as I understand it means it is PD in US only but is still under copyright in UK until 2024, i.e. original country of publication, and hence cannot be moved to commons until then. What does the license you give indicate ? The distinction between being PD only in US or in original country of publication is crucial as it determines whether the image can be transferred to Commons - if somebody goes ahead and transfers it to Commons when it is still under copyright in UK, Wikimedia is guilty of a copyright infringement, and the license info I used was intended to prevent this. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rcbutcher, I changed the license with the view that most artists and writers' works are done as employees of the newspapers they were working for, making each such work a 'Work-for-hire'. Occasionally you see a copyright symbol notice on a drawing or cartoon, such as those drawn by Pat Oliphant, which clearly indicates that person owns the rights to the work. When I viewed the Dreadnought cartoon, no such copyright symbol is apparent. Has British copyright been misinterpreted here? HarryZilber (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The way I understand Work for Hire in EU and UK, which applies to this work as the place of publication, is that it only affects the ownership, not the duration : the employer & publisher, the Daily Mirror, owns the copyright which expires 70 years after the author's death - very different to US law. So - that is why I used {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2024}}. I think the licence you changed to only applies to a US work, and since it was published outside the US before 1923, it is definitely PD now in US. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rcbutcher: you appear quite familiar with British/EU copyrights and your discussion of when it falls into the PD sounds reasonable; I've therefore reverted my change in the cartoon's license status previously made so as to return it to its previous US PD status. Wikipedia obviously needs a full-time c/r consultant to handle these issues! Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy between US and UK works-for-hire. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


See Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

Discussion ensuing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

History of wind power[edit]

Perhaps you can explain why my recent edits to history of wind power are wp:vandalism? Please also see talk:windmill and talk:history of wind power before threatening blocks. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that your edits were legitimate changes as per Talk page discussions. Unfortunately you made a radical change to the article without advising others of what was occurring on your change edit summaries, which is an MOS requirement. In the future, please follow WP requirements so others won't surmise someone's account was hacked to conduct vandalism. Thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a handful of minor changes of terminology. Sorry not to have said so in the edit summary, however in future perhaps you could actually look at the changes rather than jumping straight to the conclusion that they're vandalism and threatening an instant block? Ghughesarch (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ghughesarch: unfortunately the radical edits in terminology appeared, at first blush, to be sneaky vandalism (horizontal-axis to vertical plane, and vice versa); I've done vandalism patrol from time to time and seen several similar instances. Your Talk page listed no other instances of vandalism, so it looked like someone may have hacked your account to conduct the changes. I've now retracted the vandalism notice from your Talk page, but again please add a short edit summary to your changes in future to alert others on what's occurring. Thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205[edit]

Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell controversy (update)[edit]

Harry, thank you for the link to the American Haritage viewable version. I just used it to replace the broken link in the Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell Controversy article. Also, thank you for all the work you have done improving Wiki articles on the telephone and other subjects. When I was about 11 or 12 I began taking apart old abandoned telephones and other electrical equipment. I still have a small bottle of carbon granules from serveral telephone transmitters that had mica disk diaphragms. I also still have a carbon amplifier from my uncle's hearing aid. My interest in Bell and the telephone began when I first watched the Don Amiche bioflick. Greensburger (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

National Book Award category and article names[edit]

HarryZ, Thanks for the barnstar. Only this hour I finished briefly covering the Young People's Literature awards in all of our articles on the books. See Category talk: National Book Award winners - Young People's Literature.

When I returned to the Category, i noticed the call for speedy deletion (rename). Some rename of the category(s) is appropriate but i'm not sure which. Maybe the articles should be renamed in accord with wiki policy. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, which includes my brand new Comments. You may be interested.

Now I must run. --P64 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way: After my pass through all articles on 1935 to 1941 "National Book Award winners" (ie authors), all are now in Category:National Book Award winners; all include the basic fact of the award, almost always in the lead section, almost never in the {infobox} (but other editors add them to infoboxen). Generally I put all the award details in the lead section, and didn't edit elsewhere, if the article did not mention the winning book. Generally I put a simple statement in the lead, with award details below, if the article did mention the winning book in prose (the usual case). That is how you have revised Antoine dSE, trimming the details from the lead. In the latter cases I tried to link once to National Book Award in the lead, once to List of winners of the National Book Award#1935 to 1941 in the discussion of the book. At Antoine dSE you have done vice versa which I don't care to disturb.
Sometime after simplifying the NYT references in the [List...] I may return and simplify those in book and author articles, at least where I have referred to multiple NYT articles. I tried to remember to format NYT dates dmy or md,y depending on author nationality but certainly missed some.
I plan this week to get basic coverage of pre-war awards into the main articles National Book Award for Nonfiction and so on. --P64 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a hug?[edit]

? (Original unsigned post by: user:79.70.239.52)

Hmmm.... two tries to write right gives a good picture of your keyboard. Maybe its better to take a timeout and have a Jazz. HarryZilber (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

edits to THI[edit]

Sorry for the quick revert, but either I'm not reading your edit summary right or you're mistaken. You say in your edit summary that "Source states specifically that Heartland's message "...however, has no basis in fact."" If by "source" you mean the NYT piece that was supporting the sentence you removed, that's inaccurate. Do you feel that the claim made - that the document alleged to be false detailed these curricular plans - is not supported by the NYT piece? Could you explain? Sindinero (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[ discussion moved to Talk: The Heartland Institute: K-12 school climate science curricula documents -Z ]

Genocide discussed in Nanking Massacre[edit]

Nobody was "trashing" anything [in ref. to this section of the article ]. It was the nature of the quote itself---"genocide" was only mentioned in passing in an article that wasn't even about the Nanking Massacre, and based on that and that alone, "genocide" was added to the opening sentence of the article. You're not seriously suggesting that was an acceptable thing to do, are you? I mean, if one random quote like that is acceptable, then it would be easily countered by the multiple, sometimes book-length sources that claimed the massacre never even happened at all. Is that what you want to see happen to the article?

Also, on neither page of the Christian Scinece Monitor article is the word "genocide" used, nor in the HyperWar or Hata articles, and the Kasahara article is a dead link. Please don't play fast and loose with your sources. The Massacre is heavily documented, and outside of Japan denialists are extremely rare. If it were widely believed to be a "genocide", then you should be able to find a mountain of sources that describe it so. The fact that none of the major sources do (even the ones that go out of their way to demonize the Japanese) suggests strongly that maybe it is not widely believed to be a genocide. If you strongly believe it was, then feel free to go blog about it, but please quit sticking your POV in the article until you can unambiguously back it up. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Curly Turkey: You're mistaken implying that I edited the lede to the article, which I did not. I objected to your deletion of the material and citation referring to genocide which was positioned after Line 149, shown here, directly relevant to the section "Massacre of civilians", and which quoted in its reference "Also, genocide may occur in the aftermath of warfare when mass killings continue after the outcome of a battle or war has been decided. For instance, after the Chinese city of Nanking was occupied by the Japanese in December 1937, Japanese soldiers massacred over 250,000 residents of the city." Extra citations are added to corroborate the figure of 250,000 killings.
Let's not debate the validity of the United Nation's Genocide Convention and let's not delete an established journal's description of it occurring at Nanjing in an appropriate section of the article. If you want to contest Sociological Theory as a valid source, or Bradley Campbell's work in it, you're free to provide other sources which do so. However labeling them as "POV" and removing such material projects the appearance of censorship, not good editing. HarryZilber (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Cold Season and I have agreed to a rewording of the sentence, take a look. Baldly, stating that it was, flatly, a "genocide" without qualification is unambiguously POV, as none of the major sources agree it was so. It's not like those sources are known for taking the Japanese side.
  2. Also, I didn't remove the extra sources (except the dead link). Loading up a hotly contested the sentence with five sources sure looks like padding, however. If that was not your intention, sorry, but it was extremely hard not to see it that way in the context. After all, the 250,000 number is cited at other points in the article already.
  3. "Validity" and "appropriatenes" are separate things. Nobody accused the source of being unreliable, only of being inappropriate. Accusations of genocide should never be taken lightly. If the major experts, and even the Chinese themselves, are not making these accusations, then how is it appropriate to include it in the article? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks are extended to User:Cold Season and to you, Curly Turkey, for coming to a consensus view on the inclusion of the usage of 'genocide' withing the body of the article. I agree with the new wording in that subsection (Massacre of civilians), and I also agree to refraining from its usage in the lede (unless new major reliable sources describe it as such) to avoid WP:Undue.

You most likely understand that there are no specific black-and-white definitions of 'genocide', such as committing X number of murders. What may be considered a 'war crime' today by the international community may be reclassified as a 'genocide' or a 'crime against humanity' tomorrow since sociological and legal perspectives are always subject to change. As an example, from the article Crimes against humanity: "The definition of what is a "crime against humanity" for ICC proceedings has significantly broadened [around 2002] from its original legal definition or that used by the UN19..... " Let's hope all such events disappear from humanity's record forevermore. HarryZilber (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

thanx[edit]

Thank you for your additions of Climate change denial regarding The Heartland Institute and Climate change policy of the United States. Please see wp:Tea. [Original post contributed by: 108.73.113.5 (talk) 10:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)]

[Note: the original post above was contributed by IP 108.73.113.5, and removed this a.m. without this user's permission, as shown here, by User:Arthur_Rubin. HarryZilber (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)]

Boldface in Image Captions[edit]

I'm genuinely curious to know where the MOS allows for accentuation in image captions by bolding. I've skimmed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface, which don't seem to endorse it. The boldface article only endorses using bold in table captions, not image captions. A.Roz (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi A.Roz: actually, I think not, as copied below from the subsection on Boldface in Text Formatting:
Other uses
Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:
  • Table headers and captions
My interpretation of this is that its use is applicable to captions in general, not to 'table captions', since tables usually use headers, not captions. I don't apply bolding to every caption, but use it here and there selectively to help readers better skim articles. Out of curiosity, what drew you to the Bell Memorial article, an interest in Bell, Allward, Brantford, or something else? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma[edit]

There is never any need to say the same thing twice in same sentence. The guideline gives the example of Calvin Coolidge. If you give his full name, you don't have to mention that he was also called "Calvin" and "Mr. Coolidge". See Wikipedia:Lede#Alternative_names. Kauffner (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut and Paste Warning[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Musée de l'Air a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the article should be moved then please start a discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Requested moves to gain consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please also note that as a cut and paste move breaks the chain of attribution, this makes the cut-and-pasted page a copyright violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Spacedoutonspacing[edit]

HiBZuk,Greetingstoyouthisfinefallday.WhileIrecognizethatextraspacingwasanissueattheearlystartofthecomputerandITerainthe1950sand1960s,itismuchlesssotodaywhenoodlesofcomputermemoryareavailableforafarthing,oritsmoderndayequivalent.Additionally,whilewritingformachinereadersisanicetouchIalsotendtothinkitsnicetowriteforthebenefitofhumaneditorsaswell,whousuallyliketoseeclearlywhatthey'retryingtoread.Justathought. Best:HarryZilber (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The extra spaces don't even show up in formatting so they are essential l y n o t u s e f u l. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Bzuk: I quite agree the extra spacing doesn't appear in the finished article viewed by readers, but that's not why I add the spacing; its added as a courtesy to new and inexperienced editors. I can recall my first impressions as a newbie editor several years ago attempting to edit formidable citation-laced articles: the edit boxes appeared so jumbled with wikicode that I had no clue where or how to proceed with small cursory edits -I was put off editing for quite a while. Researching citation and other procedures, combined with patient trial and error obviously got me past that stage, but it became apparent to me that the same unnecessary hurdles are faced by other people who want to contribute to Wikipedia's articles but who don't possess higher level technical abilities. As a courtesy to such less experienced editors we can remove this obstacle with extra spacing in the wikitext of our articles, IMHO. This helps separate text from cites and clearly shows section structure as its principle benefit. My 2¢s. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

99.57.136.216 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you asked me to put a message here.[edit]

You have threatened to block me, for making changes to the Antoine de St-Exupéry page. I don't know what changes you mean, and I imagine you've already reverted them. I wish to avoid trouble, but am not able to communicate with WP.

My name is Don F B Reed. I used to be registered as "donfbreed", but my 2005 Mac Mini computer died in October 2011, and my WP password was lost with it. (I bought a newer one, which is similar but not the same.) My IP address, which miraculously has been constant for over a year, although AT&T U-Verse doesn't guarantee it, is 192.168.1.65 . I have had several email addresses over the past decade. The only one now working is "donfbreed@att.net". I've asked WP to send me my password (or a new one)> Possibly one was sent to an address that no longer works, or it was received and buried by bulk emails I never asked for: I am unable to filter msgs and am about 1000 msgs behind in my reading. If you send me a msg, I will look for it, but I may not find it. Alternatively, my listed phone number is 408-257-6859. My snail mail address is

Don F B Reed 19608 Pruneridge Ave, Apt 3107 Cupertino, CA, USA 95014-6759

99.57.136.216 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Don Reed at IP 99.57.136.216: if you review the earlier caution you'll see that the message says, at its bottom: "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices". If you didn't make this edit then its possible that you're using a dynamic IP, and/or another person using their computer or your computer made the edit which deleted valid material from the Saint-Exupery article.
I'm not an administrator and I'm unable to assist you in restoring your old Wikipedia account, however you may wish to start a fresh new Wikipedia account to avoid receiving vandalism-related messages. To create a new account, visit this Wikipedia help page for instructions. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

99.57.136.216 (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HarryZilber. I'm glad you replied to my post on this page. I am trying to avoid damaging people's work and irking their ire. I am not exactly sure what constitutes removing or blanking page contents or templates on the page in question. I'll try examining the change logs for the page.

PS: Why do you refer to me as IP 99.57.136.216 ? My machine's System Preferences:Network page says I'm at 192.168.1.65, and have been there for over a year. (My last ISP used to switch me all around randomly. Perhaps you're seeing the IP address of a gateway, switch, or name server along the route between me and you. Is 216 a reserved value with a special meaning, like 0 and 255 ?

Believe me, I am considering creating a new user account—without one I feel like an outsider or a pirate—but my efforts have been unsuccessful. My proposed userid's and passwords have been rejected, without explanation.

I also don't know how to consolidate the two sets of changes. Is there some way I can actually converse with an administrator who could help me? My goal is simply to become a useful contributor, one among many, worthy of at least a little trust. I have done silly things before (under another name) but nothing malicious. In general, I started with commas. I then looked at obvious errors and inconsistencies. Eventually I filled in details. It's hard to the limits without guidance: commonly, the first hint I get is:"You've just gone too far. Do it again and you're exiled." I'd like to know where the line is, before I reach it. I'd like to stay well within normal limits, and I think I can. 99.57.136.216 (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: did you remove material from the External Links section of the Saint-Exupery article, as discussed earlier? Note that for general guidance on Wikipedia procedures, you can see this manual. HarryZilber (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bite much?[edit]

Issuing this uw-delete4im warning for the simple removal of an external link is highly inappropriate and just plain wrong. You have no indication that the editor acted with a deliberate intent to harm the encyclopedia. There is no history of disruption from that address, and the blanking was absolutely petty. Any 4im warning is completely inappropriate in a case like that. In fact any message stronger than {{Uw-delete1}} is probably not cool.

You owe that IP an apology and consider this a warning for WP:BITE and WP:WikiBullying. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reduced protection level request: 2012 Quebec student protests[edit]

This page appears to have been fully protected by you on October 20th, 2012, with the comment: "Protected 2012 Quebec student protests: Persistent sock puppetry: sock(s) of MrBoire still targeting this article (which led to previous protections) (‎[edit=sysop] (expires 14:43, 20 April 2013)"

I can see putting full protection in place for a short period of a few days while dealing with the sock puppets noted, however lengthy protection for a period of six months is overkill and does a disservice to Wikipedia. For example the Liberal Charest Government is no longer in power, yet it still referenced as the government in power within the article's lede sentence. Newer events are missing from the article, which also contains numerous grammatical errors. Kindly remove full protection from this article and reduce it to a lower level of protection if needed. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason the article can't be edited now. You can and should use the {{edit request}} template on the talk page.
The sock-puppetry has gone on over a period months targeting that article. It has led to edit wars and more than a few blocks. Had you bothered to investigate that history, you would likely see that the protection is not overkill. It's unfortunate that you think my work here is doing a disservice to wikipedia.
Despite your charm, I'm willing to consider unprotecting the article. Are you willing to monitor that article for the recurrence of the sock's edits if I do? Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, looking at your extremely poor judgement on User talk:99.57.136.216, I have no faith that you'll constructively deal with any sockpuppetry or other nonsense there. I'm retracting my offer. See discussion of wikibullying. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Toddst1: you may be missing a bit of history related to Saint-Exupery. There has been a long-standing dispute over who can be allowed to represent the author's legacy: there are two camps, the relatives of his paternal family and the heirs to his wife's estate. Each has formed their own network of associations/societies and they have occasionally both clashed in the courts and in the media. I side with neither side and respect the contributions each brings to the memory of Saint-Exupery, whom I admire for his service to humanity. The deletion of the external link representing one of those camps, as may have happened in this case, can be seen as deliberate and offensive. I do not believe that it was simply some middle school editor's prank or a newbie experimenting. That's my view related to the Saint-Exupery article, which appears to have some parallel to your views of edits on the Quebec student protests. HarryZilber (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
History shows you as by far the primary contributor to that article. Your reaction to that deletion smacks of article ownership. In my quick perusal of the history of that article, I see no other time that EL was removed. Nor do I see any other time when that IP or its stated owner has edited the article, other than to add a wikilink which can only be viewed as the best of good-faith constructive edits. Your actions seems like some of the worst WP:BITE and failure to WP:AGF I've come across in a very long time to me. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
If you could find an edit where I've interfered with others contributing to the article you might have a valid claim, but since you won't find such edits, you don't. Saint-Exupery, despite his name, was no saint, and that has been readily pointed out in the article by many, including myself. I suspect that most WP editors would view that an IP who comes to the article in order to delete the mention of an apposing 'camp' of heirs is not contributing to the article so much as detracting from it. If the IP had a valid reason for deleting the external link it should have been stated in the edit summary (per the MOS) which was blank, as is often the case with malicious edits. Again, I believe the deletion was a deliberate act of vandalism. That's my view at least.
I would appreciate if you could update the Quebec student protest article for the issues as noted earlier. HarryZilber (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The talk page where you can propose changes, get consensus and post an {{edit request}} is ->that way. Toddst1 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Matt Jr.[edit]

I'll look at it later. Can you try to match the article referencing format? If that's difficult, I'll see if I can do something about it. I guess a brief mention is OK. I think you should try to integrate it in the existing sections, though. In addition to whatever's put in granddad's article, I do encourage you to start an article on the grandson, it would be good for DYK credit for one thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, thank you for your patience –I've gone ahead and cleaned up the new section with Harvard style {sfn} tags. MPW Boulton's achievements in aeronautics can hardly be overstated: his device, as described (I haven't yet been able to view a copy of the patent), is used to allow safe and efficient flight on virtually every aircraft you or I travel on (helicopters do not use them), or built since about 1915. I have nothing against the Wright Brothers as they did enormous amounts of groundbreaking and pioneering technical work in the science of aeronautics; however they profited unjustly and excessively from other peoples' earlier works, Boulton's aileron being a notable case in point.
A new article on M.W.P. Boulton is definitely on the to-do list. From a preliminary Google scan of what's available it may be a tough slog since there appears to be little readily available, which likely means ordering or finding access to out of print works, including a copy of his patent which I unsuccessfully tried to locate last year. In the meanwhile a short section on M.W.P. in the Matthew Boulton and Matthew Robinson Boulton articles seems appropriate. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Once the article is written and a link is available for interested readers, it may be wise to shorten it. Thanks for matching the referencing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are appreciated[edit]

Biographystar.png The Biography Barnstar
Excellent work on Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Pleasure to read. Parsh (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary Mass Murders[edit]

On December 18th I added the following elaboration to the last sentence of the article on the mass murders in Newtown, CT, referenced to a reliable source. There was no synth involved, but elaboration on the contrast to what the NRA said in this instance and what they have repeatedly done for the past many years:

"The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again", although it has in the past strenuously fought against all such measures."<r.ef>Gatehouse, Jonathon; Friscolanti, Michael; Savage, Luiza CH. In The Line Of Fire, Maclean's, April 30, 2007.</ref.>

After editors opposed to that statement removed it twice with various arguments, I replaced it with a direct quote from its source, saying instead:

"The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again"', although in the past "the organization has fought any and all attempts – real or perceived – to deny Americans their Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms".""<r.ef>Gatehouse, Jonathon; Friscolanti, Michael; Savage, Luiza CH. In The Line Of Fire, Maclean's, April 30, 2007.</re.f>

A very loose interpretation of Wikipedia's own rules on edit warring is used to knock out editors that this Admin doesn't agree with. When does 3 reverts mean 2 reverts, or 1 revert? When does deleting other people's work mean that others can delete your work without gaining consensus per established protocols or BRD? Take a look at the results below and judge for yourself. HarryZilber (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You added a statement about how the NRA has fought against such measures four times, in the span of 30 minutes, overriding other editors objections to your addition of a statement to that effect (1 2, 3, 4). In your 4th insertion, you included in your edit summary "do NOT revert without consensus from the Talk Page". Does this mean that the way you perceive Wikipedia's norms and policies, the statement you added should not be removed unless other editors get together on the Talk page and form a consensus that the statement should not be included? If so, you should probably read WP:BRD again. The initial "B" started with your adding the statement, whereupon another editor reverted (the "R"), whereupon you should have gone to the Talk Page to start discussing it (the "D"). Instead, you quickly reverted three times, turning BRD into BRRRRRRR (7 R's, check the history). You never went to "D" on the Talk Page, you kept opting for "R". Are you unable to see how you failed to seek "consensus per established protocols or BRD?", as you wrote above? You are an experienced editor, re-think this through and ask yourself what your own responsibilities were here in the context of BRD. I'm sure you've made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia over the years and this is just an abberation, so please come back to the article and re-join the effort. You undoubtedly have plenty of good ideas and further contributions to make. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, I did indeed check the Talk page twice for discussion of the issue, which you haven't examined carefully. If you recheck the noted section with the very vague title "Improper Edit" you can see that the very first entry by Joseph A. Spadaro was at 12:16 am. and which did not even identify me. My name was mispelled on the very last entry ("User Harrybilzer it would help if you call for TP discussion if you actually discussed. :-) HammerFilmFan 12:48 am") two minutes before I was blocked by the Admin below; hardly enough time to engage in proper discussion of the subject unless you are a literary skeet shooter (pardon the comparison) in most editor's assessment.
This sorry episode smacks of a coordinated gang-up to prevent unwanted facts being brought into the article, specifically facts that reflect on the credibility of the National Rifle Association. It was the NRA which entered the controversy by commenting on the mass murders, and by doing so Wikipedia editors were properly permitted to add elaborations relevant to the NRA's statement. My elaboration of their statement were entirely consistent with the MOS, whether or not you agree with it. By the way, why don't you discuss Drmies comments, including his gloating on off-lining me, with his young coordinator Ryan Vesey as shown here, if you feel the need to address improper conduct. Did you honestly feel that a two minute window, when I was typing my last edit, was the proper amount of time to discuss the validity of other editors suppressing unwanted facts? How quaint of you. HarryZilber (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You asked above, "When does deleting other people's work mean that others can delete your work without gaining consensus per established protocols or BRD? Take a look at the results below and judge for yourself". As you asked, I took a look at the results, and I judged for myself. I politely drew your attention to the fact that instead of following B-R-D, you initiated B-R-R-R-R-R-R-R (that's seven R's, check the history page) without stopping to consider that you should have gone to "D" early on in the process. By your response, you are apparently taking zero responsibility for this, surprising given your experience levels here. Why is that exactly? What advice would give to some other editor yourself, if you saw them go B-R-R-R-R-R-R-R, get blocked for 3 hours, complain about others not following BRD, and then asked others to judge what happened? Would you recommend they dodge acknowledging any fault, complain they were ganged up on a content dispute, cite things like the Manual of Style, and try to put the focus on the actions of others after the fact? Please, reconsider your own decisions here and make a self-assessment of your own conduct. You're better than this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: if you choose not to read the section above on the timing of the posts in the 'Discussion', then you are only adding noise here by repeating yourself. Given that you are a contributor to a number of weapons and warfare articles, that appears to make sense. You hardly appear unbiased in this matter. HarryZilber (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for WP:AGF'ing, HarryZilber. I'm pro-gun control and have been for several decades now. Our country is awash in semi-automatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines, mass produced metal and plastic firearms which are primarily designed to kill other human beings, and yet the NRA keeps saying the solution is to just arm everyone and then everyone will be safe. That's ridiculous. But what's also ridiculous here is your continued refusal to accept responsibility for B-R-R-R-R-R-R-R. I read what you had to say about the timing of posts in the discussion section, and tried to bring your attention back to your own conduct regarding BRD. Insinuating that I'm biased is just more deflection on your part, isn't it? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Finding out there was a discussion and gaining consensus two minutes before being blocked by Drmis? Seriously? HarryZilber (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Harry, I will certainly take you at your word that you didn't know a discussion had started. Things get very confusing when the edits on an article and it's talk page are racing along in the days following a major national event, and the conversation on the talk page didn't start until after your second edit (your first revert). The problem for admins when things are happening very rapidly is that they don't know what is going on in the mind of the editor they've zeroed in on when they ask themselves if they should lodge a block. I don't think you should have been blocked with regard to the talk page thread, nor did you violate 3RR. However, inserting the NRA material four times in rapid succession without moving over to the talk page (whether to scan for a pre-existing conversation, or to start one as you made the "B" move in this instance), is edit warring, no? You've probably heard it said before that three reverts is not a right or a privilege - this is that gray area where an editor can easily get pinched when they are thinking they are still on the right side of the line. Drmies made a judgment call, based on what he knew and what he'd seen. You were warned twelve minutes before your third revert, hence you must have knowingly made that edit, right? Other admins might have given you more leeway, but Drmies was well within the bounds of making the call and further, he set the block to only 3 hours instead of the usual 24. I imagine what you may regret about this episode more than anything else is the point that you've been editing here for years and always had a clean block log until yesterday. I am sympathetic to that notion, I've been editing here since 2006. However, I truly think you need to consider what role your own actions played in this sequence of events, and take personal responsibility for your own decisions at each step in the process. That said, what's done is done, please come rejoin the article and return to contributing! In the past few days, a number of editors have tried to insert pro-gun or anti-gun comments into the reactions section (one particularly vehement pro-gun editor, Bigh Whigh, managed to get himself blocked for an entire week; Drmies blocked him for edit warring too). Collectively, we're trying to keep that sort of thing to a minimum as it's highly political and doesn't really belong in a section meant to show the public and leadership reactions since December 14, 2012. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Your edit was out of place even without the discussion. You obviously knew editors disagreed with your addition and you should have taken it to the talk page. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey: I've participated in Talk discussions that have run days or even a week before consensus was reached to allow or disallow an edit. Your reaction to remove the edit and have me blocked without due time to discuss it on the Talk page was a mistake on your part whether or not you want to admit it. The fact that there are many dozens of editors who are NRA supporters and who will seek to eliminate uncomfortable truths about the NRA from WP is not a valid reason to support censorship. Please review Wikipedia's policy on censorship. HarryZilber (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary asked for administrative action, that was the only "reaction to have you blocked" that I took. That both myself and an uninvolved administrator should determine that you were edit warring means you definitely were. I suggest that you stop flogging the horse carcass and make your argument for inclusion on the talk page discussion if you really feel it should be there. Ryan Vesey 19:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"Your edit was out of place even without the discussion...". Why, because you say so after a pile-up? No time to discuss it on Talk, so out it goes and then run to an Admin who will support you? You are not the least credible when you said that you 'determined' that I was edit warring, and then brag about loving your target practice with your Ruger MK III. HarryZilber (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ryan and Harry, let's all cease fire and stop posting any further comments, things are getting personal and it isn't constructive. People can hold opposing views on issues like gun control, yet still find a way to get along on editing articles and working out NPOV balance on the talk page. Please let this conversation thread end right here, right now. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
AzureCitizen: I appreciate both your comments above and your points are noted. I apologize for my previous slip of AGF regarding possible editing bias on your part. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem Harry, see you back at article when you feel you're up to it. I will have to take a Wikibreak myself in a couple days, with travel coming on before the onset of the holidays. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I will rephrase the last sentence to my earlier posting to Ryan Vesey above (which Ryan Vesey removed by himself) to comply with Wikipedia's guideline's on propriety between editors, which was earlier lacking on my part (after being accused of animal cruelty ;-) :

"Your edit was out of place even without the discussion...". Why, because you say so after a pile-up? No time to discuss it on Talk, so out it goes and then run to an Admin who will support you? You are not the least credible when you said that you 'determined' that I was edit warring, and then brag about loving your target practice with your Ruger MK III. Your decision-making process of finding the quickest way to shut down edits you don't agree with can be improved by the moral courage of allowing others to write them even if the facts presented are uncomfortable to you.

That's enough said on this issue; no further response is needed. Best HarryZilber (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Harryzilber (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Since I did not perform more than three reverts, and since I did not remove other editors' material—they were removing my elaboration—Drmies imposed censorship on a protion of an article he didn't agree with using the flimsy argument of edit warring, without even applying its rules intelligently. I categorically did not violate the 3RR rules given that my edits were being deleted and that I revised an edit others didn't agree with by providing a direct quote from its reliable source. I am very well aware of 3RR and edit warring policies and rules.

Decline reason:

It's surprising, then, that you indeed were edit warring. Perhaps this is the first time the situation has come up for you (and that's why you only drew a three hour block); regardless, you are not blocked for 3RR, you are appropriately blocked for edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

  • You were warned, you continued to edit-war against consensus on the talk page, you didn't participate in that discussion, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Drmies: you've apparently applied a block against me in violation of the WP:3RR rules, which state specifically: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."
Since I did not perform more than three reverts, and since I did not remove other editors' material—they were removing my statements—you have imposed censorship on an article you don't agree with using the flimsy argument of edit warring without even applying its rules intelligently. This will be appealed. HarryZilber (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit warring makes it clear that an editor can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't make 4 reverts. The fact that you originally added the material does not mean your further edits don't count as a revert. Ryan Vesey 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to appeal. I did block you for warring. How a long-time editor could do this on such a contentious article is beyond me, and that it made no sense to me is why I blocked you for only three hours--that's AGF. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Your explanation of justifying censorship under the guise of 'warring' is duly noted. You are still wrong and will be appealed. HarryZilber (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
C'mon nobody's censoring you, get real. You kept saying "take it to the Talk Page" yet YOU never participated in that discussion! A half-dozen editors found your edit improper, and POV'sh. Remember, just because a Reliable Source has information, it may not be deemed suitable for an article. Consensus was keep it out, you kept reverting.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hammer: "get real youself" as per the comment to AzureCitizen above on the timing and title of the discussion. Please don't bother replying to this. HarryZilber (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

[postscript: a further, even briefer discussion ensued on the Administrator's Noticeboard, titled: Improper blocking by Admin Drmies regarding the Sandy Hook article] HarryZilber (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry, you need to stop the personal insults (now removed) if you want to continue editing here. At this point, you've had a block, a declined review, a declined ANI report, and you've insulted an editor. Maybe you need a break for a few days. I would rather it be voluntary rather than imposed, so please do yourself a favor and go have a tea. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you've probably got a good idea seeing seeing that the hypertension is trending after disassembling the pile-up. I shall visit the tearoom for a cup or two. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And if you really think I am an NRA supporter you are welcome to observe at my talk page, "Blocking discussion notice", where unfortunately no tea is served (sorry Dennis), only Belgian beer and hard liquor. Also, if I had a gun my wife would hit me with it and then throw it in the river. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I didn't see you biased in favor of gun-lovers, but it appeared, to me at least, that you were encouraged to do a quick-draw shut down of the discussion on the Talk page by having me blocked. Despite checking twice I didn't know the Talk section existed until Ryan Vesey reverted me, with the two minutes left being insufficient to put points across on the section. By the way I did note your reference to "Land Without Guns: How Japan...." which proved highly illuminating. For that I thank you. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone linked that on Facebook; I didn't know laws could be that strict in the first place. Do I remember correctly that they had a high of 11 gun-related murders in a year? That's--from the US side--incomprehensible but an impossible dream, alas. One more thing: if there is no section on a talk page, and you are getting involved in a series of reverts, then start one. On a high-traffic article like this one (an edit per minute) no one is going to get away with edit-warring; there's a couple of admins on it constantly. Just note this: a typical such block is 31 hours. All the best, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


Happy holidays[edit]

Happy holidays to you too, sir! Ramwithaxe talk 20:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year!]] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons Greertings[edit]

CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello Harry, a belated thank-you for your greetings before Xmas! (At the moment I'm only occasionally logged in.) I'm pleased with your wishes. I wish you a Happy New Year! Henrig (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos on Optical telecommunication page[edit]

I note the concerns you expressed regarding the side by side photos at Optical_communication:

   Please limit the number of photos in this article as 
       too many create a cluttered appearance; as well 
       side-by-side images create pinched text on low-aspect ratio displays. 
   There are already two photos of naval signalers.

The two photos of naval signalers lack diversity not only in the user and application, but in the method employed. I would like the article to include a photo of a naval signal lamp. Naval signal lamps have been used for over 140 years, from the 1860s to the present day. There are many naval signal lamp photos from the last ten years here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_signalling_lamps . I could simply replace the first (b & w ) naval signaler flag photo with the color US naval shutter-lamp picture that you removed. I think this addresses the issues you raise - Would this be acceptable? If you have any issues with the specific photo, I could select another from the wikimedia page I cite above. Macchess (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Macchess, thank you for your comments above. I have no problem replacing the B&W image at top with the shutter lamp image. However if we do only that then we will end up with four U.S. images (the Mance heliograph is a USGS photo) of which three are U.S. military images. In generic articles such as this one, Wikipedia needs to have international representation in its articles, including its article images. For better balance I suggest that at the same time (when you place the signal lamp photo at the top) that you also move the German B&W image from the top and use it to replace the color photo in the Semaphore signal flags section. That will result in three U.S. photos, one French and one German.
I'll copy this discussion to the article's Talk page for any comments by others, and if after a day or two there's no objection then you can go ahead with it. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Optical telecommunications RM[edit]

Harry Z, unfortunately the prior discussion you cite did not reflect concensus to move, plus it was not conducted via the RM process which advertises all potentially contested moves much more widely. Only those who watch the article would have been aware of the prior discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Harry, the lack of advertising the proposed move via the RM process, either formal RM or listing as a non-controversial technical move does impact the assessment as to whether the move had consensus or not. The RM process is watched widely by a great many editors interested in article titles, mainly from a policy/guideline application standpoint. When a proposed title change is listed at RM it gets the widest possible review by the community, not just those watching an obscure article page. And there's ample precedent that moving a title back to its former self when a move has essentially been undiscussed at RM. That said, there is noting preventing you from holding another RM to propose the title you seek. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Libya vs Egypt.[edit]

Hello. Please refer to the following text to back up my note about the accident site of Saint-Exupery in 1935 :

Le C630 F-ANRY du raid Paris-Saigon qui se posera dans le désert Libyen (MA6088, avec l'aimable autorisation de la Succession Saint-Exupéry-dAgay).

Saint Ex descend dans le noir le plus complet. 1.000 mètres … 500 mètres … l’avion descend toujours. L’altimètre indique 300 mètres lorsque le F-ANRY accroche le sol fait de cailloux et de sable, à la vitesse de 270 km/heure. L’appareil est détruit mais, premier miracle, l’équipage est indemne. L’auteur décrit alors les angoisses des hommes perdus dans le désert, loin des routes commerciales, sans pouvoir espérer le moindre secours avant plusieurs jours … pour autant qu’on les retrouve. La situation est d’autant plus grave que les réserves d’eau se sont répandues sur le sable lors de l’impact. Commencent alors plusieurs jours d’errance où l’équipage, tour à tour, s’éloigne de l’avion et y revient. L’écrivain nous fait part de ses réflexions lorsque, parti à la recherche de quelque chose qui puisse étancher leur soif qui devient de plus en plus intense, il découvre que les fennecs, ces petits renards du désert à grandes oreilles, gèrent avec parcimonie et intelligence les colonies de petits escargots dont ils font leur nourriture. C’est sans doute à cause de ce paragraphe qu’est née la légende de Saint Exupéry élaborant le projet de son prochain roman du Petit Prince en attendant les secours qui tardent tant à venir. (Ce n’est peut-être qu’une légende mais tellement belle, qu’on a bien le droit de la considérer comme vraie). Finalement, deuxième miracle, le quatrième jour deux bédouins retrouvent l’équipage exténué mais finalement sain et sauf.

From a text on the airplane Caudron. de: handcuff36@gmail.com VE2NIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.171.82 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Salutations et merci pour votre information, comme écrit ci-dessus. Tout d'abord, je ne suis pas sûr de ce que vous notez faites allusion, où vous avez écrit: "ma note sur le site de l'accident de Saint-Exupéry en 1935". De plus, je ne comprends pas la notation de "MA6088".
Je vais évaluer votre information, ci-dessus, et d'ajuster l'article sur Antoine de Saint-Exupéry tel que requis, mais il peut prendre plusieurs jours pour le faire. Cordialement: HarryZilber (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A word about units (metric v. the rest)[edit]

I'm floating a comment to you (hoping to spark curiosity) re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor directly to you because I'm not sure where to put it, and it relates to a difficulty that must affect many articles. The meteor article irritated me for drifting between using "ton" and "tonnes" even in the same sentence. I'm an American with a scientific bent left wondering which system is being referenced. A metric ton (tonne) is about 10% larger than the short ton" Americans intend. In many places the article attempts to give metric/English equivalents, so I have no way to know if I can safely change ton to tonne without actually altering the number. Regardless this must be a frequent problem. Articles on scientific issues should always be in metric, but a lay audience expects conversions and, well, it's confusing.

I appreciated your comments on deducing the meteor's altitude from its recorded shadows. (see, e.g., http://ogleearth.com/2013/02/reconstructing-the-chelyabinsk-meteors-path-with-google-earth-youtube-and-high-school-math/ ) I am very perplexed by the attempts to estimate the explosion and/or kinetic energy of the meteor in kilotons. (Now, would that be a metric ton?) It is evocative to compare it to a nuclear weapon—got my attention!—I dont think it communicates the effect of the shock wave. An atomic bomb would of course have produced a lot more radiation damage, not just ionizing radiation but the thermal radiation that caused so much of the fire that really destroyed Hiroshima. So ... as long as I'm on units, where is the kinetic energy estimate in something like joules(?) useful for describing events as large as earthquakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug123w (talkcontribs) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug123w, I'll try to answer or comment on your concerns as best as I can. Where kilotons of TNT are referenced I believe its using the Imperial short tons of TNT although I haven't reviewed that unit of measure, which I'm pretty sure is written up on WP. Since the kiloton-TNT is used as a rough measure of explosive power I doubt it makes much difference to our target readers on whether or not its shown as or converted into metric tonnes. FWiW, it can be done without a lot of bother using the conversion template, as an example for 20 kilotons using this template, {{convert|20000|ST|t}}, which produces: "20,000 short tons (18,000 t)".
Personally, I believe that the usage of "20-30 Hiroshima bombs" easily communicates explosive power, since most people will understand without effort that a single Hiroshima bomb destroyed a medium-sized city when it was exploded at only a few hundred feet (?) above ground level. The Chelyabinsk Meteor, thank heavens, had its airburst at about 45 km altitude, which saved the city from certain destruction as compared to exploding close to ground level as occurred at Tunguska. Most of that 20-30 Hiroshima bombs worth of energy was absorbed by the atmosphere before it reached ground level, which is why so many people in the city are saying they had their 'second birthday' when that event occurred (sort of like saying they used up one of their lives if they were cats). And yes, if the airburst had occurred near ground level, whatever parts of the city that weren't destroyed by the explosive blast wave would have been immediately incinerated by the thermal radiation pulse –eyewitnesses on the ground felt intense heat for a few seconds even though the airburst was over 45 km away. Actually the incineration process of an airburst close to ground level, travelling at light speed, would have occurred prior to the arrival of the shock wave, which is limited by the speed of sound [pardon, should have read:] blast wave, which is limited, after reaching a certain distance from the point of blast, by the speed of sound.
A recent article in Air & Space magazine offered an example from the 1950s when U.S. Air Force pilots flew specially instrumented aircraft several miles from the ground zero of nuclear test explosions (to see if the aircraft's design was as survivable as its designer's believed). In one notable test gone wrong, even though the pilot wore anti-blast equipment, he was set afire inside his cockpit, as a considerable and unforeseen amount of the thermal radiation pulse was reflected off the cloudbase high above the aircraft, then back into his cockpit thru his canopy. He survived, just barely, after extinguishing his protective equipment and tearing off his melted oxygen mask.
Back to your query on using joules or some metric unit of joules like megajoules: the figures would be so huge that we would have to be using exponents, and the general readership would likely not have a firm grasp on how bad a blast of 3.2 x 1034 joules would be (fictitious example by the way). Unfortunately in this respect, kilotons of TNT and its equivalent in Hiroshima bombs appears to best communicate the blast effects to our readers, although I don't believe anyone would object to adding a metric equivalent. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. At a minimum, ton and tonne shouldn't be used in the same paragraph. Using the wrong word is simply a mistake. The kiloton thing (I was kidding whether it was metric!) should be more clearly related to the rate-of-release or damage effect thing. Based strictly on energy content, a chocolate chip cookie is more potent than a hand grenade, but that doesn't make a Girl Scout a terrorist. Given rising fears about fireball threats, precision is useful, and that doesn't have to mean complicated. BTW the Hiroshima bomb did explode around 2,000 feet. Doug123w (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

References in Chevrolet Volt[edit]

Regarding your recent changes to Chevrolet Volt. The normal style for WP is to make a claim and tag it with a reference - there is no need to say 'magazine xxx says ...' unless it was particularly significant that magazine xxx said it (ie a prestigious magazine vs the opposite claim in some two-bit magazine). Also, that article does references with the {{cite web}} family of templates - all your additions are in a completely different style. It would be appreciated if you could use the same styles that are already in use in the article. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, if you look at the History log and edit summary you'll see I didn't write the text that you're referring to. What I did do was to reinstate the text that another editor had previously deleted. However if you've tidied it up, good on you. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake and my apologies.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hiroo Onoda[edit]

Thanks for the link to the new photo of Onoda. It's interesting. Evenrød (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you tweak it[edit]

Hi, I appreciate your effort to reach BoundaryLayer. I haven't studied your comments so I neither agree nor disagree with the content. I am stopping by to suggest you might wish to consider tweaking the section heading, since the talk page guidelines say "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)" Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Point noted, thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bat image caption[edit]

Although the image and the report in the reference are both about Croatia the link between the two is tenuous. If you want to include that reference (and I cannot see why you should not) then it should either be placed appropriately in the article text, or you should upload one of the images from the reference and put the reference on that. It is not logical to put the reference on any arbitrary image of a dead bat. I hope you understand why I have removed the reference again. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite[edit]

I commend the {{cite}} template to you. While it may look complicated, it's easy to fill in the bits that apply and it then does all of the formatting for you. Please take a look sometime. It really does make the job easier. :) -- 212.139.96.122 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but sorry, :-[ I prefer a style without bolding and I believe that the Cite template bolds journal volumes/issues, which is visually annoying. As well, the copy/paste/trim-unused-fields routine is tedious, whereas a quick unbracketed Chicago cite is a no-brainer -just a 'do it' task accomplished on the fly. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Matthew Piers Watt Boulton[edit]

Allen3 talk 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. That's fine work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I second that. A superb piece. Well done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and please contribute to the article if you can as sources on M.P.W. Boulton are rare, unless you have access to his writings and documents in the UK. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

da Vinci???[edit]

Thanks very much for the awesome da Vinci Barnstar and the kind words. I'm always hesitant to "be bold" and do that sort of ploughing through others' material, especially when dancing near the edge of my very limited technical competence (I'm a complete dunce when it comes to electronics), but a score of little incremental edits is an even more daunting prospect and usually produces a much less coherent result. The obvious downside of Wikipedia is the designed-by-committee, too-many-cooks hodgepodge that often results from an accretion of what are, in the main, individually perfectly good smaller contributions. An occasional major overhaul seems to be the only effective treatment.

Clarity is tough—lots of rewriting and fussing trying to get there and it's hard to be objective about the success of the results, so your positive review is very gratifying.

I've long been meaning to dive into the Photophone article, if only to insert some mention of the early completely non-electronic version of the system. It is almost always entirely overlooked but I find it intriguing. Bell waxes whimsical and mentions a singing cigar in one of his accounts. As you are evidently interested in Bell, you might be interested to know (if you don't already) that he also found lampblack could serve, less efficiently, the same purpose as selenium—in addition to sounding, its resistance varies in modulated light—and that it would "speak" if electrically stimulated. Soot, the Wonder Substance. When I first discovered those dusty facts, I indulged myself in mentally tinkering together a video transmission system employing lampblack-based pickup and display elements. Not only did Bell come very close to inventing a sort of phonograph, but had he been more visually inclined he might have ended up amusing Queen Victoria with a demonstration of television. AVarchaeologist (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You obviously have a knack for good writing, much as Saint-Exupery who could go through multiple drafts for each page until he struck the right tone and removed as much as possible leaving only the essence of the subject. Your comment about the lampblack also raised a few interesting memories, including a humorous one on Bell. After his first successful photophone tests in his laboratory he wrote to family members asking them to acquire as much selenium as possible, likely speculating that its price would go up significantly once photophones were being produced in quantity.
Your mention of television also brought to mind his quote in the article on the history of videotelephony:
In April 1891, Dr. Alexander Graham Bell did actually record conceptual notes on an 'electrical radiophone', which discussed "....the possibility of seeing by electricity" using devices that employed tellurium or selenium imaging components. Bell wrote, decades prior to the invention of the image dissector:
"Should it be found ... [that the image sensor] is illuminated, then an apparatus might be constructed in which each piece of selenium is a mere speck, like the head of a small pin, the smaller the better. The darkened selenium should be placed in a cup-like receiver which can fit over the eye ... Then, when the first selenium speck is presented to an illuminated object, it may be possible that the eye in the darkened receiver, should perceive, not merely light, but an image of the object ..."
"While I've seen Bell to be an excellent generalist in science he didn't strike me as having the extensive background in physics that enabled Zworykin and Farnsworth to make the decisive breakthroughs required for electronic (not mechanical) television. Nevertheless I admire Bell for his humanitarianism and his relentless pursuit of discovery. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bell Homestead National Historic Site[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Bell Homestead National Historic Site at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sionk (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bell Homestead National Historic Site[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention[edit]

Pod lípou návrhovou cs znak.svg
Hello, Harryzilber.

You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

List of African-American inventors and scientists[edit]

Energy storage projects[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Harry, you've done a great job on the List of energy storage projects, and many other energy-related articles. Please accept this barnstar as a token of appreciation... Johnfos (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo Messenger does video?[edit]

Yahoo!_Messenger is currently in Category:Videotelephony, but I suspect it shouldn't be. Is this edit still valid? Open4D (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Open4D: The article's lead paragraph refers to Yahoo! Messenger's use in "webcam hosting", meaning that it handles web chats or video calls, however you would like to refer to them. Its involvement with videotelephony seems appropriate. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, after further investigation I've made a change and noted it at Talk:Yahoo!_Messenger#Calls_section_-_worth_checking - which may explain my earlier confusion. Thanks. Open4D (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

1490 Ch'ing-yang event[edit]

Hello!

First off, I want to thank you for your message informing me of your edit and invitation to further discussion if I had any disagreement. That was very nice, and thoughtful!

However, I do feel that my edit was constructive, for the reasons I posted on the Talk page for that article. I did post my concerns about that sentence on April 20, then waited 3 days, hoping someone would reply. When that didn't happen, I chose to make the changes myself.

I read quite a bit about NPOV and NOR, and that sentence seems to be a violation of at least one, if not both of those policies (I'm new, obviously, so I'm not too sure yet which it definitively is, or if it is a combination).

As I stated in my post on the Talk page, the sentence before that one states that astronomers linked the 2 events, and has 2 sources to back that up. Then the following sentence states that the events are unlikely to be related, yet has absolutely no sources listed as to why that is being stated. I even did a brief search trying to find a source for that claim, but could not.

I am new here (to editing at least), so I could be completely off base on this, but it just seems that a claim like that should have sources to back it up, especially when there is a claim that IS sourced saying the opposite.

OFFTOPIC: Just a quick question from a newbie, but is it normal to talk about edits to a page on other user's Talk pages, rather than on the Talk page of the article itself? I assumed that discussions such as these were to be posted on the article's Talk page, just from my experience poking around over the years. Hopefully me asking that doesn't upset you, as it doesn't bother me that you posted to my page, and asked me to post to yours. I'm just genuinely curious as to how things work here. :)

Thanks again! Elfglitter (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elfglitter, thanks for bringing your previous article Talk page entry to my attention, which I didn't view prior to reverting your edit. Your query related to my revert of your edit is appropriate on this page, and can be discussed here. Before getting into the gist of that change I just wanted to mention that Wikipedia requires its editors to add a short statement, or some information, on the nature of each edit being made before you click on the 'Save Page' button. When I reviewed your edit, its edit summary line was blank and I didn't realize you had written a comment on the article's Talk page, which went unchecked. A good summary for that type of change could say: "POV/OR sentence removed as per Talk page discussion", at which point editors can check your posting and then discuss the issues involved on that page. Seeing a blank edit summary —the long line on the edit page which reads "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made) " —often leads other editors to suspect that the deletion of a whole sentence was not made in good faith. The software I use with my Wikipedia settings prompts me not to leave my edit summaries blank in case I've forgotten to fill it in, but I'm not sure whether that's the same case for you. <|> About the sentence that was deleted, the first two sentences in that section originally read:
Coincidental comet and megatsunami

In 2007 astronomers determined that the annual January Quadrantid meteor shower may have originated with the disintegration of comet C/1490 Y1, approximately a century after it was first identified in 1490 by Chinese, Japanese and Korean astronomers.[8][9]

The large difference between the timing of the January meteor showers and the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event—which occurred in March or April of that year—makes a relationship between the two appear unlikely.

Your change was to delete the second sentence of that section. The two sentences are actually discussing three separate events: 1) the Quadrantid meteor showers that occur every January; 2) Comet C/1490 Y1; and 3) the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event. The first sentence only establishes a link between the Quadrantid showers and Comet C/1490 Y1, but not from either of them to the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event. The second sentence is pointing out that a relationship between the January meteor showers and the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event "appear[s] unlikely" due to the timing of the events.
When I did a cursory search on the background of the Quadrantid shower I didn't find any material suggesting (or refuting) a connection to the Ch'ing-yang event, so the second sentence written alludes to a lack of a relationship, which is why it states "appear unlikely". Owing to the scarcity of information there is little that can be said of any relationship, and the usage of word "appear" is meant to convey an inference, correctly, that there isn't any evidence linking them. The lack of a relationship isn't being stated as fact, as in "There was no relationship between the shower or comet and the Ch'ing-yang event". The second sentence is only discussing the appearance of a lack of evidence. Whether that's quasi-POV or quasi-OR is a bit hard to say. Its probably in a sort of mushy grey area.
By the way, since Comet C/1490 Y1 is the origin of the Quadrantid showers, the last part of the second sentence should actually be referring to the comet, and not to the annual meteor showers. The sentence should actually read: "The large difference between the timing of the January meteor showers and the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event—which occurred in March or April of 1490—makes a relationship between the comet and the Ch'ing-yang event appear unlikely." That phrasing would appear more accurate, would you agree?
Since the change you made to the 1490 Ch'ing-yang article was made in good faith, I'm retracting my previous notice on your Talk Page so as not to have an unwarranted negative comment reside on it, but please do remember to add some information on the 'edit summary' line when making changes in the future. (In the past I've seen mischievous vandals delete material from articles at random). I'll also post a link to Wikipedia's Missing Manual that's of benefit to most new editors, and feel free to ask general editing-related questions on my page if you'd like to, and I'll try to provide some feedback as best as I can. Cordially: HarryZilber (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I apologize, I misunderstood that it was discussing a completely different comet. Because the one mentioned being related to the Quadrantid showers had the name C/1490 Y1, I immediately assumed it was the same one that caused the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event. Looking back, I see now the article was completely fine before my edits.
I actually did put something in the edit summary line, but it was only the title of the section I was editing. I'll make sure to provide more info in the future. I also just realized, looking at the Talk page, that I posted that comment before I made an account, so it only shows my IP address and not my user name. So that may have caused confusion as well, even if you had known to look at the Talk page. (I made the account in order to make the edit, which I know isn't required, but I didn't want to do it anonymously. I also am interested in trying my hand in a bit more editing in the future. :) )
Again, I'm sorry about all this. I'll definitely make sure to read articles with more care in the future! --Elfglitter (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Instead of taking "no" for an answer, you made it happen the right way. Hard work, patience, using the process, getting others involved, proper sourcing, listening and making it happen the right way. Mario Ferri is looking better with each edit, great work! Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your page moves[edit]

Hi Harry, I accidentally came across your recent page move at Bob Ray , and have undone it because it's an incorrect use of parentheses, as there is only one person with a Wikipedia article known by this name. I then went through your page move log and undid your page moves to Antoine de Saint Exupéry Airport and Terre des Hommes for similar reasons. Graham87 10:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sikhote-Alin meteorite[edit]

Hi there! Regarding your second move of this article, did you get a chance to look at my first edit summary? There is exactly one other article in Category:Meteorite falls which include the year, so the reasoning provided in your edit summary is simply not true. If you are referring to some other "other things", you are welcome to clarify them in a move request, which you'll need to submit if you intend to have the article moved to a new title. In the spirit of BRD, I'm asking you not to move the article for the third time. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 4, 2014; 23:53 (UTC)

Hi Ëzhiki. Ah, I see where the confusion lay. Please excuse my slip. I only looked at the article's move log and wasn't able to spot your previous revert of my prior name change among the confusing entries -I never actually checked the edit summaries today. My comment about the alignment of article names was based on the articles in Category:Modern Earth impact events, not on the Category:Meteorite falls that you work on. The Sikhote-Alin meteorite article was listed with both categories, hence the confusion as I only viewed the former category.
For discussion, I suggest that plain Meteorite fall articles remain without their years, however having Impact event articles with their years as a prefix serves a valid purpose. That is it helps highlight the frequency and dangers of potentially catastrophic impact events, which only two months ago were upgraded as being significantly more serious than was originally thought to be, as shown on this news report (video, 2:27). By adding the year as a prefix to the WP articles on impact events, readers can see quickly grasp the frequency of these events. Its not wholly scientific, as the extreme Chelyabinsk and Tunguska event articles do not carry their years, but at least the method is somewhat helpful, which was my intent. This morning I noted that Sikhote-Alin meteorite had to have been a significant impact event due to its enormous mass, which is why I added the 1947 prefix to the article's title. Would you support the convention of a prefix for impact events then, and plain meteorite falls (non-impact events) to remain unprefixed? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Harry! Thanks for the clarification. I in turn apologize that I missed the Category:Modern Earth impact events when looking at this.
Also, I don't normally work on meteorite fall articles (I'm only watching the Sikhote-Alin one because it's close to my birthplace and my late grandma actually saw it fall :)), and my concern regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the year is more policy-based. For many types of events (not just meteorite falls), year is typically included only when there is ambiguity in naming (e.g., to distinguish one Great Meteor from another), or where a clearly established consensus exists to deviate from this practice. I don't know if there had ever been any discussions regarding this among the folks who work on meteorites, but the very "Category:Modern Earth impact events" includes articles whose articles exclude the year and articles which include it (even though they are otherwise unambiguous). My suggestion would be to solicit input from WP:WikiProject Astronomy about this; I personally don't really have much further to offer; sorry! Whether the titles include the year or not, they should probably all use the same naming scheme, or, if there is a reason to include the year for some but not for others, those reasons need to be documented somewhere for ease of reference. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 7, 2014; 13:34 (UTC)
Hope you had a long weekend and I appreciate your input on going to the Astronomy project page to gain consensus for a naming convention. Of course I should have done that first prior to dashing around deciding by myself; I occasionally become enamored with ideas because they sound good in my head—as per Homer Simpson: D'oww! The inspiration for adding a year prefix to impactor meteors/events was, by the way, the article I'm currently upgrading on the B612 Foundation. What really caught my eye earlier was the high death toll (in the thousands) said to be caused by the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem; just hoping that someone will put this in order :) I don't particularly enjoy moving articles around with nothing but my interpretation of the policy to back me up; hence my WP:Astronomy suggestion. Thanks for all your hard work! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 7, 2014; 14:38 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Ferri[edit]

The article you created is at Articles for Deletion, again. You are invited to go and participate. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B612 Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones. 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) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)