User talk:M4gnum0n

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

References[edit]

Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VRML&action=historysubmit&diff=344799984&oldid=344452957

So please salvage references, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VRML&action=historysubmit&diff=468126612&oldid=468054756

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.244.112 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I currently lack the time to look into that. I suppose the references weren't strong enough to hold the statements. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So you have my look into it as follows:

Wikipedia says:
The initial version 1.0 of the H-Anim standard was scheduled for submission at the end of March 1998.
Reference says:
Our initial proposal was submitted to the VRML Review Board in the fall of 1997, and a revised proposal is scheduled for submission at the end of March 1998.
Wikipedia says:
At the time of VRML's popularity, a majority of users, both business and personal, were using slow dial-up internet access.
Reference says:
Like HTML, VRML has been designed to be platform independent and to work over low bandwidth (i.e. low speed) connections.
Wikipedia says:
This had the unfortunate side effect of having users wait for extended periods of time only to find a blocky, ill-lit room with distorted text hanging in seemingly random locations.
Reference says:
Pronounced "vermal", VRML was supposed to bring the graphic equivalent of Nintendo 64 to the internet via your dial-up connection.
Wikipedia says:
VRML experimentation was primarily in education and research where an open specification is most valued.
Reference says:
Page 30.
VRML now reengineered as X3D is extensively used in education and research where an open specification is most preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.244.19 (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Enterprise Architecture Article[edit]

In your quick edits of the article on Enterprise Architecture, you added a tag indicating that the opening section was too long. I submit that it was not too long. The opening section, according to Wikipedia standards, can be up to 4 paragraphs long and should provide a good overview of the article itself.

The reason this created is a problem is that the article has been under INTENSE discussion on the LinkedIn discussion groups (over 600 posts). The text that was there was a difficult compromise that was reached after over a month of back and forth. However, after posting your tag, one of the community editors used it as an excuse to change the text dramatically to reopen the discussion.

I really have no desire to reopen the debate. To avoid that, I will likely need to revert to prior changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talkcontribs) 21:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the lead wording, as long as it does not exceed the four-paragraph limit. Regarding this and other discussions, please remember that the most appropriate venue for opening debates on the structure and content of an article is that article's talk page. In particular, conversations held on social networks are generally not taken in consideration. Regards, --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reminder M4gnum0n. I appreciate the value of sticking as close to a standard approach as possible. I also appreciate the difficulty of considering input from social media, when Wikipedia has a workable mechanism for feedback.
That said, I used LinkedIn because the community is there, and not here. I tried using Wikipedia's talk page for discussion, and it doesn't work. Case in point: when I made the changes that you later objected to, I added comments to the talk page about the LinkedIn discussion, so it was tracable for other editors on WP. You may not have read those notes. That's OK. No one else does either. That is why the Talk page is only occasionally useful. Like the parable of the "drunk looking for his keys", I may *want* to use Wikipedia for the discussion, but if I want to get good feedback and useful input, I need to go where the answers are.Nickmalik (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello M4gnum0n. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Human rights[edit]

Template:Very long (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Human rights (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Why was this article tagged as "very long"? What about {{restructure}} or {{overly detailed}} or {{cleanup}}? Please discuss more in either talk page. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yours smells a lot like a rethorical question, but I am taking the bait and answering anyway. I tagged the article as {{very long}} because it is, indeed, very long. Wikipedia:Article size is the relevant guideline, which you have surely read considering this discussion. Now that I notice it, I am actually a little concerned about your removal of this template in other articles, hiding their length problem, just because you disagree with the above guideline. I am going to discuss this in the other two pages you have mentioned, too. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sapienza[edit]

Yesterday you removed large chunks from Sapienza University of Rome. Some of it I understand but some I don't. In particular in this edit you removed the entire organization section citing WP:NOTDIR. Having looked through that guidance I cannot see how a list of university departments falls under WP:NOTDIR. Whilst I agree that it isn't necessary to list every research group, I think we definitely need a list of departments that the university is divided into. 119.154.170.177 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that such a list is unnecessary and should not be included.--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you take off La Sapienza being the best universita in the worlda? All friends in La Sapienza think the same. I believe the ranking is biased. So you should let people know we are the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.108.93 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.--M4gnum0n (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

University of Rome III[edit]

I don't understand why you are always deleting my contributions to the page Roma Tre University! Most of my contributions have citations and can be easily verified on related Wikipedia articles or official websites. Your way of acting is not fair at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.218.38 (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete any contribution coming from your IP address. And I didn't delete sourced information from Roma Tre University. Please check your facts. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize! Can you help change the name of the page Roma Tre University in University of Rome III. Roma Tre is not a proper name such as Yale, Harvard or Columbia! I'll appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.218.106 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is already being discussed. If you want to rename the article, you'll have to make your point in the relevant section of its talk page. I am taking no stance on this. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)