User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Birbal Jha

I've deleted the page (again) for copyright infringement of an article I found online. You commented on the article's talk page, so I'm letting you know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that - I did briefly check the link in the deletion log to see it wasn't a direct copy, but I must have missed something. Still, I don't think he passed WP:BIO anyway. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Web Storage capitalisation

Hello. I see you recently moved Web Storage to Web storage, citing MOS:CAPS, but the proper name is actually Web Storage, so I believe the move was incorrect. Thanks for your time.

--MilkMiruku (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi MilkMiruku, and thanks for getting in touch. It looked like a generic name to me, but I am fully willing to admit that I could have been wrong. Feel free to revert the move, and I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet to see what editors who know the subject area think. Sorry if my move was too hasty. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

MotD Special

Hi there! Being a frequent Motto of the Day participant i thought you might care to comment on a current nomination at the Specials page, urgent in that it is due for January 18, 2012 (in two days time). Thanks, Face-wink.svg benzband (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction problem

Domestication and Foreignization

Hey, thank you for your help on my article on Domestication and Foreignization. I am a Master student in Translation Studies and I was required to create an entry on Wikipedia as part of my final project for one of my courses. It turned out to be more complex process that I had imagined. So sincerely thank you for the editing. Best, --Miss barbarona (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem! The article still needs some work, if you're up for the challenge. :) The problems that you had are common among people coming to Wikipedia from the world of academia, as Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are much more strict. In academia a lot of trust is placed in the author to research things thoroughly, and write their reports accurately (and rightly so, as if they didn't do these things they would be out of a job before too long). On Wikipedia anyone can add any information, though, and this brings with it an issue of trust - you can't be sure who wrote anything on Wikipedia (unless you check the edit history), so to get round it everything has to be cited. Or more exactly, every quotation, and any material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" must be given an inline citation to a reliable source. Have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability for the details.

One consequence of this is that we can't do original research on Wikipedia, as that would be unverifiable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we must rely on secondary sources to get our material (with limited and judicious use of primary sources). The policy in this case is Wikipedia:No original research. I recommend that you read both of these, and if you can I'd be really grateful if you can find secondary sources for the claims that you made in the foreignization article. (I've had a little look round at the literature, so I know that there are plenty of sources to choose from.) If we get it sorted out by tomorrow then we can enter it for Did you know? and it could be featured on the main page. We will have to get a move on to do it though! Let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about Restaurant Week

Just wanted your feedback on a new Wiki that I have created. Does it meet Wiki standards? Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bangalore_restaurant_week Varunr (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Varunr. Have patience - one of the reviewers at articles for creation will come along and review it sooner or later. In the meantime why don't you try editing some of our existing articles? You can find some tips at How to develop an article. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Looking for a third opinion at DRN. Would you mind providing an opinion here. Racingstripes (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a poke to find further input on the following DR/N: [1]

Please feel free to weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny that both of you should message me about the same dispute. I had set aside this afternoon for dispute resolution stuff, but it appears that Steven Zhang has beaten me to it and closed the discussion. Let me know if there's anything else I can do, though. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your closing comments

Mr. Stradivarius, with all due respect, I do not agree with your closing comments. I do not agree with you that the argument that DO is ambiguous regarding the degree vs. the holder of the degree is a persuasive one. This is an argument that I already thoroughly addressed during the discussion with the other editors. It is clear from context, not to mention from the crystal clear definition at the article's beginning, that DO is being used to refer to the holder of the degree in the article. Or, we could just say DO degree when referring to the degree to improve clarity on that front. That ultimately seems simpler to me than expanding the phrase M.D. because what are you going to expand it into? You could expand it into Doctor of Medicine and DO into Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, I think that would be an excellent solution, granted you might sacrifice a bit of conciseness in doing so, but it would ultimately improve clarity if people are really not going to be able to figure out that DO means the holder of the DO degree. Personally, I think it's rather simple. DOs performing acts, e.g. DOs perform surgery, prescribe medications, and attend four years of medical school and several years of residency, etc. the context of this sentence seems extremely clear to me that a piece of paper is not performing the actions but the holder of the degree. That being said, I would not be opposed to expanding DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine since these are the appropriate titles. The MD community has voiced strong concerns, and understandably so, that the term allopathic is not a suitable one due to its pejorative connotations much the way the DO community has voices its concerns over the term osteopath because it is an outdated term and leads to confusion between American trained osteopathic physicians (DOs) and foreign trained osteopaths which are not the same. I also do not agree with the decision on "consensus." If that is what consensus is, which is really ill-defined on the consensus page if we're being honest here, then wikipedia has some deeply flawed policies in dire need of reform. Wikipedia needs specific guidelines dictating how many people in a debate such as this one must be on one side of the issue to constitute consensus (e.g. >80% must agree to establish consensus) and/or a requirement for a number of users to be engaged in the discussion should be in place to ensure that a representative view of the wikipedia community is achieved. If there is some way to convey my sentiments to the other editors involved in this debate, I can't even find the new RFC page since the one I posted apparently did not work and someone fixed it, I would deeply appreciate it. I do not know your exact role on wikipedia but it seems you have more knowledge of wikipedia's ins and outs than myself. DoctorK88 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello DoctorK88, and thank you for your post. I agree that the notion of "consensus" can be quite vague on Wikipedia, and while it is possible to get an idea of what it consists of from Wikipedia:Consensus, it is one of those concepts that is embedded into Wikipedia's culture, and so takes a while to learn. Most of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are tightly interwoven, and it is pretty much impossible to understand them in isolation. (We even have a rule that says we can ignore the other rules if it helps the encyclopedia, so go figure.) My closing comments were intended to sum up the various arguments that had been made, rather than give my own opinion on the matter, and although I probably could have done a better job of the summing up part, it really does seem clear to me that the consensus is against abbreviating to DO in most instances.

If I am reading this rightly, then it would seem that the original reason that you wanted to change osteopathic physician to DO was to emphasize the difference between (in the words of the osteopathy article) '"restricted scope manual therapist" osteopaths and "full scope of medical practice" osteopathic physicians'. I agree that this is an important and necessary distinction to make, and we should make it crystal clear to Wikipedia readers that osteopathic physicians are fully accepted by the medical establishment. How about making this distinction even more explicit in the article text, while still using plain English words rather than abbreviations?

As for the term "allopathic", I agree that using it is not a good idea. Maybe we could say something like "licensed medical practitioners"? That still doesn't quite get the distinction between the person with the medical degree, the degree itself, and the licence to practice, though. I think the other medical editors would be your best resource here - you can try and work things out on the article talk page, or you can ask the editors at WikiProject Medicine. There are a lot of clever and helpful editors at that WikiProject, and although you have had a hard time with discussions there so far, I am sure that they will give you good advice if you are willing to listen.

By the way, I don't have any official role in Wikipedia, I just have a bit of experience at resolving disputes between editors and help out at the noticeboard from time to time. In fact, most processes on Wikipedia are run in this fashion, and even administrators have the same say in discussions as any other editor. (Though in practice, editors who have a good understanding of how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines often gain a significant amount of respect.) This is also one of those things that takes some getting used to.

I see that you have already opened an RfC on the article talk page. I'm afraid that this is all we can do regarding the matter of DO versus osteopathic physician at the moment, and you will have to wait for other editors to comment. If the RfC provides more editors that support using DO, then there may be a case for its inclusion, but if not then unfortunately you will have little choice but to accept it. Be aware that any judgment of consensus must also include the editors who have already commented at WikiProject Medicine and at the dispute resolution noticeboard, so I would say we would need at least three or four more editors to come out in favor of DO for there to be a reasonable doubt over using osteopathic physician. I hope you can understand this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. Let me start off by saying, and I sincerely mean this, that I appreciate reading a response that is not full of negativity, hostility and antagonism (some of the other editors I have been debating against have been like this and it has been quite frustrating to deal with them and their impossible expectations for burden of proof not to mention just the outright rudeness). I would not be opposed to a sentence being added in the article to distinguish between osteopathic physicians and osteopaths who are foreign trained. That being said, I feel I should clarify something. That was not my only reason for the proposed substitution. Another is that I feel it would be best to move away from the allopathic/osteopathic dichotomy and instead replace it with less offensive, more modern terminology, especially when trying to inform, educate the new generations/public. But yes, I certainly do not think osteopathic physician and osteopath should be confused and I have seen other people in the wikipedia community voice these exact concerns. In fact, I saw such a user say this on Hopping's (one of the opposing editors) talk page (which is now blanked for some odd reason, I don't know if that information is recoverable or not). I made the suggestion going off of your last comments about expanding DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine but WhatamIdoing (the rude editor of whom I spoke, Literaturegeek too but to a lesser extent on the rudeness) has said that it fails to make the distinction between holders of the degree (who may not be necessarily licensed) and those who are. I said we could add a sentence making this distinction clearer, that not all holders of MD and DO degrees are licensed to practice in order to eliminate confusion. The other editors on this particular wikiproject who I have engaged in discussion do not seem to have a very agreeable attitude and do not seem to seek a solution when I consistently urge them to keep their comments restricted to the issue at hand and to work with me to reach a solution that satisfies everyone but unfortunately to no avail. Considering your experience at mediating/resolving disputes, could you perhaps do so on the wikiproject medicine page? I feel that an outside opinion such as your own would help to establish the professional, cool, calm, collected and constructive tone I have been striving to elicit from the other editors. I have no problem waiting to see if the Rfc bares fruit or not. If it does not, as I said, I will accept the decision even if it is to my befuddlement. I still think that the concept of consensus is far too vague for people to definitively say it has been achieved with essentially no parameters given in terms of how many people must be participating in the discussion and/or what proportion of those must be in agreement for consensus to have been achieved. If you know the proper channels to make this suggestion, could you perhaps tell me? I feel this is a deep flaw in wikipedia's current policies. I can understand that if I am alone (with the exception of Pesky) in favoring this proposal then it will not go through. That being said, WhatamIdoing took the liberty to, on the Rfc page, construct a list of negative arguments against the proposal (I would call neutrality into question) and so I balanced it out with a list of arguments that countered his (that were present in the discussions that were linked to) but as a matter of how things are done, once an Rfc is posted, are people participating in the discussion supposed to get involved in ways that potentially influence other editors decisions in an Rfc like that? That seems like it goes against the point considering that the links to the discussions I have had with the other editors were already provided as was a summary of the issue at hand. So WhatamIdoing's input seems to me like it threatens the neutrality (which I think Rfcs should be neutral since we are introducing new editors and encouraging each of them to make his/her own decision about the issue on their own or in discussion with each other). Thoughts? Either way, I appreciate your help on this matter Mr. Stradivarius. I will seek you out should I ever have another issue like this come up, you are quite adept at defusing them and your knowledge of wikipedia is one to be lauded. DoctorK88 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MotD Needs Your Help !

Nuvola apps kedit.png

Hi there, Mr. Stradivarius ! If you can spare a moment please comment on some of the current nominations at WP:MOTD, as they are in need of votes.

Cheers, benzband (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hangout

Got time to do a Google Hangout in an hour? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do - I'm at work. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Bummer. Shouldn't you be working? :P (When do you finish?) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

English as a foreign or second language

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

thank you very much for your message!

Kind Regards Laurentius2008 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems - in fact, your message may be the nicest message I've ever got from someone whose external link I removed. :) Let me know if you have any questions about the English as a foreign or second language article or about Wikipedia in general, and I will be happy to help. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of MOTD

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice opportunity

Hey Mr. Stradivarius, I think this would be the perfect opportunity to work together while Steven is on break, such as, working to keep everything at DRN and MEDCAB in order while he's gone. Also, another note, do you mind taking over "Purpose redirect" strand, I'm busy with other things as well as the stuff Steve has given us. Thanks! Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be around to keep an eye on things. Be wary of mediator burnout! You don't want to spread yourself too thin or take on cases that you don't have the time to oversee. And thanks for contributing at the noticeboard - it's a real help. And yes, I'll deal with the purpose redirect dispute, no problem. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
On break, but still aware of everything ;-) Y'all will be fine, I'm not irreplacable :P 203.35.135.133 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and haha we'll try our best! Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick question if you can let me know :)

Dear Mr Stradivaruis, Hi,I just had a quick question as I read your message sent to me and I just wanted to find some more information that you might be able to help me with since you seem like you have a great amount of knowledge in second language acquisition. I myself did not speak English first as it is actually my fourth language learnt. I first learnt my home language, Farsi from my Afghan parents as a child and living in a French city, I learnt French at school, which none of my parents thought me. I then learnt Dari which is a bit similar in some ways to Farsi but has many different words and pronunciation styles from other relatives. After moving, we moved into an English speaking city, which I learnt English in less than a year at 9 years old from other kids and teachers at school. I picked up languages very fast as a child and was able to communicate really well without any help from my parents and I never went home to practice language. I just could not learn to write the languages I learnt to speak very fast. Sorry for all of that information but it was just some background information that might help in my question. Adults seem to have a much harder time learning language then kids but as a child I never focused on the writing aspect, I was wondering if you could share with me some information that can help me understand why a child might learn faster a language than an adult, because when it comes to other types of knowledge, adults are able to learn much faster then a child. Also, i was just wondering if it is better to learn how to speak a language and forget the majority of writing aspects or is it better to focus on both to learn a new language. Sorry for the big paragraph and I do not mean to take your time, and if you ever have free time and could show me a few good sources to learn more, it will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Abdul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulpshyc (talkcontribs) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, my very first Wikipedia fan mail! Hello Abdul, and thank you for your message. I don't really have a "great amount of knowledge in second language acquisition" - I'm just a language teacher who has read a few books, and I'm still very much an amateur. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to answer your questions (although just for next time, you should be aware that we have a reference desk for this very purpose).

First, your point about children learning quicker than adults. Actually, at the beginning stages, this isn't true - adults actually learn faster than children, given the same conditions. Adults have the advantage of already knowing a lot about the world, and are able to use logical reasoning and conscious memory strategies, which gives them an edge over children. However, adults almost always fossilize, meaning that they almost never reach the same level as native speakers who learned their language as a child. They also often learn slower than children do in practice, due to a number of factors.

The factors that slow adult learning and increase the chance of fossilization are both biological, and environmental. The biological factors are a result of the brain developing over time; some of them are due purely to aging, and some are a result of already knowing another language. In second-language acquisition, there is a term language transfer that refers to a person's first language "interfering" with their second.

You might be more interested in the environmental factors. One of these is that often, adults receive much worse language input than children. People often try and talk about complicated subjects to adult language learners, with the result that they don't understand and don't learn anything. On the other hand, people generally use simple language with children, and it is usually focused on the here-and-now; this kind of input is much better for language learning. Also, adults can have negative attitudes towards language learning, possibly because of their culture or their society, or possibly because they are nervous or uncertain about learning.

Also, although adults' capability for conscious reasoning helps them with some aspects of language learning, it can hinder them with others. This mental capacity can trick adults into thinking that "knowing the rules" is the most important thing in language learning, when actually subconscious learning - learning without realising that you are learning - is arguably more important for becoming fluent. (There is still much debate about this.)

As for whether it is better just to learn how to speak and listen, or whether you should learn to read and write as well, it depends what you want to use your language for. If you are only going to be speaking to people (like learning a new language for going on holiday, for example), then not learning how to read and write may be enough. However, if you want to use a language seriously, then reading and writing are indispensible. Also, your reading and writing skills can help your listening and speaking skills - there is an overlap between the different areas. However, there are many elements of reading and writing that need to be learned consciously, such as learning the alphabet itself, how letters correspond to sounds, and wider issues of formatting and style. In general, learning to read and write requires more conscious learning than listening and speaking, although the exact degree to which conscious attention is required in second-language acquisition is controversial.

So, now for my recommendations for learning. A lot depends on what stage you are at in the language that you want to learn, but in general I would focus on listening first, then reading, and then let the other two skills follow. Listening informs all of the other language skills, and you need to listen to a lot of language to learn it. The best listening is focused on meaning, easy enough for you to understand, and repetitive. It should also be in context - you should always be able to picture the situation in your head. Reading will also help you a lot, especially extensive reading of easy novels.

However, even though listening and reading should come first, you shouldn't just learn them in isolation. You should learn them together with the other two skills. For example you could listen to an audio book, then read the real book, then talk to a native speaker about it using your own words, and then maybe write a diary entry about it and have it checked by a teacher. It is also important to learn grammar, but I think that grammar should help you understand new things in the language that are strange to you - you shouldn't just learn the grammar and then expect to be able to use it in real life. Use grammar as seasoning, and listening and reading as the main dish. This has been a very long reply, but don't worry! I actually enjoyed writing it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 07:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose

Hi. How would you like to proceed regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Purpose_redirected_discussion? I appreciate your help with this. We could get something together in short order. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zulu Papa - I've replied over at the noticeboard. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 01:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lotus

Hey, Mr. Stradivarius,

I'm hoping you can just keep an eye on Lotus E20 for the next few days. It's nothing serious; the ceasefire has ended, and the page is progressing. Going back to the original dispute, DeFacto's main issue seems to have been that device that was developed for the car had no reference stating that it was developed for the car. I have since found a reference that supports this statement, and edited the page accordingly. However, DeFacto insists on editing the page to include phrases like "it was reported that" and "was expected to feature" when there is a reference that clearly supports the statement that the device was intended for use. It's basically weasel words, creating a possibility that what was reported did not actually happen at all. I don't want another row over it, so can you please keep an eye on things? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

SNiPER

Dear Mr Stradivarius I just wanted to advise you that I have edited the Wikipedia page for the artist SNiPER (Anthony Melas) previously of So Solid Crew. He is currently receiving play on BBC Radio1 extra; http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01blcy0 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b98x4 but on the link for his name it comes up with Wikipedia information on a French band called Sniper. It does however say that this can be changed; http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/88ad74d6-2dde-496f-86f3-722ff9274ea9. This entry is from Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you find the biography content factually incorrect, defamatory or highly offensive you can edit this article at Wikipedia.

Because there isn’t the correct page, the BBC have attached the wrong information to his name. I think that with his recent press and radio coverage he does in fact qualify as recognised solo artist. I really feel that it would be clearer for all his thousands of fans around the world if his career was recognised on Wikipedia.

I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha forrest (talkcontribs) 16:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Samantha - it looks like link on the BBC website is the BBC's error, not Wikipedia's. You can ask them to fix it if you wouuld like to see it changed, but we can't do anything here. I've also added Sniper to Sniper (disambiguation), so information about him should now be easier to find. As to whether we should have an independent article on him, I had a look at the sources that you included and there didn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources, as needed to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. We really need things like news articles in major newspapers, or books that cover him (although there are a few other ways of passing the guideline). I suggest reading the guideline closely, and seeing if you can find any sources that would satisfy it. If you find any, let me know, and I'll have a look into it. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time, I really appreciate your help..I am a bit of a Wikipedia novice! I have included a citation for a review from UK music publication RWD Magazine and there are plenty of features from 'The Cyprus Weekly' Newspaper. It is difficult to link to such articles but they are there! Is there anything else I can do? - Samantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha forrest (talkcontribs) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Assistant teacher programme of the Educational Exchange Service

The result of this afd is keep? Did I miss something here? SaveATreeEatAVegan 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I'm fine with the result. If deleting it would leave us without any coverage at all on foreign language assistants, then moving it might have been for the best. You should be aware that it's not necessarily the number of votes, but the arguments that are made that are the important thing at AfD. I have to admit that the case for a move was persuasive, and if we had already had an article on foreign language assistants then the story might have been very different. I imagine that's what made it a keep+move, rather than just a delete. I'll be watching for Henrik's response to your message though - I too would like to hear a more detailed rationale. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Appending DR to Article

Hi. Would you have guidance on how to append the closed Thanksgiving DR, to the talk page and edit summaries through a permalink? I understand this is a technical question but I thought you might know. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, here is a permalink to the discussion. Just copy and paste that URL from the address bar in your browser to the talk page, and you're good to go. Let me know if there's anything else you want to know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Rather bulky with all those other cases but good enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DNR request to undo your closure of Pellegrino discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Charles R. Pellegrino, Charles R. Pellegrino". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redslider (talkcontribs) 00:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed this thread from the noticeboard already. It seems a bit bureaucratic to have meta-discussions about closures on the board itself. Could you post your complaint directly here instead? My apologies for the extra work. — Mr. Stradivarius 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN not archiving because MiszaBot is down

Regarding your comment here, it is evident that MiszaBot is not running anywhere for the moment. See Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Misza13's bots seem to be down. The machine at nightshade.toolserver.org is still not responding. I left a note at WP:VPT. There ought to be an official way of contacting the toolserver admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be keeping an eye out for further developments, but in the meantime I'm sure we won't have too many problems even if we have to manually archive DRN. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Stradivarius. Thanks for keeping an eye on the MiszaBot archiving problem and reverting my edits when it was necessary. You beat me to the clock! Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... it still appears DRN is not archiving within the 24 hour time period. What do you think we should do? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone commented out the MiszaBot template. Wait for another 24-hour cycle. The last couple of archives ran between 0600 and 0700 UTC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

note

You know, re: Cahokia dating discusssion, I should point out that the people who post here have an advantage over me:

a. they are familiar with the system; they know all the technics of wikipedia, all the terminologies, etc.

b. I just don't have the time to spend on all this.

I think, personally, that the development of the CE BCE terms were misguided; an early political move that's pretty flat. Who's really offended by AD/BC? Not the Muslims. . . It's an antiscientific approach as well, rewriting history in a Stalinistic fashion to serve some petty political end.

and this was all then taken up to lend an air of scholarliness to one's writing; a snooty tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd Volker (talkcontribs) 00:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see how you might be frustrated with your efforts to change the date style in those articles. The whole idea behind WP:ERA is to stop disruption to articles from people edit warring over the date style, though, so I'm not surprised that people are objecting to it. We are real sticklers for rules here at Wikipedia, so I'm afraid that not having the time to learn the rules makes it a lot more likely that your edits will get reverted. There's no easy answer for people who want to edit articles but who have limited time; if, however, you do feel like doing a little study, then a very good place to start is Wikipedia:The Missing Manual. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 00:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Crazy IP editor on Welsh Development Agency

Hi - are you able to help with this? The IP is back adding garbage to the article, reverting undos, adding more garbage - but I don't know what to do next or how to stop it. Thanks! Fosse8 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented over at the ANI thread that you started. Hopefully that should do the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Huzzah

Huzzah! MiszaBot is working again! [2]. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Aw... it looks like it stopped working again. See—Special:Contribs/MiszaBot I, Special:Contribs/MiszaBot II and Special:Contribs/MiszaBot III. Do you think we should wait another day or report it? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's give it another day or two. It's not such a big deal, even if we have to archive some of the threads ourselves in the meantime. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll definitely do. By the way, sorry for spamming your talk page with all these notes on MiszaBot. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No, no, thanks for letting me know. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

proposed deletion

Hi, I saw your notice about the proposed deletion of the Moose Lake Airport article.

First of all, a newbie question about wikipedia: how do I add my own comments in reply to the proposed deletion tags? I'm not sure how to do it, so here's my opinion:

I agree with you that the notability of this airport is a bit unclear. I first found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_by_IATA_code:_Y#YA Then I looked in the official website of IATA and I verified that the YAD code exists and is assigned to this airport. Then I looked up the airport in many websites and found it in many of them. I put two of these websites as sources, but there are a few more. Then I looked at the coords. The coords in the sources seemed to be completely wrong, so I looked for the town in google maps. And there is an area just out of town that is marked "Moose Lake Airport" in google maps, so I used the coords of that point. Also, in the town there is a street named "Airport Rd", which goes in that kind of direction too. As regards actually seeing the airport on the map, there are a couple of places that look like they might be a runway, but the image is not that good and there seems to be snow/ice, etc. So to sum up, I agree with you that this airport is not very important, so if you want to delete this article it's not a big deal and we could just forget about this one and tackle the hundreds of airports that still don't have their articles. What do you reckon? Azylber (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Azylber. The answer to your question comes in two parts - the deletion procedure and whether the airport fulfills our notability guidelines. I'll go over the procedural part first. The article is currently tagged with a PROD - proposed deletion - template. This template can be removed by anyone, including you, with no repurcussions. This is because PRODs are intended for deletions that are completely uncontroversial. So it would be completely fine for you to remove the tag. However, if the PROD gets removed any editor can nominate the article for deletion at articles for deletion. If an article is nominated for AfD then no-one can remove the tag on the article until the discussion is closed.

This brings me to the second part of my answer, about notability. To prove that Moose Lake Airport is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, you need to satisfy the general notability guideline. This means that you need to find significant coverage of the airport in multiple reliable sources. This means things like books, newspaper articles, or journal articles that discuss the airport in enough depth for us to be able to write something useful about it. If you can find these sources, then the article will almost definitely be kept. If you remove the PROD tag without proving that the airport is notable, though, then I will nominate the article for AfD so that we can have a wider community discussion about it. Going to AfD doesn't necessarily mean that the article will be deleted, but if no other editors can find sources about the airport then the chances of it being deleted are very high. I hope this answers your question, but if there's anything else you want to know then please feel free to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 23:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your explanations of both the procedure and the guidelines. Now I have a much clearer understanding of the situation. 2 things: 1) I still want to know how to add my opinion to the deletion discussion without removing the PROD tag. I just want to add my opinion to the discussion, and see what people think about it. 2) I don't think taking this article down the AfD route would be very sensible, as the topic covered by it is nowhere near as important as many other things we need to have articles on and we don't. In other words, I think that if after I put my opinion out there people still think the article should be deleted, we should delete it, because fighting to keep this not-very-important article would be a waste of wikipedia's resources and wikipedians' time. Azylber (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I see what you mean now - thank you for clarifying. If you don't want to remove the PROD tag, then you can simply leave a message on the talk page. (In fact, I see that you have already done this.) Of course, this way your comment will only be visible while the article is still around, although the closing admin will probably read it before deciding whether to delete the article or not. If you absolutely need to make sure that your comment is visible for future editors, then the only thing you can do is remove the PROD tag, and comment at an AfD discussion. (However, bear in mind that admins are still able to view deleted articles and talk pages.) Hope this answers your question. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks again! Azylber (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Hangul

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

Thank you for contacting me regarding my recent revision on Hangul page. I'm little confused about your reasoning behind your action though.

These are the main points that I got from your message. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. You identified as yourself as a non-expert; 2. You are aware that "hanguel" is the correct term; and 3. You argued that "hangul" is common than "hangeul"

Overall, your arguments seem very illogical to me. It almost seems absurd that even if you know "hangeul" is the correct term but not use it because most people don't. I kind of understand where you are coming from, but your reasonings still lack credibilities.

These are my reasonings behind my action/response to your claims:

1. Inconsideration/importance of restoration. The reason why you saw "hangul" on English sources is because people often skip accent marks (which is why "hangul" became so common). To avoid further widespread of ignorance, our government started to replace "ŭ" with "eu" for better understanding/speaking of our language to both Koreans and non-Koreans. 2. Importance of historical concept/meaning. "Hangeul" is first invented/introduced by King Sejong in the book called "The Correct Sounds for Teaching People" to help our people to be educated for the betterment of their lives (Especially for lower class, they were mistreated by upper class/officials due to lack of education; often did not even have an access to learn a language). King Sejong thought the best way to learn a language is to live within a language. His effort to put nature in our writing was done by basing the shape of the mouth/tongue into the shapes of the consonants. Hence, writing it as "hangul" is not only distorting King Sejong's great intention to help Koreans (at the time) to learn Korean language more efficiently but also corrupting the "correct sound" of our language (the sound of "hangeul" and "hangul" is clearly different when you learn our language). 3. Avoidance of future misnaming. If we allow "hangul" to be used continuously, who knows it's going to be transformed into hanggoool or hanggul? 4. Ultimately, hangul = poor reversibility.

+ Also, your exemplified that you have an article on Florence not Firenze. This is not a correct example to use in this case. The correct example would be you have an article on "Hangul" not "한글"

+ Thus, it is my understanding that "hangul" is inappropriate to be titled/used officially (it could be explained in the paragraphs in the page)

I think the best solution to this would be either "Han'gŭl" or "Hangeul" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maymklee (talkcontribs) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The English name is Hangul. Perhaps Mr. Stradivarius' is not the best example, as Italian uses the same alphabet as English. But take Moscow, for example. In Russian, the city is called Москва. The official Russian romanization rules give us Moskva. But in English we call it Moscow, and that is why the English wikipedia article is called Moscow. Same for Hangul... in Korean it's called 한글, the official Korean romanization rules give us "Han'gŭl" or "Hangeul", but in English we call it Hangul, and that is why the English wikipedia article is called Hangul.
I think the best thing to do here is to leave is as Hangul, and use the name Hangul all the way through, but add all other versions as redirections and also have a section inside the article explaining the other versions of the name. Azylber (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Azylber, Moscow is a much better example. To Maymklee - I think Azylber has explained the situation very well here. This is a longstanding practice on the English Wikipedia, and I'm afraid we can't make an exception just for this article. I can appreciate that you want to avoid people using the incorrect romanization, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the right place to start. As a general rule, Wikipedia describes content, it doesn't prescribe it - all the decisions about what goes in Wikipedia are made from consulting external sources. Editors here don't really have any say themselves as to what the content should be - they are only permitted to use their best judgement as to what external sources say. Once general English-language publications start using "hangeul" instead of "hangul", then we can change the Wikipedia article. But until this happens, I'm afraid we must stick with the current name. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. I think your last response really clarified my understanding/confusion. Hopefully, our efforts can make this page to be changed to "hangeul" someday.--Maymklee (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comment on my revision! I appreciate how you provided "Moscow" as an example to support your argument.
This is something that I found:
According to bridgetomoscow.com, the actual name of the city in Russian is "Moscva." The name of the city used to be "Moscov" when it was first found in 1147 and "Moscow" was used because 'Moscov" sound closer to the present-day English pronunciation.
I think this is the key part right here.
Like I mentioned earlier, "hangeul" sounds closer to the present-day English pronunciation than "hangul." Thus, it's more appropriate to use "hangeul" than "hangul." You are right that the official Korean romanization rules give us "Han'gŭl" or "hangeul," and my suggestion is to follow these rules. Why can't we use "hangeul" as an English variant? Is it because "hangul" is more western friendly? I would really appreciate it if someone can provide me with a concrete reason/evidence that why we cannot use "hangeul" as an English variant like "hangul."
Korean language has been proven to be one of the difficult languages for romanization compared to other Asian languages (Korean government used three different systems of romanization in the past). In 2000, the Korean government officially replaced this McCune–Reischauer system ("hangul") with Revised Romanization of Korean (hangeul), and I believe that it's respectful to follow their struggles for perfection of romanization not for just Koreans, but also for non-Koreans as well. --Maymklee (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please reassess your concerns regarding the deletion of Richard Landis. I have added additional wp:rs and facts of notability. I hope you'll agree this article meets inclusion criteria. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Ten Pound Hammer has withdrawn his nomination. I agree with both you and him that we should take the singles that he himself has charted into account. Knowing that he had singles that charted definitely makes the case for deletion weaker than I thought when I made my comments at the AfD discussion. Personally, I still think that Landis is in a grey area with respect to notability, but I will defer to the clause in WP:MUSIC about charting singles, and to yours and Ten Pound Hammer's judgement. The article is looking good with the extra information you added, by the way. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 06:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Choco chip cookie.png Hello Mr. Stradivarius, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! To what do I owe this sweet chocolatey honour? :) — Mr. Stradivarius 06:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Otto Ristorante

Hi Mr Stradivarius, I am not too sure how to use Wikipedia, as I am not a propellorhead, and it confuses me. I am trying to find your comment about the matter in the subject header above.

Can you help me?

thanks 124.149.39.201 (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for leaving me a message. I didn't comment on the matter before, which is why you couldn't find it - the message on your talk page was referring to the contents of the big red deletion tag on the article itself. I have just commented over on the talk page, though, so you should have a look there to see my specific reasons for nominating it for deletion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 09:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, it looks like my comment got deleted along with the article. Here's an abbreviated version - there were problems with copyright and with promotion, which would have required a full re-write to make a proper article. For a quick guide to creating articles, take a look at chapter four of Wikipedia:The Missing Manual, and next time be sure to use the article wizard to create new articles. Let me know if you have any questions. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation

Good luck ;-) I've added it to my watchlist, so poke me if you need a hand (though I doubt you will). Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing, with that many parties, it may be wise to consider spokespeople, but it's up to you. Getting them to work in groups can also work. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 21:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Verifiability mediation, recent events here are a pickle, and only through being involved with V since February this year. Getting involved again requires giving it some thought, but it is unlikely. Thanks for taking it on, by the way. NewbyG ( talk) 17:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)