User talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talkpage stalker

Saw you left a note over at User Talk:kristoferb. I've replied. N419BH 14:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sertraline images

FYI, I won't dispute the sertraline capsules and replaced Zoloft 100 mg image. I can't keep up with this lunatic, especially when he has a supporter. Editor182 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only person who considers your position on the images wrong, I'm just the one stepping up to make changes... — raeky (talk | edits) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elakala Falls

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tongue-in-cheek opposes

I was reading ANI (about something else) and noticed the flare-up between Greg L and IdLoveOne, and ended up reading the featured picture nomination that sparked it off (I follow FPC quite a lot, though sadly I don't get time to participate). I noticed you called Greg's comment a "tongue-in-cheek oppose". It might just be me, but I found the reference to macular degeneration harder to dismiss than just a tongue-in-cheek comment. I know some people who have this condition, and I found it offensive to see the term used to comment on the quality of a picture. Possibly I'm being too sensitive, but maybe not. I'm not going to comment to Greg or IdLoveOne directly, but if you want to point Greg towards what I've said here please feel free to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't sense he was trying to be malicious or hurtful with the comment, personally. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yah, but lots of people read Wikipedia. Even those with macular degeneration. People sometimes forget that even if not many editors participate in a process, it is still a public page visible to lots and lots of people. Maybe it is to do with empathy? I read that comment and I thought "I wonder how someone with macular degeneration would feel if they read that comment?" That's why I would avoid making even sarcastic comments like that. It's not what you intend that matters, but (within reason) the possible effect. I can understand that some would not avoid saying something like that, but I would, and I happen to also think it is important not to just shrug and move on, but to stand up and say something so that people stop and think next time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Elakala Falls photos

I think all the photos at Commons are of #1 (they're not marked). You mentioned that you're in that general area; would it be possible for you to take or obtain photos of the other 3 Elakala waterfalls? Just a thought on how coverage could be further improved. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's "possible." I plan on going up to that area tomorrow, not sure if I'll be able to survive the hike though, but I'll consider it. And yes, all the photos we have are of the first falls. The references we have has pictures of the others, they're quite different, only the last #4 one is missing from those references, it is basically at the bottom of the gorge, so it may be difficult to get too. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, photos or no, hope you have a good hike! cmadler (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I got pictures of #2 and #3, getting to #4 is truly, as the sources say, dangerous and I didn't go there. I'm nowhere fit enough to scramble up and down that gorge, getting to #3 about did me in. lol. I'll upload some pictures here within the hour. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
At the moment they're going up at flickr, as I sort through and tweek some in photoshop. http://www.flickr.com/photos/9336347@N02/ — raeky (talk | edits) 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Added the two that I choose to the article, Elakala Falls. Might nominate File:Elakala Falls 2 Picture 2.jpg as a FP. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Those make a great additition to that article, thanks for getting them. I've never spent much time in WV, but I've done my share of hiking in nearby areas: eastern KY, TN, western VA, etc. and I sure understand how hard it can be, especially with little or no trail to follow. Thanks, and I hope you had fun! cmadler (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PING

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My favorite featured picture this week was the panoramic view of the Great Court of Baalbek temple complex, in Lebanon. Panoramas of this size I believe are a prime example of how photography makes an article come to life, it allows the viewer to delve into an area in a way that a simple snapshot can't. An easy to miss feature is an interactive flash viewer that lets you easily navigate through these large images on almost any connection. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Ta: nice info for the readers. Will tweak a little, so please check and let me know if it's OK. Tony (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks — raeky (talk | edits) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the flash viewer tip! I've never seen that tool before, it's quite nice (I like the easy mouse-wheel zoom). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yea, it's mostly unheard of, since it's just a small link on the large image template at commons. I think it really should be more accessible to readers, it is quite useful for these large stitched images. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Raeki, a technical question: the "100000" in the syntax of the panoramic image your chose—does that boost the res? Only for viewers who've chosen high maximum res in their settings? Will it slow page downloads for some? Also, it was hard to find when the ruins date from in the article on the location. Any idea? Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what the 100000 is for, it's what the FPC template puts in when you select panorama layout. I don't think it would affect downloads, since it's a thumbnail. I don't think they know any specific dates, says construction of the complex started in 15 BC and likely continued well into 200 AD. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

how is what i am doing or saying inappropriate?

i don't understand brother, what is your intention? are you trying to protect the public's false understanding of the Fed as a public institution? the Fed is private and the article does not state it explicitly. it is privately owned by an elite class of international bankers who collectively own the central banks of the worlds' nations, print their currencies OUT OF NOTHING and then CHARGE INTEREST ON IT! im sorry im very excited about this but how can i not be? when i have recently discovered that the WORLD is OWNED by a few FAMILIES with nothing but their own interests, and who are licensed by our governments to collect interest on the meaningless paper they print!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.144.143 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stop you from contributing to Wikipedia, but you're not following the rules. What you wrote qualifies as a rant and that is not the purpose of an article's talk page. If you feel the article is wrong or not following the neutral point of view policies, then you need to post why and how the article can be improved with reliable sources and no original research. Wikipedia is founded on the five pillars, and you should read that to better understand. Talk pages are not a forum and are only to be used for discussions directly related to improving an article. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand now, brother. But are the rules are more important the truth?99.138.144.143 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The rules allow us to be neutral, if there is falsehoods in an article and you can back that up with reliable sources, then contribute. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
hello this is my new self. ganjadi (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC) could you evaluate my recent edits on Federal Reserve System, which have been removed? I am trying to contribute. but now it seems like I am not allowed to.

FPC

You have commented on my canidate picture of Fransico Franco and Hitler. I know its a bad picture and its small. Im asking if you can delete the canidate page. I want to withdraw it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongie555 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just state in the nomination page you want to withdraw it, and it will be handled. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
ok thank. Sorry im not the best nomianator for anything escpecially featured pictures and DYK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongie555 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem, you learn by doing. Just remember we have a 1000 pixel minimum size for featured pictures, and they have to be freely licensed. Also remember to sign your comments... — raeky (talk | edits) 04:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thank. Sorry i forget to sign alot.Spongie555 (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FPC?

My last canidate failed but this time im asking your opnion. Do you think File:SanDiegoSkylineApr09.jpg is an ok picture to nominate? Spongie555 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also not crisp enough, for an image of that size we pretty much expect CRISP views of the buildings. This appears to be a single image cropped to be a panorama. For skylines it's the norm now to stitch many images together to make a much higher fidelity image, thats what we're looking for. Cityscapes are going to be a very difficult category to get a FPC in.. You might also be interested in peer review, where you can nominate pictures to be reviewed to see if they can pass by a multitude of editors before actually nominating at FPC/VPC. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool

Given your participation in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool, I thought I'd inform you about Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD collision

On another issue, I started an AfD for Six Families but after yours, now neither seems to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 9, can you fix it? Witsun replied to mine although I've deleted the AfD page itself as yours is earlier. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't started an AfD in many many months... not sure what your talking about? — raeky (talk | edits) 08:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I'm multi-tasking too much. Sorry. I've fixed it anyway. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

[1] - so we ended up with: . For example, a joint statement of [[[[InterAcademy Panel on International Issues]]]] (IAP) by 68 national and international [[[[Academy of Sciences|Academy of Sciences|science academies]]]] lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change{{[[template:dubious|dubious]]}}; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms{{[[template:dubious|dubious]]}}, all of which continue to evolve{{[[template:dubious|dubious]]}}; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.<ref>{{[[template:cite web|cite web|url=]][http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%2520statement.pdf ][[template:cite web|http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf]][[Template:cite web||title=IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution|year=2006|publisher=the Interacademy Panel on international issues|accessdate = 2007-07-03|format=PDF]]}}</ref> I reverted him as it's clearly not dubious that those facts are in the list. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Sigh, not him again. Hes been given ample warning, instruction, guidance. Told seven-ways-to-Sunday that edits like this are not acceptable. I know what my solution would be, but I'm not sure that it would be entirely warranted. Personally I think he's a troll and is intentionally trying to stir the pot. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That may be right, but how long do we spend time on a troll? Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, we've already spent months... at Objections to Evolution... At least it seems hes given up there. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
He did the same sort of tagging today at Genesis creation narrative [2] (someone else reverted him). An article that seems pretty contentious today, with another editor ending up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
He makes his agenda pretty plain, he's a YEC who feels wikipedia discriminates against his belief and is here to make "NPOV" apply, and he has his own special interpretation of what wp:npov and wp:due mean. He's been shown and explained those policies a thousand times but still refuses to follow them. His talk page is pretty much entirely composed of people trying to explain policy to him or telling him to stop warring. I wager 99% of all his edits was reversed. Hes shown great ability to manipulate the system at times to his advantage, he got objections to evolution held hostage with a full lock for many days because he refused to accept that his points of views was not acceptable for the article. Not sure what else to say about him, hes showing no change in his pattern of editing for months now, just changes the pages he edits at once he wears out his welcome. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess he'll overstep the mark further and further. But as you say, he's managed to get a page locked, others with similar views, eg Rossnixon are busy getting rid of any mention of 'myth' anywhere near the word 'creation', etc. Not good. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

He did another one on a page I watch... — raeky (talk | edits) 07:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And he's on various talk pages doing OR, eg Talk:Yellow Emperor and [[Talk:Sons of Noah]. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

'Revenge' FPP again

FYI: Gniniv has apparently decided his tactic of requesting full page protection whenever his edits are reverted is a good one... and his request has been honored again. See WP:Requests for page protection. I'm discussing this on the admin's page. I'm fairly sure this is going to be a serious problem unless it's stopped now. :/ Jess talk cs 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got it taken care of, I personally think it's time for a ANI about a community topic ban on this user. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am curious if there is another route I can take to resolve my conflicts with the editors of these articles. It seems that protecting the article to prevent edit war is not acceptable. The method I have been given is to protect an article that has strong conflict to prevent edit warring, and then discuss the problem. Is there a different method I could use?--Gniniv 02:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not edit war? (Takes 2 to war, and for the most part it's you against everyone else, so you have the power to stop that quite easily) Follow established guidelines on WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE? Accept your points of view don't merit equal coverage in every article? — raeky (talk | edits) 02:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good enough! I will do as you have suggested...But do you have any route that I could take on conflict resolution? The articles I have been editing are on topics that the majority of editors disagree with, so is there any way we could work towards a compromise?--Gniniv (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, generally if you can't resolve it, you get an outside opinion, WP:RFC is one way, then it can escalate to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal then if all else fails Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, but you should ALWAYS try to resolve it before taking any of those steps, and never jump straight to a formal mediation! — raeky (talk | edits) 03:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The specific problem I am observing is the articles in question are being written from a largely critical perspective. Even if that critical perspective is in the majority, there should be some space given towards the alternative perspective. Do you get my drift or am I being outrageously fringe? (See WP:NPOV)--Gniniv (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean WP:FRINGE theories can't be mentioned but WP:DUE means we don't give them equal amounts of article space. As for anything WP:V is key, if you want to add a fringe point you need to keep in mind it has to be sourced strongly and kept to appropriate parts of the article that is set aside for alternative theories or fringe. You also strongly need to stop adding {{dubious}} and other tags like that, there are admins watching you and you are going to get blocked if you keep that up. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My material is verifiable! In other words it has been presented in literature and most people are aware of the Creation-evolution controversy.--Gniniv (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I told you you shouldn't immediately jump to RfM, and... surprise surprise, you did. *sigh*. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wave

What do you think of Cnoilpainting.com? Greg L (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Never mind. See FPC. Greg L (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Commentary?

How were my edits on Macroevolution commentary? Please explain...(I added at least one valid reference and clarified the difference between Macroevolution and Microevolution)..--Gniniv (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "commentary" but they clearly wasn't from a NPOV stance. More bad faith dubious/cn tags and other junk that has been reverted 1000 times that you keep trying to cram in the articles. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why my cn tags were not reasonable..--Gniniv (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@Raeky: I could say the same about you, but I won't.....--Gniniv (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We're past the point of explaining, we're just reverting, remember WP:SHUN? — raeky (talk | edits) 05:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@Raeky: Another thing, why are my examples of Microevolution and Macroevolution (with references) bad? (Please explain)--Gniniv (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Explain so I can compromise with you. Realize I have no other option but to edit from my perspective until you tell me specifically what is wrong and refute it with evidence (not POV).--Gniniv (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We've explained it a thousand times on multiple pages and places, you choose to WP:LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING. No point in continuing this conversation. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I need to hear specifically what your answers to my above questions are....--Gniniv (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ammunition

When reverting, please just say "unsourced", "not per consensus", "see talk", or similar. Whatever our understanding, there is a very clear precedent (I lurk at WP:ANI) that mentioning "vandalism" in cases like these is not helpful, see WP:VAND. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just easier to click the vandal link, but yes I should of been more specific. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for your last-minute changes to the F and A page. Yes, much better without "User:". And the FP elements stuff-up fixed too! Tony (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No probs, hard enough to make the page I'm sure, glad to help out with a little copy editing. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TE

Ending discussion and editing of contentious topics until furthur notice...--Gniniv (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Changing text messages

Why was my car's rear driver side door open this morning? Honest to goodness, a case of sleep walking (and now it seems sleep computing) is the reason I changed the text messages. I am very sorry to everyone for the damage I caused. Gut Monk (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC) {{ #if: |

Elements

Nice work setting this up: I've added one you missed (we have Platinum; it just happens to be naturally occurring platinum, so it's under Geology.) Some of them are going to be a little awkward - Carbon, for example, could have at least two, Graphite and Diamond, and amorphous carbon and glassy carbon wouldn't be a bad addition either (we do have a diagram of Carbon's allotropes featured, by the way)

Might want to consider some special formatting for ones with lots of allotropes; perhaps "see below"? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I can see where we can get multiple FP's.. we'll figure out how to indicate that when it does happen.. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of the images I pulled out that are not FP's here? Some are FP's elsewhere so I think it would be rather easy to get them promoted here, but some are questionable and not FP's yet. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little bit less sure about some of them as compared to others. Chlorine probably has no hope: The element itself is such a tiny part of the image. The rest are at least worth nominating, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice find with Plutonium! Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
We can get some of the white ones, but we have to accept what we can get, probably mostly from government sites. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Elements page

Just a heads up: I'm the FP adjudicator in the Wikipedia:Signpost this week, and linked your elements page as part of the discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. ;-) — raeky (talk | edits) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hope I'm not sounding idiotic on the Genesis talk page... I'm making the assumption that WYSIWYG, and responding to the arguments without reading the huge background. Tell me if this isn't working. BE——Critical__Talk 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly didn't read that novel of an archive too, because I think the past is irreverent for the discussion on NPOV. Looking at all the sources on the page, the ones we're actually using, and seeing if they use myth over narrative and basing it on that would be a good idea. Just might be hard to actually get every one of those sources, lots of them are books. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, yes it might be hard... Although it might not be too terrible really, I'm not sure. This one supports "narrative" [3]. Thanks for the feedback (; BE——Critical__Talk 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So where are we on the Genesis creation narrative page? He seems to have answered the question that I at least think needed to be answered. If you agree he's correct, then there's nothing more to be said. BE——Critical__Talk 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it violates NPOV, but unless someone with lots of weight wants to come in and make the change, these POV pushers are going to fight tooth and nail to keep it from being myth again. It's a stalemate, their opinion isn't going to change even if you get statistics and sources to back it up. They fought for MONTHS with name change nomination after nomination until they wore down the opposition, and I suspect most of those opposers in the past have unwatched the page after that and are not around now to comment or would want too. I'm in favor of changing it to something neutral like Creation according to Genesis which does not attach a descriptive word like story, narrative or myth, but I'd prefer the academically acceptable myth. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying then that Griswaldo is wrong when he says that the RS favor the current title? BE——Critical__Talk 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, reviewing talk page... BE——Critical__Talk 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it matters, since using a descriptive word like that isn't neutral to the other myths, which was my whole concern. And yes I think hes wrong that the RS Academic sources use narrative over all the other choices of words (story, myth, etc..). — raeky (talk | edits) 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, if so what we need is a scholar of some kind to tell us or some statistics to prove it. I'm not so sure we should care about how it's treated relative to other myths, I think we should go with whatever the RS call it most. But don't give up on things because of POV pushing. That can be solved by going to the right people. BE——Critical__Talk 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How it is treated to other myths is the whole reason I brought this up! So it is entirely relevant. Sources that are from Christan authors are OF COURSE going to use words that don't case doubt on the account, and sources from secular non-Christan authors are likely to use words that are more academic and less POV. Google searches are not making a differentiation between those two types of authors so for the most part are irreverent for the discussion. Thats why I'm proposing a compromise to go back to something that doesn't use a descriptive word, narrative and story in the public's eye are more associated with true then myth, but in the academic circles myth is the accurate descriptor for this, thats why it's used ALL THROUGHOUT the article, it's in the category "creation myths." The reason I think a lot of them are fighting against the word myth in the title is how they link to this page, since you have to come to the page to learn it's mythology, a person reading another article that links to it and just reads narrative, may not get the sense it's mythology. Since they've changed the page to narrative, all the links to this article has been also switched and it puts a different tone I think on those articles. It's ENTIRELY relevant we be NPOV in the article title in respect to other mythologies of creation. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Please, stop adding video links to the elements page. Just do. Materialscientist (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why, most already have them, I'm just switching to a template. Is there a particular reason why it's an inappropriate external link? — raeky (talk | edits) 04:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
To add, unless there is a very very compelling reason why it's not appropriate, I'll continue. They're a wonderful resource for the elements. Also entirely conform with our linking rules, content from a respectable institution from published scientists, and plenty of 3rd party sources to back them up. I'm in contact with the creator to get as much of the content directly freely licensed and uploaded to commons as well. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Try watching, e.g. this. Spam, POV, WP:EL. Youtube is very rarely an acceptable link. I'll mass revert you. No hard feeling. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Whats wrong with that video, and I'll mass re-revert since I believe your incorrect. It's clearly not spam, spam implies commercial intent and these are not commercial videos. If you want we can quickly jump to a mediation and get a much wider opinion on the validity of these videos and solve the problem once and forall. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll post a note at WP:ELEMENTS and WP:CHEMS - these projects are behind the elements pages. You are welcome to comment, but please do not resume adding, this would likely be the most amicable way around (PS, I watch talks where I post - no need to add talkback). Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a note on WP:CHEM (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#The_Periodic_Table_of_Videos) already. If you'd like to link to that talk, that way it can all be consolidated. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You could also attempt to be a bit nicer when you approach people like this, your comments initially was a bit harsh imho. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

<indent>Yes, I am certainly overly harsh to you right now. Apologies in advance for that. What winded me up was the Chinese and other "buy me" links in the videos (which are Google ads, I realize). It might be a great video project or it might be not - we've got to go though a community discussion before mass addition. I do respect Smokefoot, but would like to have more opinions. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertising like any other website would have, like CNN, BBC, etc.. all those have advertising on them and we do not question links to those. The project it's self is non-commercial currently funded by government grants. The producer is also entertaining the thought of directly uploading a lot of content freely to commons as well. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I am doing several things in parallel, as usual, that slows me down. Even I already see dozens of pros and cons. We need a proper and serious community discussion, not with a few votes. Summer time is a problem here .. Sorry if it seems like "silly me stops you in the middle of improving WP because me don't understand the pros of it", but I see no way around. Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Materialscientist, can you please make your case at WT:CHEM. I, for one, think you're going way over the top on this one. Physchim62 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Likely, and I apologized for that above, but. We do need a proper discussion before such mass addition. You're likely aware of the wars about silly things like where and how to put spelling of chemical elements, which mass-rolled the elements articles forth and back not once. We do not need such wars. Such things must be properly approved or not. Give me some 15 min. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem! I think you're wrong, but I don't want to flame you ;) after all, I've been known to be wrong as well, and you may be seeing something that I'm missing. Physchim62 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is not me being right or wrong (I, honestly, don't care in this case), but in adoption on WP of hundreds of links (they will expand for sure), focusing on one professor and one research group. Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion and consensus is good, I accept it. Just feel differently about the content then you, obviously. ;-) — raeky (talk | edits) 06:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I watched the aluminium video, and I felt that it was very lacklustre. There is very little scientific information imparted by these links. I do not believe that they have any "nutritional value", so to speak, and would support the removal of these links. the points made in the aluminium video were "Aluminium when first discovered was expensive, it can make smooth surfaces readily (this is probably done using some form of PVD, or sputter coating.

More interesting points about aluminium include:

  • its crystal structure : the lattice parameter is near that of a radically different metal, gold.
  • Its passivating nature,
  • Its reactivity when passivation is inhibited
  • Its amazing rollability
  • Its lack of strength which is amazingly enhanced when alloyed (pure aluminium has a very low yield strength)
  • Its low specific weight, and hence when alloyed a high strength to mass ratio.

In short the video really was not particularly informative, and I feel that yes, this has a bit of a PR feel, and sympathise with User:Materialscientist's comments. User A1 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some additional points:
  • A good video might be:
  • Freely redistributable (CC licenced)
  • Free from institutional or corporate branding
  • Display phenomenological effects that are difficult to convey in a text form (for example a tensile test of aluminium vs steel), or the use of aluminium powder as a pyrophoric compound. etc. User A1 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The intent of these images are not to be technical in nature, and I don't think they've had the occasion to release them under any free license yet, I'm working with him on that now. They've been approached by people that have youtube blocked, schools for instance, so uploading videos to Commons would be a way to provide those videos. One thing I think they're interested in is viewer stats, which YouTube gives them but say Commons would not. They're not intended to be used as a source, but they're intent is to make chemistry interesting to kids and laymen. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My FPC nom of the map

Hi. As someone who opposed the image, would you be able to expand on that for me so I can understand where I'm going wrong? I've created a number of these maps and uploaded them to an imageshack account and I've had nothing but praise for them. I've asked J Milburn in IRC, but he admitted that he's not very knowledgeable on maps, and that the image just wasn't right. I don't understand how one map at one scale can be compared to another map at another scale when the maps serve different purposes. The map I produced uses the same data as the Falklands map and Germany map that are already Featured here, and many other maps that are Featured at Commons. They use the same data, are drawn at the same scale, show the same features, but the one I did isn't to a "high technical standard", even though they show the same things, just of different places. I don't understand it and I want to, because there's no point in carrying on making them if they're just no good and are presenting false information, which is what it seems people think. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the other map is much larger, so the loss of detail on the coastline isn't as pronounced, or easy to pick up on, so reviewers likely didn't even know it was a low-detail dataset. But when you make a map of a small island with that dataset and we look up comparison maps on the web, the loss of detail is VERY apparent. Sadly this isn't something that can be easily fixed. Although the less detailed map is still valuable in the sense of EV, and might stand a good chance at a WP:VPC but the technical standard quality just isn't there for a WP:FPC since the dataset you used wasn't very detailed. It's entirely possible maps of small land areas (zoomed in I guess) can't pass FPC's since the detail just does not hold up when you zoom in with those datasets. Doesn't mean the maps are not useful for the encyclopedia, just means we can't easily justify holding it up as an example of the best of the best illustrations on the encyclopedia due to the lower rez dataset. That explain it better? — raeky (talk | edits) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes, thank you. J Milburn said something along those lines too; that the Falklands is a bigger land mass than the Antipodes so the scale of the map for the Antipodes should be better, and that maps of larger places this wouldn't be such an issue. I told him that the Falklands uses 9 data files for the land, and another 9 for the coastline, and the peak height of the land is +800m, whereas the Antipodes takes up 1 file for the land and 1 for the ocean, and the peak height is +600m, and said that I'm working on producing maps for places with either a similar number of data files, or bigger, and he seemed positive about that, if hesitantly. Would you agree then, that in theory a map of an area of a similar size to the Falklands or a map that uses around about 9+9 or more data files has a much better chance of become Featured? And also, should I even continue making maps of small places? Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Due to the needs of the encyclopedia, by all means, keep producing maps of everything you have time for. Don't get caught up on FPC nominations or not, since you shouldn't be working here for just getting FPC's but to improve the encyclopedia. A less detailed map is still better than no map for illustrations! I think a map using those datasets of a large land mass where detail loss of the coasts isn't very pronounced due to the size of the land mass and file would stand a much better chance at a FPC. I'm just waiting for you to make my Elakala Falls map. ;-) So please don't let this FPC nomination discourage you from making valuable maps for the encyclopedia. Theres very few talented GIS people willing to do that work here. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I hadn't forgotten about that. The USGS provide 1-arc-second data for the US, opposed to 3-arc-second data for the rest of the world so I'm thinking of using that dataset for it. It gives information at 31m as opposed to 93m, so it might make for a better looking map, with a better resolution. I've not used that dataset before, but the process is the same. I recently found out, too, that the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer also released data for nearly 99% of the Earth at 1-arc-second, and I'm really excited about it, but again, I haven't used it. It has data from 83°N to 83°S, as opposed to the USGS/NASA data which covers 60°N to 56°S, and covers the polar regions, Scandinavian countries, and northern Canada, which wasn't previously available. I'll probably create a 93m version of Elakala Falls first, and a 31m version at a later date if that's okay. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Should be fine, I just want a zoomed in area of that part of the run, shay run, as it descends into the gorge and some sorta topo representation of the steepness there. Then overplayed the roads trails and a symbol for each of the falls locations. ;-) Im good in illustrator if your not able to get the roads and such added, but thats what I want. It's a small trail right off of the side of the lodge, literary from the parking lot there by the lodge theres a trail for the falls, so all that needs represented. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Are the coordinates at Elakala Falls correct (39.109°N, 79.499°W) to the nearest whole degrees (39N and 79W)? I would hate to have downloaded the incorrect file :)
I donno, not very good with GPS stuff, but you should be able to extrapolate the right coords from the google map I belive... the dot for those cords on google maps is the outlet of the run into blackwater river. You can clearly see the stream's location on the sat image. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Raeky. I've completed the basic topography of the region and added the lakes, coordinate gridlines, etc. Let me know what you think so far. File:Matthewedwards.svg. At the moment though, I'm having trouble finding a map of the region to overlay it and add rivers, etc, but I am still working on it and wanted to give you a status update. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, found some maps of the area with Bing maps and Multimap. I'm beginning to think the area of my map might be too large, but it depends how much of the surrounding area you want, to give viewers context. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks for working on this! — raekyT 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I like your new sig. Regarding the size, how is that for you? I'm unsure if you're familiar with the area or not, but it basically covers the area from Tygart Lake at the westernmost edge to Bloomington Lake at the easternmost edge; and Deep Creek Lake at the northernmost part of the map... I haven't figured out what's at the southernmost part yet, but whatever it is is about 100 miles south of Deep Creek Lake. The map will be handy for some articles, but likely not Elakala Falls as the area on the map that covers Blackwater Falls is too small to highlight the individual waterfalls. I'm going to have to re-factor the map and zoom in on that area. The problem is that the area we want is so small, and the data doesn't work all that well on such small areas. But it's all up to you. You know what you want for the article more than I do, and I will make it fit your specifications. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... yea I'm not sure its detailed enough for zooming in that far, unfortunately. Is there more detailed publicly available topo data? A general map for the park would be good, and I my have to accept no topo map for the waterfalls though. — raekyT 22:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I will have a play over the next couple of days. It's not impossible to do. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Hey, those two edits you reverted a little while ago weren't really vandalism. Read them again and see what you think. I think it was really just some good faith clarification. —Torchiest talk/contribs 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit is the one I saw and hit revert on, looked more vandalism then the the previous one, but it reversed both. Hindsight thing, should of looked for all his edits. *sigh* — raekyT 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I could see how just glancing at the second one would look like pure POV vandalism. I'm going to re-insert the text if you have no objections. —Torchiest talk/contribs 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No objection. — raekyT 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It was reverted again. Oh well. —Torchiest talk/contribs 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This is probably best discussed on the article talkpage, but I was the one to revert. The change is purely argumentative, which is ultimately POV and unencyclopedic; It reads as "This is what the objectors say, but that's nonsense". It's also out of place in the paragraph. I wouldn't have any problem including it below that paragraph if it's rephrased and sourced. In fact, it would probably be a good addition to include a news clipping or author or whatever specifically addressing this 'objection' as bs, which shouldn't be hard to find. It shouldn't go in until we have that though. 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway

Please note edit at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Hurricane Hazel

Hi Raeky, I replied to your comment at the Hurricane Hazel VP nom. Maxim(talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

DYK for The Periodic Table of Videos

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:OTRS

Done. It's a good job you contacted me; our filters had put them in the "junk" queue... J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice, not sure what part of them would mark them as junk? — raekyT 13:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Hungary Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Hungary Sasata (submissions), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by New South Wales Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Finland Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/July&oldid=1143251160"