User talk:Siafu

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

This is a talk page.

Please leave a message under the line.

(beep)


Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles[edit]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Camry Hybrid RfC[edit]

Hi, there was a mistake in the request for the RfC, see my reply here: Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#Responses from uninvolved editors. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inner Mongolian People's Party[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Inner Mongolian People's Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, only sources (and indeed presence) are own and related websites

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Splittist (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Kublai Khan[edit]

Per your "not a crystal ball" revision, I replaced my formatting improvements to this page but removed the reference to the historical novel that will release in January 2011. The book is already available for pre-order on Amazon and Random House, though, with a book summary that includes the information I provided. Would the reference work if I deleted the year? Looking forward to your response. Thanks!

Tewonawonga (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the "Crystall Ball" comment (see WP:CRYSTAL) is because the book is not available to be verified as a reference for its content. It won't work as any sort of reference at all until the book is actually out or otherwise available in full, and other editors could (in theory at least) pick up a copy and verify what's inside it. Also, popular culture references, though quite common and popular in wikipedia articles, are not particularly important to the actual content of the article, so I would stress that it is thus extra important that we not go out on any limbs to include them when they're on shaky ground (as in this case). siafu (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. I'm new at this, but want to be useful, so I really appreciate the clarification. ;-) Tewonawonga (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:RFC[edit]

Thank you for participating in the RfC, but your comment was very short, so I have asked for a clarification on talk. The question is: What argument exactly do you find convincing, and are you satisfied with moving Merseburg 1002, Merseburg 1013 and Bautzen 1018 to "Peace of Bautzen" and Bautzen 1031 and Merseburg 1033 to "Treaty of Merseburg"? I would appreciate if you would clarify your take on this issue at the RfC. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I'm really sorry to drag you into this, but the editor that I am engaged in the dispute with on Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg, User:Skäpperöd, is now trying to get me topic banned, on account of the discussion on that talk page [1]. Since you've read the relevant discussion and commented on the dispute and since I feel like I'm being unfairly attacked and slandered, I was wondering if you could share your opinion of the matter at the Amendment Request form.radek (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the extensive dispute that seems to exist between you two, and truth be told, I don't really want to get involved. I will watch the arbitration request, however, and clarify any statements involving myself or my actions, or respond if specifically asked to comment by the ArbCom (which I think is unlikely). Otherwise, the facts should really speak for themselves better than an uninvolved and uninformed editor can; the fact that we are in agreement on a content issue should not be taken to mean that we are in agreement on other issue a priori, sorry. siafu (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I completely understand. Just to clarify though, I did not mean to ask you to comment on the general aspect of the dispute but just on the narrow part of it with which you have become familiar. Bad wording on my part.radek (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

what does cat mean[edit]

I just noticed a post from you from about a week ago that I only replied to now. Since it's buried I want to bring it to your attention. Here it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space reorganization[edit]

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

  1. Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
  2. Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ants[edit]

Do you know anything about ants? I've just discovered that they can predict the weather, although I suspect many species can do this. Is there anything in the literature about this? Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 0[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 0, December 2010  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 1, January 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 2, February 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please do not revert my edits. They belonged to the house of Yuan or Borjigin. --64.56.224.78 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the "house of Yuan" never existed; their family name was Borjigin, which was a royal family both before and after the Yuan. siafu (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK then. But if you have reason you should tell in the summary or let me undid my own edits. --64.56.224.78 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Insults don't help end disputes[edit]

I don't much care for being called pedantic. If your genuine motive is to try to help end a conflict you're not involved in then it's probably not the most effective strategy jump in and belittle the parties to it. Even if you can't bring yourself to take someone else's dispute seriously, you can be certain that the people involved in it do, and that they'll respond more favorably to being addressed respectfully than otherwise. No hard feelings, though, this one time. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it would much easier to not use the word pedantic if that weren't what was happening; you and Collect have become experts at pushing each other's buttons. Telling you that that is exactly what's happening is, quite frankly, the best and most hopeful path that I can see to breaking the pattern. Hopefully it did. siafu (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've never been much impressed when someone says "I'm sorry" just before he repeats an insult; the construct has always seemed disingenuous to me. I spent at least an hour preparing for that refactor, and an hour performing it. My only motive was altruistic, to make the page easier to read and to preserve our ability there to present and discuss the two topics at issue separately, a desirable and valuable goal. When I was almost done, Collect reverted that two-hours work after he saw that I'd (perhaps temporarily) removed one half of one sentence of his that was nothing more than sniping at TFD. It wasn't remotely connected to improving the article, not in any way. I find it impossible to believe that you wouldn't object to that if you'd been in my shoes, and that you wouldn't have objected if your actions and motives had been misrepresented subsequently. "Quite frankly", you'd do better to keep the pretensions to moral superiority that you've indulged in this matter to yourself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If you're not being pedantic and just sinking your claws into this issue, perhaps you can explain why it is important to you to convince me that your side is the correct one? siafu (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
What, rhetorical questions? Now you're just being pedantic.:P  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give you the long version instead of trying to elicit the response I as looking for. I was just trying to make it clear that by getting worked up over this and arguing with me, you were basically validating my original statement: the point is to let it go. You are quite aware of how entrenched you are in your own position, it would be wise to expect the same out of people who are arguing with you. I could care less about the talk page refactoring either way, and it didn't really have any actual impact, but I did see that both you and Collect were dedicating thousands of words to it because neither of you could just. let. go. I know that the both of you are quite capable of arguing this in a more productive manner (citing sources, presenting alternatives, working towards compromise, etc.) because I've been watching it in action, but when you got stuck on the particulars of policies only tangentially related to the dispute, I felt that a sharp shock was needed to break out of it. And, for the record, I'm not claiming any moral superiority because this isn't about morality; this is entirely a matter of practicality. siafu (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 3, March 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Talk:Song Dynasty[edit]

link=Talk:Song Dynasty#Removal // Royal House infobox
Hello, Siafu. You have new messages at Talk:Song Dynasty#Removal // Royal House infobox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LaRouche[edit]

Re the RfC, I've trawled through Google Scholar and brought up some academic sources that call LaRouche an economist, in addition to the various media sources that were already listed. Have a look at them, and see if they change your mind, or not. I tried to avoid the ones that I know are LaRouche's own publications. Cheers, --JN466 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I had resigned myself to the likely outcome of the RfC, and removed the economist label, but now see that LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed[2] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association.

The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

To my mind, this changes things, and I feel less happy to let the matter drop. Surely, having your work reviewed in the American Economic Review, which according to our article on it is one of the most prestigious journals in the field, counts for something. Add to that the fact that he was considered quite an important economist by various Latin American governments, according to reliable sources, and I feel uncomfortable not calling him an economist. What's your view? --JN466 03:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my particular opinion was so deeply desired on this. I still don't personally think that LaRouche is an economist-- certainly he's more famous for being a conspiracy theorist/political agitator than anything else. It would, however, be fair to say that he has been described as an economist, which can be cited in the works you've discovered in your investigation. siafu (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. When new info comes to light during the course of an RfC, it's always a little tricky to know whether to notify editors who commented beforehand, based on incomplete info. When I comment at an RfC, I don't necessarily watch the page afterwards.
In that vein, I should let you know that the AER snippets I found turn out to be from an ad in the journal's back matter, rather than a review of the book. That's it from me on this topic now. :) --JN466 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

content relevant discussion[edit]

I'm dropping the the discussion about NPA on the talk page. If you have problems with my behavior take it up on my talk page; don't fill the article talk whining about personal attacks. I don't really care, mind you - you somehow think it's OK for you talk attack me by accusing my of stupid crap but get all offended when I point out how stupid you're being - but the article talk is not the place to hash it out

I swear, I get so sick of people who cannot understand that talk pages are for content-relevant discussion ONLY. Everyone's allowed to make a few mistakes, but if you drag stuff like this out in article talk you're being a troll. You stay off my back, I'll stay off yours, otherwise we use MMA rules. got it? --Ludwigs2 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(cross-posted) I'm afraid this isn't something that gets to be so easily dropped. It was, you may recall, you who diverted the conversation into discussing the behavior of editors and the potential intervention of the ArbCom. I was responding to it, and perhaps it would have been better on your talk page, but my points stand. Not only did pepper the discussion with threats of "bringing in" admins, you advanced it to suggesting that your interlocutors would behave badly and suffer consequences from the ArbCom, and when called on it you called me an idiot. Now you're doubling down by coming to my talk page and calling me stupid. I wasn't acting out of offense-- seriously, words from a person I don't know and will likely never meet, directed me, someone you don't know and will likely never meet don't have much capacity for offense-- but simply pointing out the facts. Being a dick is just going to make you enemies not convince anyone of anything, or resolve any disputes. Ever. You certainly don't have to be behave this way, and you might surprised by the results you can get with the alternatives. siafu (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Should you be interested in starting an RfC regarding Ludwigs2, I would be happy to certify and/or comment. His behaviour is not only appalling, it is flagrantly hypocritical. → ROUX  01:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly[edit]

Hi. You added this sentence to the OPERA neutrino anomaly article. What is the source for this claim? Thanks.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a ref to the article to Misra & Enge, but per my talk this is in the GPS ICD, and therefore in every GPS textbook ever. siafu (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Boldly removed the sententence from the article again. No matter how many textbooks discuss generic relativistic corrections in GPS, it is not a comment on van Elburg's particular calculation; reading it as such is a WP:SYN.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how it could be seen that way. Van Elburg is claiming that this particular correction wasn't made, and that that mistake accounts for the anomalous results. It just so happens that not making this correction would be extremely unusual-- that's not synthesis, it's verifiable fact, and I can provide plenty more references if you need them-- it is, in fact, essential to make this correction in order to obtain a position solution, since 3 ns ~ 1 meter in position error. I'm going to copy this whole conversation to the article talk page, also, since we shouldn't be picking over content here out of sight of the other editors. siafu (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory[edit]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif[edit]

Hello Siafu! I hope this message finds you doing well! I read your comment at the RfC and have replied to you there. I look forward to your response :) Have a nice day! With regards, AnupamTalk 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply there. I've responded to you again. Thanks for your participation in the RfC. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I have pages that I edit automatically added to my watchlist, so there's no need to notify me here. siafu (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I did not know if you added the article to your watchlist or not so I thought I would notify you :) Thanks for the heads up. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Full name / Issue[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your message. I have seen your point regarding the issue field. I changed the content out of full name field because they were really their titles, instead of their personal names, thus do not actually belong to the full name field. But now I see they do not really belong to the issue field either. I will see the better way to place them. Thanks again. --Chinyin (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no specific fields in the main box for misc titles etc, but since they already appeared in the article anyway, it may be better to actually have a full name field containing their personal names instead. Thanks again. --Chinyin (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Spoofing attack, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Jammer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

SantasOnSteps.jpg Happy new year!
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 19:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

My style was quite deliberate, and will hopefully have a positive long term affect.

One thing that seriously bothers me about Wikipedia is that one can write almost any quantity of any sort of incomprehensible, uninformed and illogical garbage, so long as one says it nicely. As soon as another editor firmly points out that it's incomprehensible, uninformed and illogical garbage, with a little headlining style, the latter editor is in serious trouble. Please look at the words, rather than the style.

Trying to participate in that conversation nicely, with a different view from the terribly nice insiders, was having no impact whatsoever. I will continue to occasionally use shock tactics to wake up the nice conservatives here whenever it seems necessary.

Don't worry. Despite your concerns, my level of emotional involvement is well under control. I'm sure they have heated discussions at times about content at Encyclopaedia Britannica. They just don't do it in public. We have little choice. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Using overly aggressive battleground language, and then claiming its justified, does not change the fact that you are using overly aggressive battleground language. It's not very productive, e.g., to accuse other editors of not being able to read. siafu (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Request for comment[edit]

In response to your question on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence I have hopefully clarified the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Alex West[edit]

Hello. Your edit is a BLP violation. Please remove it. Caden cool 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit is not a BLP violation. If you disagree, feel free to take it up with the community. siafu (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, the comment made by Crakkerjack merely indicated that statements made by Mr. West were homophobic and bigotted; there were no factual assessments, nor any direct assessment of his character. There is no BLP violation here, and if you're upset about someone saying something apparently disparaging about one of your heroes or somesuch, you're just going to have to deal with it on your own like a proper adult, rather than attempting to censor it with a misapplication of wikipedia policy. siafu (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of how or what Crackerjack says it is still a BLP violation. Alex West is living and therefore is protected by BLP. I am not censoring Crackerjack and I am not misapplying policy and I am not a fan of Mr. West. There is no need for you to say such things which can be seen as a personal attack. Furthermore I take offence to your statement, "you're just going to have to deal with it on your own like a proper adult." Caden cool 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Characterizing statements made by an individual as being bigotted or homophobic is not, in fact, tantamount to characterizing the person as homophobic or bigotted, which is itself debatable on BLP grounds. Where is the BLP violation? siafu (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Removing the talk page comments of others should not be done except in the most dire of circumstances, like racist rants or violations of WP:OUTING. Jumping in and doing so on extremely flimsy grounds without first requesting that the original poster of those comments do so themselves is not acceptable behavior, hence my recommendation to act in a more adult manner. I do not retract the recommendation. siafu (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Dude stop calling me immature. I am acting like an adult. I'm not making personal attacks against you so stop it. Caden cool 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External link removed[edit]

Dear, Siafu, please, explain why you deleted my link in Ephemeris article? What's wrong with it? Thanks. Mivion (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LINKFARM. siafu (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand, this is free and opensource project, and more precisely than JavaScript Ephemeris linked there. Please explain, I am novice here. Thanks. Mivion (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably, some of the other links there should be removed as well, but the overall thrust is to limit the "External links" section to only a few helpful and content-related links. Links to actual ephemerides do not help elucidate the topic itself, and are thus not really appropriate (as opposed to links to pages further explaining what ephemerides are, their history, how they're used, etc.). See WP:External links for guidelines. siafu (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that my link is more useful than others, because it provides a convenient way to obtain accurate ephemeris than others. Is it not so?? Mivion (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned, linking to actual ephemerides or databases of them is not appropriate for encyclopedia articles, since wikipedia is not a collection of links. Google provides that service already, much better than wikipedia can. Cluttering up articles with links like these is not helpful, and is therefore against wikipedia guidelines. siafu (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Then why you just don't remove other links like JPL HORIZON or others? I still don't understand. But I respect your opinion and agree with you, especially since I still have no choice. Thanks for the clarification. Regards. Mivion (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't removed the other ones because I'm a volunteer, not a paid employee with responsibilities; this is just how wikipedia works. If I have time and motivation later, I will go through and clear them out. siafu (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I am volunteer too, and I've created this service for free and without money, and I am not a paid employee, if you think so. Mivion (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that matter. I did not mean to imply that the service you've created was somehow bad or not useful, merely that it does not belong as a link from an article on wikipedia. siafu (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[PPS][edit]


Siafu, I am getting access denied for GPS PPS. It says ERROR Access Denied

Access Denied by security policy The security policy for your network prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your administrator if you feel this is incorrect.

Is this a classified document? RHB100 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not classified, and I found another link with the same information that we can use instead from the ION. siafu (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ductile iron pipe[edit]

Hello, Siafu. Your comment on the Ductile iron pipe talk page mentioned a pattern of editing by two accounts: this is something I had also noticed and found troubling, leading to my belief that bias may have been intentionally added. If you are interested in the topic, your assistance addressing the bias would be gratefully received. Do let me know if you have any comments on the new content that I have proposed for the "Environmental" heading. PiperOne (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Meet up on campus some time?[edit]

Hi Siafu! Sorry to hear that you couldn't make it to the Wikipedia meetup today. I'm going to be in Boulder until around January 7; if you're in Boulder before then, maybe we could meet up on or near campus sometime? I'd love to say "hi" and talk about the Wikipedia events we've organized and plan on organizing in the future. Drop me an e-mail, or leave a message on my talk page! -- Gaurav (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

GLONASS=[edit]

So if GLO is for Global, what is the NASS for?

Thanks!! 184.57.77.157 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's GLObalnaya NAvigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema (Global Navigation Satellite System). siafu (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sign[edit]

can you sign your post at ANI. thanks --sarvajna (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions[edit]

I feel your behaviour on this matter is growing inappropriate, specifically that you are assuming an authority on dictating procedure that is not in any way supported by policy. Swordfish made that revert on the basis of wanting reliable sourcing (he had not followed the wikilinks included in the added text to see that the point is more than adequately sourced and not at all controversial); I directed him to those sources and he has made no objection to my reintroducing the content so far. The fact that I made my case in an edit summary is utterly irrelevant -- there is no policy requiring me to start a superfluous talk page entry as opposed to making the sources known through any other venue or means of discussion on the project. And in approaching the matter in this way, I in no way violated the principle of WP:Consensus, to which I am fully committed as an editor; had Swordfish reverted again, I would have opened a discussion on the article's talk page, but it's not your place to just assume his reaction to my new evidence and insist on a particular course of action in resolving the (non)issue between the two of us. Your actions in this case, and especially your tone in your edit summaries, seem to suggest that you feel you are in a position to dictate the methodologies of other editors with regard to work flow and communication, but in this case you have no policy argument to support this behaviour and no special position in the community entitling you to interfere in this manner, especially when you had no reason to believe the matter was not already dealt with to the satisfaction of the original parties involved.

This was a discussion based on WP:Verifiability alone, a matter that, until someone tells me otherwise, seems to have been resolved. If you decide that you have issue with the sources in question, how they should be referenced, or the content itself, fine I urge you to open a talk page discussion on it. However, if you continue to meddle and revert my content again on no other basis than trying to enforce your preferred procedure, clearly an administrator will have to straighten the matter out. Snow (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time someone declared "But I'm not edit warring!" I would be a wealthy man. Similarly for every time an editor insists a particular interpretation of sources is the obvious one. The page in question, List of common misconceptions, has been quite contentious in the past and as such requires an extremely conservative attitude in editting, as indicating by the edit warning inserted on the page. Your claim that another editor has "made no objection" to your re-introduction of the content is misplaced, and would only really be valid if editors were full-time employees paid to pay attention to wikipedia; an objection was raised, and you did nothing different to deal with that objection. Really, you seem to be going to a great effort to avoid simply laying out your case on the article talk page and gaining consensus for the page, when, if it's all as cut and dried as you claim, this should be no problem. Lastly, the comment "if you continue to meddle and revert my content again on no other basis than trying to enforce your preferred procedure, clearly an administrator will have to straighten the matter out." is really weird; you will find that administrators are not actually police (it is the community that "sorts things out"), and that any user has the same right to "meddle", as articles and even particualr parts of them (like the text you are attempting to insert) are not owned. siafu (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You are also now at the three revert limit; if for no other reason this should compel you to use the article talk page. siafu (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You may also want to consider reading WP:REVTALK and WP:BRD, as well. siafu (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Your tone here is consistent with what it was in the edit summaries from word go: frankly patronizing, tactless and most importantly still not addressing any relevant argument as to the content itself. Why is the burden on me to prove this beyond providing reliable sources? If you question their validity, then make an argument, or pass it to another editor you feel is qualified to do so if you don't. But you can't hijack the process is some sort of display of correcting editors which you perceive as junior members on a whim. Looking at the history on your talk page, I see I am not the first person to come to you here with grievances of this nature. But you did not act in concordance with policy in doing so. And yes, Swordfish might yet disagree with me, but the fact of the matter is, you didn't give him a chance to decide for yourself, did you? You just swooped in and reverted to make a point about what you perceive as proper form (but which, I can't stress enough, is nothing required by policy) even though you seem to have no argument against the content or sources themselves. You turned a minor difference of opinion that I have every reason to believe would have been a non issue or in any event would have been amicably resolved between me and Mr. Swordfish -- I could easily have provided more inline citations for it, if he felt it was necessary, I personally though it was inappropriate in this case -- and turned it into a drama. And I'm confident that the vast majority of editors, reading that exchange would be able to understand that I was aware of the need for care on a page such as this. You can assume I'm as green as you want me to be, but I didn't need you to explicitly tell me that this page would be rife with content disputes and that its editors would understandably tend be rigorous about vetting information. I've no problem discussing the veracity of the statement or the sources therein or even the formatting with which they are explicitly referred to in this article. What I do object to is you reverting because you felt like acting like a self-appointed policeman, which is why I'm not taking your accusations of own-complex very seriously. And yes actually, the administrators are there for a purpose; it happens to have a lot of overlap with the roles you seem to have appointed yourself, actually. So, yes, I will open a discussion on the original issue on the article's talk page. But I think an administrator should be made aware of your behaviour in this matter, as well. You started a revert war without a policy argument and you want to paint yourself as an elder completely divorced from how the issue arose, and it might be a pattern of behaviour. Snow (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what warrants the angry mastodon tone here; all you had to do to avoid a conflict was honor the original request to discuss the matter on the talk page, a request which I simply repeated because I agree with it. Accusing me of a pattern of behavior (we've just met?), as well as attempting to guess my motivations, are both just tossing good faith out the window as well. Discussing editors instead of content is also rather frowned upon, for good reason. Do you honestly believe that this is the most effective way to accomplish your goals here?
I do indeed have issues with the added content, but until you showed yourself willing to engage in the process, instead of just bulldozing over objections from other editors, I didn't (and don't) see any point in starting the discussion. The burden is on you, who would like to make the change, to demonstrate that it's warranted, not on me, who questions your rationale, to demonstrate that it isn't. I also believe that you'll find, running off to an admin, that in general administrators are not very receptive to complaints made without any real attempt to resolve the issue through other means. In this case this is especially apt, as I made it quite clear in the first place what was needed to convince me-- a consensus on the article talk. You have no spent a great deal of time and energy trying to explain why you should not have to do this, when it would really have been much simpler to just discuss it (the "D" in BRD) when it was requested that you do so. IMO, there doesn't need to be a policy to require you to discuss things on talk-- the very fact that one of your colleagues on wikipedia requested that you do so should be enough. That two of them voiced the same opinion? Should make it pretty compelling; it's truly difficult to see what possible advantage there may be in not engaging a discussion, since you claim to have "no problem discussing the veracity of the statement or the sources therein or even the formatting with which they are explicitly referred to in this article", and yet are not doing so. siafu (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If not for the fact that its convenience is obvious, I'd find it rather odd that you'd have an actual policy reason to object to the content and yet never once mention it in the edit summaries instead of issuing blanket pro forma demands which are not remotely required by policy. As I said before, I'm confident the record will rather obviously reflect your thinking at the time, you're attempts after the fact to paint me as disconnected and not willing to engage in discussion notwithstanding. Now that this mess exists, of course a talk page entry is necessary, but did the original point of contention require it? Probably not, and even if it had become the case, it would have been a much smaller and amiable affair., and wouldn't have involved you, since I'm having trouble summoning enough AGF spirit to believe you really had a valid content argument which you just decided not to mention all up until this point. But let's assume you did. Has it occurred to that you could have then been the one to create the talk page entry, since you were so keen on it? If you were really a party interested first and foremost in the integrity of the page and in challenging this addition in particular, how is the burden completely on me? And you use the word "requests" when you talk about your urging a talk page entry. Show me your request in these statements, your very first on the matter: "settle this on the talk page before bringing it to the article" followed by "No, really, take it to the talk page.", after I had already explained that the sources had been validated. Those are curt imperatives, not requests, and that's all I heard from you until you willfully pushed reverts up to their presumed limit and then made a point of going out of your way to point out that you were getting your way by way of forcing 3RR. Now you want to quote WP:BRD at me, but so you seem to be missing the spirit of that guideline on two levels. First, the "D" doesn't belong to any one party. If you really wanted to force a discussion on a minor fact-checking procedure between two editors that did not involve you, fine -- that's your prerogative as an editor after-all -- but how is it you feel that it then becomes the role of one of those parties to set up the framework for that debate, especially when any challenges to the content or sources would be coming from you? More crucially, I don't feel you had any point to discuss; I feel strongly that you acted as self-appointed discussion police before stopping to think if you had a policy reason to do so and then never stopped to put on the breaks thereafter, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think our relative approaches will speak for themselves to any editor who cared to look at the record. On a side note, you've apparently misread the meaning of WP:Burden, the gist of which is that a person wishing to add challenged content must provide sourcing, not that they have to prove its veracity against any conceivable challenge when a specific factual or source objection has not even been made. But that's all I have to say directly to you on this matter, and I think it's best we leave it at that. If in the future discussion of the content, you have something to say, by all means, present your case. Snow (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
"I'd find it rather odd that you'd have an actual policy reason to object to the content and yet never once mention it in the edit summaries instead of issuing blanket pro forma demands which are not remotely required by policy."
Edit summaries are not the place to hash out content disputes. The article talk page is there for that purpose.
"Now that this mess exists, of course a talk page entry is necessary, but did the original point of contention require it? Probably not, and even if it had become the case, it would have been a much smaller and amiable affair."
Probably not, but your unwillingness to discuss it (still going on that one) has made it a rather large affair.
"and wouldn't have involved you, since I'm having trouble summoning enough AGF spirit to believe you really had a valid content argument which you just decided not to mention all up until this point."
Whether it would have involved me or not is not up to you, nor should you expect to have any idea unless you happen to have a magic crystal ball. Content arguments are for the respective article's talk page, not edit summaries, nor personal talk pages (like this one).
"after I had already explained that the sources had been validated."
By assuming that you fully understand the issue and the objections, you are making the further error that you have fixed it to the satisfaction of those objecting without investigating. Most people making controversial edits consider them to be "uncontroversial" and are genuinely surprised when others don't agree, so I'm not overly surprised by this view, mistaken though it is. Might I suggest that perhaps taking a less confident view of your own infallibility might be a wise choice with better results in the future.
" then made a point of going out of your way to point out that you were getting your way by way of forcing 3RR."
If by "getting my way" you mean "forcing an actual discussion of the content change per wikipedia standards of behavior", then sure, I'm "getting my way." Or perhaps I am, since there's still no movement on the article talk page. We'll see, I guess.
"If you really wanted to force a discussion on a minor fact-checking procedure between two editors that did not involve you, fine -- that's your prerogative as an editor after-all"
I really do want to force a discussion on the change, as I personally don't see it as so minor, or so obvious as you insist it to be. Again, whether it involves me or not is not up to you, and that is my prerogative as a wikipedia editor. This conclusion of yours hinges on the assumption that if Swordfish had not stepped forward with his revert, that I would have ignored it as well, something you couldn't possibly ever know.
"I feel strongly that you acted as self-appointed discussion police"
How you feel is not relevant, and frankly, insulting. Locking yourself into this conclusion is the source of the problem here; my motivations, being inside my head, are not available for your simple perusal. Discussing controversial content changes on the article talk page is just how things are done here. How do you know it's controversial? One very good hint would be that other editors object to it. Take the hint.
"On a side note, you've apparently misread the meaning of WP:Burden, the gist of which is that a person wishing to add challenged content must provide sourcing,"
It's not just about sourcing, it's about whether it's a good change to the article. Sourcing is a necessary, but insufficient, condition. Again, you are assuming things about my position without having bothered to find out. Assuming leads you into arguments like these; see how productive your time has been?
Now, aside from making blindly presumptive comments in edit summaries and ranting on my talk page about what you are convinced are my motivations, in addition to making various absurd threats about administrator action (Please-- if you feel so convinced about that, by all means take it to AN/I and see just where that gets you, this has accomplished exactly nothing. You have three choices at this point: walk away, explain your content change on the article talk page, or continue pushing despite objections from multiple editors. If you choose either of the first two (I vote for the second), this might come to a peaceful resolution; if you choose the last one you can likely expect further resistance from myself and other editors. Up to you. siafu (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I've already made my intended course of action clear, both as regards the changes and seeking oversight to your actions. Snow (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Birth control causing abortions[edit]

There are many refs to support that this is a common misconception. Just google and check if you cannot see the source in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SPLC and WP:CIVIL[edit]

I've replied on my talk page, but I'm reposting here because I want to be clear. I'm removing the comment in question as a violation of the core policy WP:CIVIL. If you restore it you will be blocked. If you disagree with this, please consult the appropriate noticeboard instead of edit warring about said comment. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)