User talk:Unician

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

Contents

Unician, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Unician! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

CSD tag of John Sampford[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that you have tagged John Sampford for deletion under the A7 criteria. I have removed the tag as A7 only applies to people who have no claim of importance, and does not have to pass the notability standards, and being the manager of a sports team is a fairly good claim of importance. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) 10:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR[edit]

I want to call your attention to WP:CITEVAR, which indicates the citation style of an article should not be changed unless consensus for the change is reached on the article's talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. My guess is that you're talking about IBM 3081, where you bulk-reverted all of my recent edits, both citation formats and others. Yes, I see your point about WP:CITEVAR, although I'm slightly intrigued about your focus, since it doesn't appear that you've been an active contributor to that article. I've added {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} to the wikisource to lock in that old style more explicitly, and I've tried to reproduce all of my previous edits that did not involve the format of references to citations.  Unician   05:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
My interest dates back to using a 3081 before IBM had assigned a number to it. It replaced the 370 Model 168 we had been using.
As explained at Wikipedia:Editnotice, edit notices are created by administrators and are only visible when editing a page. They are not displayed to regular readers, who vastly outnumber editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, we were using a 370/168, too, a Model 3 if I recall correctly. I don't know what it was replaced with next, but by the 1990s there was a 3090/VF in its place. Oh, and the edit notice on IBM 3081 should be working now.  Unician   03:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

SATAN[edit]

Hello — thanks for the extensive update of Security Administrator Tool for Analyzing Networks. Face-smile.svg I have a couple of questions based on the new content, if you have a moment.

  1. I noticed you changed the prose to past-tense, “SATAN was” rather than “SATAN is”. I'm not challenging that, and don't plan to change it back — that's probably the more common usage — but I'm curious about that perspective. SATAN has not been updated in almost twenty years, but it can still be downloaded and it can still be run. So why does one say “SATAN was” but “Mona Lisa is”? Mona Lisa has been “abandoned”, receiving no new content from its creator, a lot longer than SATAN has.
  2. Do we need to add a longer copyright message to the SATAN logo file? Currently File:SATAN-security-scanner-logo.gif says that the logo is public domain, but the SATAN copyright page here doesn't release it to the public domain, it makes this statement:
Copyright 1995 by Dan Farmer and Wietse Venema. All rights reserved. Some individual files may be covered by other copyrights (this will be noted in the file itself.)
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such copies.
I'm not an expert on copyright, but this seems to suggest that we ought to change the “public domain” part to instead reproduce the copyright notice from the SATAN page. Any thoughts? Or should we run this past a Wikipedia authority on copyright? I know that using non-free images is a big red flag on Wikipedia, and I'd really like to keep that logo on the page.

 Unician   07:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Two reasons.
A. I don't find the comparison of software to paintings very meaningful in this context. Software is meant to be run, whereas static works of art from the 1500s were meant to be looked at. Software that is no longer being run because it's been replaced by other newer software is out of date, in my opinion.
B. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of software, the purpose of a page like this is to explain the overall relevance of the article topic to the world. In the case of SATAN, here, the relevance is principally that it was one of the first widely known network scanners, that it garnered a lot of attention (national magazine cover, DOJ threats, etc). and that it then led to a generation of successive software. The fact that it is no longer in use is pretty relevant, and to talk about it in the present tense as if it were still used would be misleading, IMHO.
I'm no expert either, but your suggestion makes sense. I can't figure out how to modify the page, so please feel free to paste that in. Thank you for the thoughtful feedback.

Jm3 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Rajeesh menoth[edit]

Hi, I didn't delete Rajeesh menoth under WP:CSD#A3 because it did have content at one time; however, the sole author (prior to your {{speedy deletion-no content}}) was also the person who had removed all content, so I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, that looks fine, thank you. Face-smile.svg The article creator seems to have switched that previous content to a new (but very similar) article title via a copy-and-paste “move”, and another editor has marked the new title as WP:A7. Oh, and both seem to be auto-biographical. I hope this young person doesn't suffer any identity theft ill-effects after posting personal information such as their exact date-of-birth.  Unician   11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FreeLAN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Point-to-point (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) 08:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.  Unician   09:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Unician. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Virdhi Chand Jain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |constituency = [[Barmer (Lok Sabha constituency|Barmer-Jaisalmer]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed — thanks, BracketBot  Unician   19:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay[edit]

Ikin is back; I've scoured the history. DS (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that was an option — thanks!  Unician   21:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It was only an option because you and the other editors had added so much material. So... good work! DS (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

Total prat[edit]

What a total prat you are. Giano (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

G7[edit]

If an editor blanks a page, and no other editor has contributed substantially, then it should be deleted under G7. So why did you replace the content of Bune District here? It turns out to be a straight copy of Buni Zom, and blanking it was one of the editor's more sensible edits. PamD 06:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The author of Bune District created the page, then blanked it only 28 minutes later, which seemed very odd. The page history showed that the pre-blanking content looked like a well-formed article, and the blanking itself had no edit summary, making it unclear if that action was deliberate or an accidental mis-edit which could lead to unintentional speedy deletion. Knowing that a deletion would not be trivial for the author to revert, I asked the author about the unusual blanking (here) and reverted the blanking as a precaution, knowing that my own edit would be trivial to revert, and leaving a well-formed article in the meantime — in other words, erring on the side of caution. Since the author never replied to my question, and since Bune District is a near duplicate of Buni Zom, I have no reason to contest speedy deletion now. If it would help the deletion procedure, I can revert my own edit.  Unician   07:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

CHECKWIKI edit[edit]

Inquiring about this CHECKWIKI edit. From the reader's perspective the only visible effect is the removal of a useful color key from the bottom of the table. Please educate me, how does this improve the article? Mandruss (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed that back. There seem to be two issues on a bigger scale than this edit. One, which is minor, is that the color chosen for concurrency rows may be too pale to be obvious. (It wasn't obvious to me.) The other, which is not as minor, is that explicitly starting a table in an article's wikisource, but then closing it inside a template, makes it hard to scan for tables which are really broken, which may be why CHECKWIKI has such a huge backlog of reported broken tables. I imagine that editors are reluctant to tackle such a long list knowing that most hits will be false alarms and thus wastes of time. We may need to add some new mechanism to help CHECKWIKI with that, and so help editors use their time effectively. Anyway, all of that is beyond the scope of this article and this edit. Thanks for pointing this out!  Unician   23:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Just a guess[edit]

I'm guessing you have discovered my funny stuff page. ;-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Unician. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for voting on the Little Anita's AfD[edit]

It is very much appreciated. Another article, El Modelo, has been nominated for deletion under extremely similar circumstances. Smile Lee (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also well-structured and well-sourced, and it also seems well-worth keeping. Shame I'm not nearby, it sounds like a place worth visiting. Face-smile.svg  Unician   16:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Its my home, but its also a genuinely beautiful place here's a music video on YouTube from a local band that will explain it better than I can. Thus far I've been through only sixteen of these beautiful United States, AL AR AZ CA CO GA HI LA MS NE NV NM SD TN TX UT. I hope to see more, particularly in the northeast such as DC, OH, NY, and ME. My goal is to see all of them, my Grandpa was a trucker so he got paid to see them all. Smile Lee (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Dear Unican,

I am a graphics artist, photographer and retired musician. I was co-founder and drummer of the band Cirith Ungol, and an owner and unofficial authority on the Ferrari Dino 308GT4. Since I have intimate, and first hand knowledge in these two areas I was trying to add enhanced content to these pages. As you have seen although an accomplished mac guy I am not that good at HTML. I was just trying to add some content to both pages and still have lots more to contribute but need to learn how to do it correctly. I couldn't even figure out a way to contact you.

I am at robertgarven@earthlink.net

I was reading some of the instructiosn and even those are not so easy to understand. I would like some help but also am eager to learn how to edit these pages successfully!

Thanks so much for you help

Rob Robertgarven (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Curious about blocked user name[edit]

Hello — Recently I reverted some vandalism from this user. A while later, you blocked that user for vandalism and for having an inappropriate user name. I hope you'll pardon my ignorance, but may I ask why that user name was thought to be improper? Since it doesn't seem to attack or threaten anyone, or impersonate another individual, or suggest use by a company or group, all I could guess was that it's an offensive local idiom. Google is usually good at revealing the latest slang — there is always some teenage Web user, somewhere, eager to etch their latest language inventions in stone by adding it to an online list — but Google turned up nothing more relevant than this. My apologies if this puts you in an awkward or embarrassing position, but could I buy a clue as to the (approximate) nature of the offense? Given that Wikipedia is a global discussion among multiple cultures, I'd rather know if there are new terms best not used in polite conversation. Thanks! Face-smile.svg  Unician   09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

BushyToaster88[edit]

Actually I had meant to block him solely as a vandalism-only account—the bot at UAA picked up on the "shyte" in the middle of the username, which was a false pos (although one could also be a little concerned about the "88" suffix, it's not enough to block on sight). I used the link from UAA to make the block, which unfortunately only gives you vaublock as a choice in that situation. I will go and change the block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the information, a bit of over-enthusiastic software at work. So I guess this image isn't some scandalous double entendre after all.  Unician   14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noa Dar Dance Group, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kibbutz Degania and San José. 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) 09:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This note was expected. In the cleanup of new article Noa Dar Dance Group, both links were to disambiguation pages because the original author provided neither the unambiguous locations of the events described, nor the sources where they could be rediscovered. Both links were created already tagged {{clarify|reason=…}}.  Unician   11:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Thank you for the thank you. But all my suggested edits are being deleted and reverted. I requested external review to assess the material but other editors refused to wait. I escalated to dispute resolution. Would you please contribute at:

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--IseeEwe (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-32[edit]

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Re: Skyhook (structure)[edit]

There has been a long history of content dispute regarding this article and the editor who posted the tag. That same editor has also been responsible for quite a bit of vandalism on the same article. Please investigate the history of this article for more information should you wish to get involved. Skyhook1 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Skyhook1 Your continuing faking a positive review by Boeing is dishonest SPAM. Adhering to verifiability is not vandalism but responsible editing.BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Skyhook1, I'm not yet sure I want to get involved, but I did take your advice to look at the article history of Skyhook (structure), where I immediately noticed a striking pattern:
and all of that was just within three hours.
A day and a half before those,
  • McSly removed some unsourced material here which you reverted here
So while I do appreciate your heads-up about a particular editor you have disagreed with, it seems that recently you've reverted every contribution by every other editor. Since I'm new to the topic, rather than risk stirring up more controvery, I'll ask first: Could you briefly explain your overall plans for the article, and perhaps outline the kinds of contributions that would or would not get your veto? Perhaps that way we can all avoid a lot of reverting, which ends up with no net progress at all.
 Unician   23:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for asking and being willing to discuss this.
Regarding other editors. There have been a number of other editors making edits to the article such as; Jonesey95, Andyhowlett, NuclearDuckie, and 92.32.80.56 who had all made positive contributions to the article. McSly also made what appeared to be a good faith revert of a new addition. His comments indicated that he had not really read the new addition but I took his comments to heart and did my best to rewrite the new addition to address his comments. So yes while I did revert his revert, I also rewrote that section to address his comments. I consider his comments and the resulting changes as an addition to the article.
At 1600 Aug 9, BI added a tag to the article. At 1606 on Aug 9, 184.158.77.101 deleted 70% of the article. I checked the contributions of this editor and found that this is the one and only contribution ever made by this editor. The changes this editor made were very similar to past edits by BI and so I assumed that this new editor was a sock for BI and reverted it as well as BI's tag. That was when you got involved and that was when I started this message with you. Since then there have been some new messages on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page regarding this dispute that you might want to read.
Regarding my plans for the article. My plans are very simple. I am attempting to create an article on skyhooks, both rotating and non-rotating, that is informative, up to date, fun to read, written so non-technical people can understand it and still be an information resource for technical people who are interested in this topic. When people ask questions, make comments, etc., I attempt to address those issues by adding more information to the article. Edits made by 92.32.80.56 and McSly are two examples of this. Skyhook1 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI. I don't think you will be bothered any further, Unician. [6]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see that this article has a history of entrenched controvery. I don't have sufficient time at present to trace all of its developments, which might not be helpful anyway, but I did notice one point which might explain a bit of the disagreement between editors. I considered adding this to the article Talk page earlier, but was unsure; now that someone else in the AN/I discussion has confirmed it, I have no reason to hesitate. See the most recent section at the bottom of the Talk page. (Spoiler: Wikipedia and Boeing are using conflicting definitions of the term “skyhook”; this makes it difficult to collaborate on an article when every usage of the crucial term “skyhook” has to be explained.)  Unician   21:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am quite aware that the current version of the article has a lot of room for improvement, and having a non-confrontational editing process is the only way to actually improve it. If the article remains stable for a while, I intend to again review his OR against the references and see what can be used. User Skyhook1 has the door open to contribute, as long as he understands that he is not writing an "fun article" for a magazine, but for Wikipedia, which has different requirements and style. I remember that he kept deleting the {{citation needed}} to many unreferenced statements, and terminology may have been one of those deleted. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems that user Skyhook1 may not have the door open to contribute after all. I can't say it's a big loss — while normally I'd regret the loss of so enthusiastic a contributor, for any topic, a single-purpose account with a username like that always had the smell of a conflict of interest. BatteryIncluded, you may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in my first response after Skyhook1 added this to my talk page and right after your first response, I phrased my text to imply that Skyhook1 has veto power over edits to the article, just to see the reaction. The optimist in me hoped to see a response like “oh no, I don't have veto power, no one owns the article”. Instead, the response (above) was to draw the lines between good guys and bad guys and to accuse you of sock-puppetry. Oh well, opportunity lost. The self-proclaimed Lone Voice of Truth act, fighting the good fight against the vast cabal of conspirators, got old fast. And then to invent a class of imaginary high school students as sock puppets, hoping that we wouldn't be as harsh if we thought we were speaking to children? Vug. (And then to stupidly squander whatever ill-gotten goodwill may have been achieved by giving the imaginary space-nerd kids a street gang attitude, “this is our turf now, we're the new consensus”? Double-vug. That's worse than just deceptive and manipulative; Skyhook1 is deceptive and manipulative and not even good at it.) So I cry no tears for the loss of a voice of disruption whose block was well earned. Thank you, admins, good call.

OK, end of venting.

I just noticed the article Momentum exchange tether, which I also see you have been active in building, although not as recently. It seems very similar to Skyhook (structure). I had previously found Space tether. And of course there's Space elevator. Is there an overall map as to the subject-area boundaries between these? There are several sets of criteria which could be used to divide the broad subject into individual articles, but it's not always obvious which criteria were chosen.

 Unician   00:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes he had multiple opportunities to understand WP is not a blog but an encyclopedia with certain standards, but his attitude became a waste of his time. The reason I got drawn to these space tether articles, is because months ago Skyhook1 spammed a multitude of space-related articles with his "affordable by everyone" catchphrase. I attempted to cleanup and tone down the advert style, triggering his displeasure. In the process, I also noticed that terminology for the many other tether systems (articles) you mention is blurry, confusing and ill defined. Also, with the inconsistent use of upper case, the reader cannot tell if it is the generic name of the system or some kind of trade mark. My training and interest is more on the side of science than technology, so fixing all those articles would take more time studying the subject than I am willing to commit; I thought instead to make a request at the WikiProject Spaceflight to have that team assess the naming (nomenclature) of all those space tether systems and fix them. Any way, thank you for speaking your mind. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Forbidden Forest of the Upper Cibeet River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forbidden Forest. 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) 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that link was added by the article's creator, but it was still there when I edited the article, and I was probably the most recent editor when the dab bot noticed … now fixed. (and, yes, I do realize that, in talking to a bot, I'm talking to myself) Face-smile.svg  Unician   16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitic publications[edit]

Per the current language at Category:Antisemitism "[this category] must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic." Everything on Wikipedia is just an allegation, since we deal with WP:V, not WP:TRUTH. Furthermore, publications are undoubtedly a form of media. This policy was recently reaffirmed by an RfC. If you disagree with the current consensus, please take the matter up at the talk page per WP:CCC. After 12 months of arguing against this policy, even enduring a one month block for daring to question such wording on a similar category, given the outcome of the aforementioned RfC I've finally decided to go with the flow. Carrying out the existing WP:Consensus of the project can't reasonably be categorized as disruptive.[7] In short: Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger. If you think the message should change, then more power to you. -- Kendrick7talk 03:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick7 — I'm not shooting the messenger. You were given no message to deliver. You are doing damage to the encyclopedia to make a point. Please don't do that. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
  1. Yes, I know that the page for Category:Antisemitism contains some poorly-worded text about not branding people or organizations as anti-semites based only on allegations. I'm sorry if the choice of words is imperfect. Please use everyday common sense in interpreting that text. Your claim that “everything on Wikipedia is just an allegation” is disingenuous WP:Wikilawyering. You're better than that.
  2. I know that you tried to remove that very language from the text of the category, here, and were reverted, here. I'm sorry you didn't get your way. I would not have reverted your edit; in fact, I probably would have made your edit myself.
  3. I know there was an RFC here asking for consensus about that category. The RFC intro notes that, despite the controversial text, the category does, in fact, include groups and individuals, added by many editors over a long period of time. You know that, too, since you created the RFC and explicitly announced that fact.
    • Many editors took the position support the status quo.
    • The status quo is that actual practice interprets the instructions to permit the inclusion of groups and individuals in the category based on verifiable evidence from reliable sources.
    • The RFC outcome was that there was no consensus to change, that is, there was consensus to maintain the status quo.
  4. So the consensus of all the past editors who added groups and individuals to this category is that doing so is appropriate, and now the recent RFC, in which all participants were aware of that actual practice, concluded that there is no groundswell of opinion to impose a change. I would strongly suggest following both indications of consensus and continue exactly as before. The category page should continue to contain the same text, and the category itself should continue to contain the same articles.
  5. In particular, there was no call for a mass purge of articles, and there was no decision to assign such a mission to you. In fact, a sudden and widespread change in the content of the category seems more a violation of the spirit of maintaining the status quo. You'll note that, although some editors who participated in the RFC opposed your position, they are not the ones now ripping out categories “guns a-blazing”.
Are you conducting this self-invented mass purge because you're concerned about inconsistency between the text on the category page and the contents of the actual category? Here's a bigger question of inconsistency: Reliable sources. Take as an example the article about Fyodor Viktorovich Vinberg. A direct quote from a source tells us that “in all his writings Vinberg insists that one way or another the Jews must be got rid of”. Another direct quote, from a second and independent source, explains that “Vinberg is quite emphatic about this, the only solution is total physical extermination”. Reliable sources categorize this subject as anti-semitic beyond any rational doubt, and this article was already in Category:Antisemitism, yet you have now actively removed that categorization twice, contrary to the sources. What was that about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth ? Are you really trying to claim that your own convenient reinterpretation of one word taken from one line of category-page text trumps one of the Wikipedia:core content policies of fidelity to the sources? Or are you trying to claim that this subject is not an example of antisemitism? In the words of an RFC contributor, that would be “a complete and total intellectual cop-out”.
“When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.”
Finally, I've read your comments to the RFC. I agree with your perspective. I cannot agree with your method. You're essentially threatening to continue harmful edits against the status quo unless, or until, concerned editors adopt your position (and priorities) and force your agenda. I would like to sincerely advise you that extortion is not a good way to gain support and convince the undecided.
 Unician   10:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Now see. You've just spent all those words WP:SHOOTing the messenger. You are better than that. -- Kendrick7talk 00:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── User:Kendrick7, I really don't know why Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies‎ can't be labelled as what it factually is, since doing so would not result in any "BLP" violation whatsoever... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, if anyone believes the existing language should change, such that this should only be a WP:BLP concern, please take the matter up at the category talk page per WP:CCC. If the consensus changes, I will be more than happy to self-revert. I will otherwise plow on, deliberately, if slowly, in carrying out the existing and plain as day policy per the RfC. I no longer consider myself part of the equation. -- Kendrick7talk 06:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick7, you know that Wikipedia activity is visible from “outside”, from the non-Wikipedia world — in fact, you were mentioned, by (wiki)name, in an external published article. What are the columnists and bloggers going to tell the world when they see this edit? I doubt they'll be terribly interested in following the maze of twisty little links through an old CfD and to a new RFC, trying to keep track of all the various opinions and viewpoints, and picking up all the policy links left along the way like breadcrumbs marking the trail. More likely what they're going to write is something like
“Wikipedia decides that ‘Mein Kampf’ is no longer an ‘Antisemitic publication’ ”.
Or perhaps they'll also see this edit, which you've just made today, and conclude that it's a much bigger conspiracy, that
“Wikipedia's Revisionist History Trying to Whitewash Anti-Semitism”.
That's certainly what it looks like.
Aren't there various guidelines about not bringing the project into disrepute?
Oh, and then the outside writers will look here. I have a bad feeling about this.
Finally, this is not the first time you've been alerted to this danger. Nunh-huh made the same point on your own talk page about three weeks ago, and you acknowledged the risk in your response. And now you're doing it again, on a massive scale.
Getting back to the main point: You've repeatedly claimed that you're acting on the results of an RFC, but no one else sees the RFC results that you imagine. Among all the participants in that RFC, no one else is doing this. I asked the administrator who closed that RFC, Sandstein (here), if I'm just confused about its conclusion. Not only did he confirm that there is no mandate to depopulate categories, he also mentioned that he'd already told you that. I checked, and he did — moreover, he told you twice, and it was a conversation that you started.
So from where are you getting the idea that, after an RFC which ended with the consensus to do nothing new, the category discussed should instead be vigorously depopulated? And, worse, where do you get the idea that other categories should be similarly depopulated, even in contradiction to their own instructions?
Once more, I ask that you WP:do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 Unician   10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I agree Kendrick7's conduct has been unhelpful on this, I think you're misreading the outcome of the various discussions, not least because the RFC was badly worded and focused purely on the instructions making the outcome implicit rather than explicit. Given the user history of misrepresenting closures and putting nonsense opinions onto the admins I can understand the closer of that one choosing to only focus on the specific worded question of removing the instructions and not giving endorsement to an editor fearing their third block in a year on the subject even though it leaves the broader point of what to do about articles currently in the category that go against it.
The position set by the CFD is that all biography and organisation articles cannot be included in bias categories. Users felt that although there are some clear cut cases, there are many where the sources are divided, the accusations are thrown around freely and the category turns into a black & white statement whereas the article text can be more nuanced. And they don't feel there's a clear line that can be drawn that would allow common sense to rule the day without massive edit warring, source warring and subjective decision making. (That may have changed since 2011 but it's clear from the RFC that a lot of users also feel strongly that a consistent approach should be taken with such categories rather than have a situation where, say, it's possible to categorise one person in Category:Anti-Semitism but not another in Category:Anti-Islam. Attempts to pick off individual categories are just adding to the problems.)
Since the RFC was focused on the instructions governing the category, support for the status quo clearly means for the instructions rather than inclusion. Nobody was arguing the double position for both the articles to be included but the instructions to be retained. The categories do need tidying up but slowly and with careful wording, not a guns blazing approach.
If you either disagree with the close of the original CFDs or feel that the consensus should be addressed anew feel free to launch a review discussion or a new one - but if the latter please address the whole area of bias categories and not just repeat the mess of going for individual ones. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"Given the user history of misrepresenting closures and putting nonsense opinions onto the admins" Examples please? -- Kendrick7talk 06:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Timrollpickering, thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you invested into providing a more complete picture of the situation.
I agree that the wording of the RFC was deeply flawed. A major problem with an outcome being “implicit rather than explicit” is that there is then some interpretation to be made on the part of the reader, with the potential to be interpreted in an unexpected and/or extreme way depending on the individual. I believe that is what we're seeing now.
I'm not familiar with a user's “history of misrepresenting closures” and “fearing their third block in a year on the subject”. Are you telling me that the same editor who I believe is acting now based on a misrepresentation has done some of the same things before, and been blocked for it, more than once? The consistency is good to know, even if the track record is disappointing.
(If it matters, it is not my goal to get that editor blocked again.)
You summarized the 2011 CFD as “biography and organisation articles cannot be included in bias categories”. The 2014 RFC dealt explicitly with Category:Antisemitism. One of my concerns is that Kendrick7 is altering articles which are neither biography nor organisation articles and deleting categories which are not Category:Antisemitism. No formal consensus discussion seems to suggest that such is appropriate, and certainly not via the “guns a-blazing” approach.
 Unician   08:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kendrick7 For starters "one Admin has decided for all time that no one alive is, in fact, opposed to the Catholic Church,"[8]. And then there's the bizarre claim a bot automatically removing the RFC notice after one month "decided that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite"[9].
@Unician The 2011 CFD is clear on a global approach and that's the status quo ante but once again we come back to the terrible drafting on the 2014 RFC which didn't even address sub-categories of Category:Anti-Semitism and so just adds to the confusion. If you look through User talk:Kendrick7 you'll see blocks and topic bans for editwarring in this area, mainly on anti-Catholicism and one author. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Timrollpickering, yes, exactly, the recent RFC did not cover sub-categories. The 2011 CFD may be global, but applies to articles about people and organizations. My particular concern at the moment is that our colleague Kendrick7 is removing articles from Category:Antisemitic publications, articles which are not about people or organizations, which are not in Category:Anti-Semitism, and which do not fall under either formal discussion. (I identified 40 such removals before I stopped counting.) I can see no justification to do that.  Unician   12:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please review the opening post of the RfC. My bold: Should Category:Antisemitism and its various subcategories, per this 2011 CFD, continue to include the language that "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" despite the reality that it does, in practice, include individuals and groups that are, per WP:V and WP:RS, allegedly antisemitic? Perhaps that was poorly worded, but it's silly season to insist that the restriction should, for example, only apply to individuals, groups, or media which are stateless, and not to subcategories such as, for example Antisemitism in France and so on. If you look at the RfC discussion, I frequently cited Hitler as a prime example, although he was actually in Category:Antisemitism in Germany at the time, so I think it fairly obvious that subcategories were in play. Nevertheless, I've tried not to be too careless with the (fairly slow, considering) purge; I've made mistakes and thanked several editors for catching them. I admit, media wasn't first in anyone's mind during the RfC, but publications are clearly media, publishers are clearly groups, etc. Sure, I got sucked into this whole quagmire by an obtuse angle[10] (and, God willing, I will RfC that matter next) but this still isn't about me. -- Kendrick7talk 03:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick7, thank you for the idea of selective bolding. The RFC asked if categories and subcategories should continue to include the language”. But all of the subcategories manifestly did not, and do not, include that language; it was impossible for them to “continue” doing what they had never done before. The RFC started with an invalid and provably-false assumption; it's unfortunate that it wasn't corrected at the time, but it remains false, and it's not clear that any action to alter the encyclopedia can follow from an invalid premise.
In fact, some of the more specific subcategories use language which explicitly invites articles about individuals; for example, Category:Holocaust deniers “is reserved for articles on people who have actively promoted Holocaust denial”. I still think it's odd that you so zealously push for a result that you so vigorously disagree with, but here, the RFC conclusion that there is no consensus to change instructions may be fortunate.
As for what you may have contributed as a concerned editor during the RFC process, I appreciate your input, and IIRC I generally agreed with you, but just because you were the creator of the RFC doesn't mean that the question under discussion changed every time you added a coment. The RFC presented what it presented, and by now it seems that everyone, including yourself, agrees that the wording was deeply flawed. At what point do we just declare that the RFC was too broken to have ever had a chance to yield a clear, unambiguous, and actionable consensus? When do we admit that it was a misfire, and that we have to either do it again or ignore it as a failed attempt and return to the 2011 baseline?
 Unician   07:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually moving things toward the 2011 baseline, per the original CfD and subsequent discussion. Nevertheless, I can admit that my wording was flawed, and that the whole process was flawed considering that the closing admin has repeatedly claimed he had no idea what he was signing off on. By all means, relist -- Kendrick7talk 04:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

First impressions of Omega Marine Chronometer[edit]

Hello —

I'm glad we now have an article on this historic instrument, thank you!

I realize that this is still a brand-new article, less than 24 hours old, and despite looking so polished, may still have the occasional rough edge to be addressed. Rather than trying to fiddle myself, in any major way, with a work-in-progress, may I mention some issues here?

  • In being so enthusiastic, the prose seems a bit promotional, using terms like “unrivaled” and “revolutionary”. Mentioning that it is one of very few models of wristwatch to meet the standards of a Marine Chronometer is, of course, essential, as that is its signature achievement and the source of its name; but it might not be necessary to repeat that twice in the introduction. Face-smile.svg
By the way, was Omega the first to fit Marine Chronometer accuracy into a wristwatch? or at least into a wristwatch in regular production? If you run into a reliable source to confirm that, it would be a nice addition to the article.
  • You've documented each source in its entirety, each time it's cited, which is not wrong but which really isn't necessary. There are at least two styles of references well supported by Wikipedia which only need one full description of each source, each of which can then be cited as many times as appropriate. The style I would usually choose for this is named references; the other style that comes to mind is short citations (which then, in turn, refer to full citations). There may be others. The choice is mostly one of personal preference. This is definitely a lower priority than perfecting the prose content of the article, but it's something to keep in mind to make the job of editing a bit easier.
  • The images included in the article are abundant, are of high quality, and seem to cover the subject very well, from rare factory prototypes through production models, including variations and derivatives. All of that is wonderful, and exactly what one would hope for in a complete article, but ...
Wikipedia has a history of (usually well-intentioned novice) editors copying images from other Web sites and uploading them here for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. I couldn't guess how many real-world attorneys have contacted the Wikimedia parent organization about copyright violations, but I do know that today Wikipedia has strict rules about images and copyrights.
For this article, you've uploaded eight images and tagged them as your original work, identifying yourself as the copyright holder. The excellent quality of the images suggests the work of a professional photographer. Those images cover (if I've counted correctly) six different examples of this “exotic” timepiece, including two (of the five) especially-rare factory prototypes. There will almost certainly be challenges to your claim that these are original images for which you hold the copyright.
Personally, I know that an enthusiastic adult collector could have six (or more) of these chronometers in their lifetime collection, at once or over time, and that taking high-quality photographs of such a museum-quality collection (or commissioning such photography) would not be unusual at all, and may even be a requirement for proper insurance. But the number of such high-end collectors is small, and, for Wikipedia, is overwhelmed by the much larger number of youthful users uploading images of their favorite television celebrities taken from media Websites without regard to ownership or copyright. I suspect that most Wikipedia editors, seeing such professional photographs of rare items, will find it more plausible that they were copied from elsewhere. You might want to think about ways to verify your ownership of those images, an area where I don't have personal experience from which to draw suggestions.

Again, thank you for creating this article. There are a few minor tweaks that I feel I can make myself, but that shouldn't cause any disruption to your good work.

 Unician   19:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my article[edit]

Hi Unician

Thanks for the message on my article, I am in the process of writing numerous other articles on historic Omega but this is my first foray away from forum communities and in to wikipedia so your feedback is invaluable and I will of course take it on board.

Interesting feedback about the images, I am actually the second owner of the rare factory prototype, my name is Tom and if you google dickstar1977 you will see numerous web articles from me on these watches. I am (humbly) perhaps one of the most prolific collectors of megaquartz watches there is, I currently own 12 working examples of the 2400 series watches and a further 6 watches in spares or incomplete, in the last eight years I have owned a further 18, one of which is the prototype in my article, which is now on display at Swiss Time Services in the UK.

The images are all my own taken by me using a light box and the photoshop retouched for consistency, so thanks for your feedback on their professionalism. That said I am fortune that I collect watches, work in academia but have background in photography and film making in my early days

Anyway, again thanks for your feedback and I will review my article appropriately

Finally apologies if this is the wrong way in which to communicate but as you can see I am very new to wikipedia

Very best wishes Tom (my direct email is omega-collector@homtail.com), I assure you that my next subsequent articles will only improve on what I have already started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega-collector (talkcontribs) 08:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I had seen some of your forum postings, and you were actually who I suspected was the Wikipedia username Omega-collector, simply because I didn't think there could be very many alternatives — especially after reading your story about eBay, climbing down from the roof, and finding you'd won one of the five factory prototypes. Face-smile.svg
I thought the photos seemed professional based mostly on the lighting; a watch crystal offers all sorts of opportunities to get unwanted glare and reflections in the image, and a thick case casts shadows along the edges away from the light source; your photos mostly avoid all of those, but without making the whole subject look flat (for example, there's still shading to show the curve of bracelet links, or a touch of reflection of the knurled crown on the case). Nicely done!
Yes, this is exactly how to communicate. The only think I'd suggest is, when starting a new topic or discussion thread, use the option at the very top of the page labeled “New section”, so that your new edit doesn't get the title of the (unrelated) previous topic. When replying at the end of an existing discussion, the usual convention is to indent a bit with every reply, as I'm doing here. Either way, sign at the bottom of your text with four tilde characters in a row, which the Wikipedia software replaces with the signature you're using.
As for improving your articles with time, I have to say that you're off to an excellent start, so you're setting yourself a difficult task to exceed it.
 Unician   09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Unican

Thanks for the message, just about to upload the beta 21 Electroquartz article, just need to get home from Spain and add in the relevant references! Assuming you are also an Omega collector? Could I ask you name?

Best wishes Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega-collector (talkcontribs) 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Unician. You have new messages at TheFarix's talk page.
Message added 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Farix (t | c) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-34[edit]

07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and an answer to your question[edit]

Hi Unican! Thank you for reviewing my material and for your inquiry about the username. It's named "Food Allergy Experts" because we are a group of board members from FAAN (now FARE), the nation's largest non-profit food allergy resource. Therefore we think it's appropriate to utilize this name. Please advise: does that explain our decision? Or wouyld you still like us to come up with a different username? We aim to please ,and are striving towards a food allergy solution.

Thank you again. Food Allergy Experts, USA (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

Checking in - question[edit]

Hello, we're thrilled you are editing our page. Thank you! We'd asked if we needed to make a name change - with an explanation why we selected the name "Food Allergy Experts, USA". May you please kindly advise if we are all set with our current name, or if you believe it's in our best interest to make a change? THANK YOU! We appreciate your time & editing skills. Food Allergy Experts, USA (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Food Allergy Experts, USA — Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, but I'm just a volunteer editor like everyone else, and sometimes can't be online here at all times. Let me see if I can explain the issue of user names on Wikipedia.
The basic standard is that Wikipedia editors are individuals, people such as myself who find Wikipedia useful and important and want to contribute some enthusiasm and effort to it. That's where your account name runs into problems. To me, and probably to most other editors, “Food Allergy Experts, USA” sounds a lot like the name of an organization, or a company, or some other kind of group or association. It doesn't sound like it represents an individual. On Wikipedia, account names which appear to represent organizations, rather than individuals, are routinely asked to switch to more appropriate names. (And, peeking at your own talk page, I see that an administrator has already made that request.) This is absolutely not a judgement about your organization, it's just the convention that Wikipedia follows, and it's not all that unusual; in the dusty back rooms of Wikipedia, there's a closet with something like 100,000 account names in the same category.
My informal suggestions would be, first, check the guidelines on user account names found at Wikipedia:Username policy, and second, create individual Wikipedia account names for any or all individuals who want to contribute to Wikipedia. (As you've already seen, they're free, don't require personal information, and there is generally no problem with several people editing Wikipedia at the same time.) Having an organizational name blocked is not a moral judgement or a black mark against you, and should not prevent you from moving forward. If you wish, you can also have one individual user account inherit the records of the previous account by asking the admins to rename “Food Allergy Experts, USA” to that name, then creating the other individual user names “from scratch”. (The admin's notice to you at the bottom of your talk page offers instructions on how to do that.) As with any online community, you may want to be cautious about how much personal information you do disclose — for example, using individual real names as account names isn't terribly common.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please ask as you did before, and I'll try to get an answer back to you more quickly. Face-smile.svg  Unician   08:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-35[edit]

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-36[edit]

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I've raised all this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-37[edit]

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-38[edit]

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-39[edit]

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Buckingham Palace infobox[edit]

Hi, I've restarted a discussion on the talk page of Buckingham Palace concerning whether or not the page needs an infobox (Here). I noticed you were previously part of this discussion, so any input from you at this point would be much appreciated. Sotakeit (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-40[edit]

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-41[edit]

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-42[edit]

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)