User talk:Visviva

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

Reference Errors on 8 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your article count code[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to mention that I'll try looking at your article-count code when I can get time. So far I've managed to set up Python 3 on my machine and have made the necessary syntax changes, i.e, no useful progress but an interesting exercise for me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I've just updated the code page to reflect what I'm currently running (slower than my older version, but I guess there's no help for it, since the oldest revisions aren't reliably placed first in the XML files). -- Visviva (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you want to upgrade to Python 3, but since I made the conversion and a list of the necessary changes, fwiw those are here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Visviva ! I don't know how to find the Korea-group page (As in almost all Wik. things organizational, I have no idea how to find it -- I must think totally differently from the organizers of Wik.), so I am sending this comment to You in the hopes that You can either take up the cudgel or send the missive on. The Damyang page is written in quaint English. While, endearing, it is not appropriate for Wik. Maybe some-one can change it a bit. Kdammers (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean; I've done a quick slash-and-burn, but it could probably use more work. I imagine you're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea. -- Visviva (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Back in the day . . .[edit]

Hello Visviva -- I happened notice your name attached to an edit made earlier today. So, old friend, here we are, neither of us bothering much with Wiktionary any more, but still a couple of not fully recovered wikiholics. Good to know you're out and about. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey hey! Great to see you again. -- Visviva (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual difference article[edit]

Hello, Visviva. I see that you created the Sexual difference article; I first came across it by seeing this edit in WP:STiki. Looking at this link, you redirected the term to Sex differences in humans, and then you decided to create the Sexual difference article. From my viewpoint, your creation of the article is unneeded WP:Content forking. We already have the Sex differences in humans and Sex and gender distinction articles for this content; we don't need another article to address what you've added on the topic. Since WP:Anatomy recently got through working out how to cover sexual differentiation and sex difference topics on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles), I will take this matter there for more opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought the hatnote would address any possibility of confusion; the topic of sexual difference, especially as developed by Irigaray et al., is well-known and has very little to do with anatomical characteristics. The sex differences in humans article doesn't deal with philosophical or normative aspects, and it's hard to see how it could without becoming entirely unmanageable. I created the article because when I first linked to sexual difference I was astounded to find it a redlink, and even more astounded to find that there was no article on the actual topic at all; I therefore redirected temporarily to the least bad alternative, but that article's coverage really has only the remotest connection to the topic. Would a move to something like "sexual difference in philosophy" be satisfactory? FR has Différence des sexes en psychanalyse, which is basically on the same topic, but it seems a bit narrow; one doesn't generally think of Irigaray et al. as psychoanalysts. The sexual difference and gender difference could then direct to a dab page, which they probably should in any case... -- Visviva (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to philosophy, the terms sexual difference and gender difference refer to topics that are covered by the Sex differences in humans article, and that article has a Medicine, Physiology, Psychology and Sociology section; the Sociology section has subsections. Of course, that article deals with normative aspects. And a Philosophy section to address your content could easily be added to that article. I'm not in favor of unneeded WP:Content forking or creating unneeded WP:Spinout articles. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. And like WP:Spinout states, there is no need for haste. A WP:Spinout article should ideally only be created when needed; I don't see that there is yet a need for a Sexual difference in philosophy article. That topic can fit fine in the Sex differences in humans article until, if ever, a Sexual difference in philosophy article is needed. Look at the other topics in that article that don't have their own Wikipedia articles. And when it comes to redirects and disambiguation pages, WP:Primary topic is a good guideline to follow.
On a side note: Do you mind if I transport our latest replies to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual difference article, and that we continue this discussion there instead of here at your talk page? I prefer to keep discussions centralized (WP:TALKCENT). Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that you replied there; I'll link to your latest reply there, and repeat my "18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)" reply there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
On a closer look: All the subsections in the Sex differences in humans article have a Wikipedia article for those topics; so I struck through part of my post above. Keeping the fact that those topics have Wikipedia articles in mind, creating a Sexual difference in philosophy article could be fine, but your content is barely more than a WP:Stub; in fact, it can be categorized as a WP:Stub. If we are going to have a Sexual difference in philosophy article, the topic should still be mentioned in the Sex differences in humans article (WP:Summary style). And then the terms sexual difference and gender difference should redirect to the Sex differences in humans article. Gender difference previously redirected there, as it should per WP:Primary topic, until you changed it. Anyway, I'll repeat this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual difference article, so that we can continue the discussion in one place. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Male and female poets[edit]

I remember some of it. However, two points:

1.) I think the fact that the male categories exist and are being (somewhat) populated, whereas they didn't at the time of the last controversy, puts a different spin on things.
2.) This is just the first step - Category:American poets is definitely depreciated. I'm doing what I can to start cleaning it up, which is going to be a mountain of a task. Whatever can be done easily first, and all...

Thanks for your note. I'm still considering some future angles of attack for dealing with the issue. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jinny Osborn[edit]

Thanks for the grammar catch after my "peacock" edit. Tapered (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam Kotsko[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adam Kotsko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spshu (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)