User talk:Taxman

Note: In order to keep a coherent conversation, I'll usually respond only here to comments unless you request me to do otherwise. Thank you, and happy wikiing.

For older discussion see: Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4

From krill to shrimps...

Hello Taxman,

thanks for the help over at krill; I think we've now covered most of our bases there. (Actually I think the section on ecology could benefit from some expansion, but I have a hard time finding reliable general sources, that is, ones that are not specific to the Antarctic krill, and so I'll leave it alone for the time being.) I'm planning to get shrimp farm featured next—but probably only in mid-August as I'll be away for some time in the next few weeks. Lupo 16:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC) (P.S.: If I had a nice image at hand for a "Midwife"-award, I'd grant you one for your invaluable help to bring articles up to a decent quality! :-)

Yes, I think it is in great shape now. I would definitely say my contribution there has been relatively minor, but glad I was able to help. - Taxman ^Talk 16:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

duh....

Yet why then have you the need to delete my comment? TTLightningRod

Don't worry, it lives on in the history. But adding an oppose 4 days after the vote has been closed is kind of like kicking a guy while he is down. There's no need for that. Follow RfA in the future if you like and if he is nominated again, add your voice then. That is the appropriate time, not now. - Taxman ^Talk 12:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The RfA for that user is far from "down". Leaving an impotent comment in a stale RfA discussion is my foolish choice, deletion by someone else is simply revisionism. Please reconsider your action. Thank you. TTLightningRod

Sorry if I offended you, as that was not my intent, but for the reasons I gave, I felt the comment was innapropriate. The decision had already been made and nothing was to be gained from further comments on that page about WMC. If you really disagree, add a note to the talk page, not the voting part. - Taxman ^Talk 14:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Directing to the talk page would seems fair enough. Yet if I may still point out, the page in question is not a "snap-shot" and thus is not locked or protected from further collaboration. That it suggests a start and stop date for RfA action or inaction, in no way brackets the ability of people to dialogue ad nauseam if they so choose, and the date/time stamp of such comments can always be taken into consideration. Yes, I do have an interest in where the person in question is going, and my comment about the actor was put in a very particular place. Certainly no real offense Taxman, do take care and be well. TTLightningRod

zuiderzee construction photos

I have an entire photoalbum that my grandfather documented as an engineer/architect detailing :het grootste drooglesingwerk ter werld, Koningshaven te Rotterdam. the album is well documented and dated,1927. anyone interested, would like to share...

I'm not sure why you directed this to me, but feel free to contribute those photos to the Zuiderzee Works article or better, to the Wikimedia commons repository at [1]. It sounds like they would be a great contribution. I'm not too familiar with commons, but spend some time learning how to contribute there and you'll do fine. - Taxman ^Talk 12:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

fishflies

From the article mayfly, which you have edited:

It often happens that all the mayflies in a population mature at once, and for a day or two in the springtime, mayflies will be everywhere, dancing around each other in large groups, or resting on every available surface.

Both immature and adult mayflies are an important part of the food chain, particularly for carnivorous fish like trout.

Mayflies are also an industrial nuisance, as the large population of dead adults can clog the intakes of air and water supply systems. A good example of this is found in the nuclear industry when plants located near fresh water can have their cooling water intakes clogged by the corpses.

If you live along a certain stretch of the Mississippi River you know what fishflies are. I do not want to deface the fine article, but something needs to be added, perhaps another article, about the nuisance that gazillions of mayflies/fishflies do on a certain day in June (not May). By the millions, these winged-genitalia arise from the river, get downright sexual with lights, and by dawn, leave a huge pile of dead ones around or on any light left on overnight. A few perseverate to invade one's storm windows and die there.

I'm not sure there's much encyclopedic that needs to be added about that, but feel free to edit the article. But try to avoid original research. To do that, you'd have to do some research and refer to a published source documenting the nuisance. As long as you try to make good contributions and adhere to the basic guidelines, you won't be defacing anything. - Taxman ^Talk 12:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln/Vote

I have added the proposal you suggested to the list of choices at Talk:Lincoln/Vote. Do you want to vote now? —Lowellian (talk) 08:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - Taxman ^Talk 14:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on my RFA. This is indeed an encyclopedia we are building. Whether I become an admin or not, I expect to continue spending the majority of my time here contributing encyclopedic content. -- JamesTeterenko 21:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Uriah923 copyvios

Uriah923's copyvios are worse than you think—they seem to be hidden attempts to add links to omninerd.com. Uriah923 had previously been adding links to the site in ext links; when I removed many of them, he got huffy and said that the links didn't violate WP policy, so they should remain. tregoweth 18:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Moved discussion out to Uriah's talk page. He's causing the issue, so lets discuss there. - Taxman ^Talk 02:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicle

Please feel free to edit the article to a state where you can remove the "Totally Objectionable" article tag. Meantime, I will be going over it line by line to remove your stated objections. Adding a tag is easy - editing requires effort!

Well, the article was pretty egregiously POV. It has been being worked on and improved in the last few days, so that tag was needed, and did result in improvements. That said, thanks for nudging me into making some improvements of my own. Also, why not consider logging in, so we can respond to you more easily? - Taxman ^Talk 15:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

Thanks for your comments on the Sealand page. I am new to editing around here, trying to "be bold" while providing useful info. :)

Tom Brinkman

You were kind enough to support my nomination of Helen Gandy as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman. PedanticallySpeaking 14:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Much belated response...

If you are still interested, I've left a message for you on Talk:Orbital hybridisation. I completely overlooked the little message you left for me well over 1 month ago on my talk page! I'm not sure how much time I would devote to that article. Right now, I'm trying to set up a WikiProject Polymers. A lot of these science articles can benefit from a top-down approach for organizing these things I think, so I thought I would experiment with this a bit... --HappyCamper 15:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm always interested, which is what makes me an addict, so I can sympathize. I should really stick to topics of which I have access to good textbooks or references though. :) Don't worry about perfecting that article, I just thought that what was in the article is a fairly glaring mischaracterisation of the situation, and I wanted to see if we could get it fixed. Incidentally, I've been creating a few chemistry stubs for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and editing related articles, but since I'm not a chemist, you may want to check them over for accuracy and obvious problems. - Taxman ^Talk 15:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Better than to vote more often though is to find users who are great contributors and ask them if they would mind being nominated. We have a lot that aren't admins, but should be, and wouldn't even be controversial. They just don't get nominated.

On tax evasion? ;)

I haven't seen you edit in FAC for quite sometime now, so I thought I would pop in here and message you to see if your still with wiki. User:Nichalp/sg 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas, did you see the note at the top of this page? Lupo 06:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

yes, I did see the message. But Taxman was active in WP till the 9th, whereas he's been inactive in FAC and other prominent areas for a long time now. User:Nichalp/sg 18:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you saw the message I'm not sure how you would wonder if I'm still with the wiki. I made many edits just before posting the message, and a few on the 8th and 9th during vacation, which was the sole reason for the message. In any case, I just happen to be focusing on the missing articles project and not on other areas. FAC specifically takes a lot of time to review an article properly, and while it is one of the more important things on the Wiki I am getting a little frustrated at all the complaining about legitimate objections. I'll do it when I can or on ones I feel are important, but that's about it. Other than that, I'm happy to be working towards making this thing great, and like I said, I expect to be a long term contributor. - Taxman ^Talk 02:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I updated the Cathedral towns table to include St. Edmundsbury cathedral which was missing. I also added the fact that Oban and Perth in Scotland have Anglican Cathedrals as do 4 towns in Northern Ireland which also have Anglican Cathedrals.

Thanks, but I'm not sure how I'm connected to any of that. In any case keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 02:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jim Henson Memorial

I was actually at the memorial service at the cathedral of St. John the Divine in Manhattan.

There was a musical performance by the core group of Muppet performers. A handful of "Jim's favorite songs" were performed by Frank Oz, Jerry Nelson, Dave Goelz,Steve Whitmire (wearing a Kermit green suit, as he was to be the future voice of Kermit) Kevin Clash and Richard Hunt. Songs included, Coddleston Pie, You Are my Sunshine, Lydia the Tattoed Lady and more. The performance culminated with the song If Just One Person Believes in You. This song was begun by Richard Hunt working the Muppet Scooter. As each verse progressed each puppeteer reached behind and revealed their Muppet to join in and as the song drew to it's final verses all the Muppet performers holding Muppets they made famous joined the core group onstage and finished the song to a tearful standing ovation.

Big Bird , earlier in the memorial service, sang, It's Not Easy Being Green alone, not with Kermit as mentioned on the site. He was wearing a Kermit green bow tie and at the songs conclusion, obviously broken up, he gazed upwards and said, "Thank you Kermit."

Hope this info adds to the page regarding Jim Henson.

Chris

I don't really have any connection to that article other than making a request that it be referenced properly so I copied this information to the Jim Henson article talk page. Hopefully someone there can make use of it. The key would be to have a source that the info can be verified from, or else it is original research. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 02:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

chemistry=> reply

I inserted one more reference in the Cyclodecapentaene article so that it is complete, I try to look out for newest articles that appear in the literature (angewandte, JACS, chemical communications) that are of interest for wiki, when possible I include material from organic Syntheses and I scan several open source journals as well. For the basic background stuff I use the regular textbooks (March, Carey/Sundberg etc.) but not always include them in the references. I will try to improve on this.

Great. Yeah try to cite all your sources each time. It really helps with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you use a good textbook and all those others, that's great. - Taxman ^Talk 20:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I did have a look at the missing articles section: a lot of it is covered under a slightly different name and a lot of stuff I have never heard off! (what is the origin of this list?) I will try to do my share getting this list sorted out. V8rik 20:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of them just need redirects to our coverage of the related topic, which also works when the topic doesn't really need it's own subject. That particular list is collated from the Weissenstein encyclopedias including scienceworld.wolfram.com. - Taxman ^Talk 20:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Taxman!

Thanks for thinking of me for adminship - I really appreciate it! Sure, I'll take up your nomination and do my best to answer the questions. I could also use the opportunity for feedback too. See you around! --HappyCamper 23:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hindi

Good to know you're learning Hindi. I'll try and fix it. I'm a little busy at the moment, do you need it urgently? If not I'll correct/append to it in a couple of hours time. User:Nichalp/sg 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That would be more than fine thank you. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I hope your browser settings are OK and you've read Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. User:Nichalp/sg 15:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well I get them to show up right most of the time, but thanks for the link, that will hopefully help me get any oddball ones working. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced all the images with text. It was more challenging than I thought. Certain characters were missing, and to generate them you'd have to type in a set of characters. I just came to realise this. (Its like typing dubloo to get the alphabet W). Also, in the unicode rendering for devanagiri, there are a few characters we've never been taught in school, and some characters extinct in modern usage. User:Nichalp/sg 11:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That is great, thank you very much. I downloaded the Hindi unicode chart, and it certainly has some extra ones. It's meant to be all inclusive of anything that could be used in Hindi. I think a lot of the oddball ones are used in bringing in sounds from other languages. It notes some are for transcribing from Dravidian. If you don't have the chart, I can try and find where I got it from. But I see that the page source just has the Hindi characters, not the Unicode, how did you do that if you didn't enter the Unicode codes? - Taxman ^Talk 13:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a chart. I used the "character map" in windows, and with "Arial Unicode MS" as my font, I selected one character at a time, and then pasted it to WP. I've noticed some bots do conversion from alphabet to numerals, Chhobot is one. User:Yann 's page in the Hindi WP has a link to a javascript site which renders both the number and character at the same time. User:Nichalp/sg 20:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't reallize that. I thought you might already have your system set up to type Hindi. Well, here is the standard Devanagari Unicode chart, I found again. I didn't even think about character map, but trying it I see it does tell the unicode at the bottom of the window too. Man that thing is a pain to select one at a time. Yeah, I see too that the bots do that. I suppose it is better to have the codes in the wiki source then, but there has got to be a better way. I don't know if I would be able to use Yann's tool if it is in Hindi. - Taxman ^Talk 20:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it is a big pain, that's why I never contribute to the hi: WP. That pdf map only shows the mapped characters. There are some characters that are unmapped and have to be generated by a combination of keystrokes. See the following example.

??? (Trre) is an alphabet. But to generate it you have to type: 
 ? + ? + ?  [त्र]

This is Yann's keyboard: [2]. User:Nichalp/sg 15:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. I did actually set up the keyboard settings for Hindi so I can type directly, but without either a new keyboard or an overlay of some sort, it's not too helpful because I'd have to blindly memorize where the characters are. That makes Yann's keyboard pretty useful because I can see them, and as I'm just beginning, I don't need to type much anyway. I had actually just figured out that halant (्) because you need it in a lot of things as simple as "Hindi" and "Achchhaa" to suppress the middle vowels. Is that how all the conjuncts are written? For ex what this page calls special conjuncts, I see त्र there, but I don't know what characters combine in some of those. And I see that's one spot where Yann's editor doesn't work because those don't combine for me using that, but it does show up correctly here. Anyway, thanks a lot for the help. Learning is going slowly but it is fun. - Taxman ^Talk 16:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That page is good, it has the characters, but doesn't have the unicode unfortunately.

On another note, I'm not sure if you're aware, but almost basic all Hindi tutorials are incorrect as far as the teaching of the root consonant is concerned. I'll explain it below:

A consonant in its nascent form exists as " ?? " (just like nascent oxygen), [note the character with the halant]. When ?? is combined with the vowel ? , only then does it become the ? as you know it and pronounce it. See this table:

• ?? + ? = ?
• ?? + ? = ??
• ?? + ? = ??
• and so on ...

User:Nichalp/sg 18:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That does make sense. Isn't that basically equivalent though to saying the consonsants have the ? unless removed or modified? It's like pronouncing the English alphabet, the letter b isn't really "bee" of course. Is there a point where that distinction becomes important? In any case, it does make the situation clearer. - Taxman ^Talk 19:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments contd..

I'm not sure if the distinction becomes important at a given point, as Devnagiri is phonetically very sound, if you come to know all its 50(?) odd characters. I've never come across a situation where the pronounciation of an English or French word cannot be exactly written in Hindi. For example, its very difficult to write the French pronounciation for Lune (the moon) in English, but in Devnagiri it can be written as ????? .

PS: Note that this char: ? (x0933) is not a Hindi character. It is an exclusive Marathi character. User:Nichalp/sg 01:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

There are some other characters which might interest you. Compare ? and ?? ; ? and ?? . (See those dots carefully). The 'F' and the 'Z' sounds are not native to Hindi. To get these sounds, the dots were borrowed from Urdu. My Hindi teacher in school gave me this above Urdu information; I haven't cross-verified so it may not be 100% accurate.

• Now the ? in Hindi correctly renders as the English equivalent of ph. Thus ??? (the word for flower) is Phool (P & H are pronounced à la "Winne the Pooh" style; it does not render as a hard F). However, contemporary Hindi usage has rendered the ? akin to the English 'F'.
• To get the hard F, the dot is used ?? (x095E). eg. ?????? (the word for storm/cyclone) is pronounced as Toofan.
• In a similar manner, ? is "J" in English. But with the dot added, it becomes 'Z'. Therefore ????? (the word for land/ground) is not Jameen but Zameen.

I hope the above information was not too taxing? [pun intended] ;) User:Nichalp/sg 07:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well a bit ahead of where I am now, but I'll get there. - Taxman ^Talk 20:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Shrimp farm

Hi Taxman! I have seen your reply to Nicholas (concerning FAC). May I ask you all the same to take a look at shrimp farm and help improve it? I'd appreciate your comments... Lupo 08:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I will see what I can do. - Taxman ^Talk 20:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

A nice, bright and shiny barnstar

A token of appreciation for your well rounded, due diligent, and consistent efforts. May it bring you only the best there is! --HappyCamper

Hi Taxman! I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Since August 21, 2003, you have made close to 6000 quality edits, participated in innumerable collaborations, and even nominated a few of Wikipedians for adminship! I am very grateful to be one of those nominees. Thank you for your genuine appreciation and acknowledgement.

I felt for a while it would be apt to give you - on the eve of your second anniversary on Wikipedia - a nice, bright and shiny barnstar for all your efforts. Your contributions are truly high calibre and exemplary - I hope you treasure the barnstar, and may it bring you only the best there is on Wikipedia!

Indeed, I think it was a coincidence that everything almost coincided together. I wish you the best, and I'll see you around! I really enjoyed our brief collaboration on orbital hybridisation the other day, and yes, I do intend to fix up LCAO! :-) --HappyCamper 15:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you much. I'm honored you noticed my two years here, and I'll treasure my barnstar always. - Taxman ^Talk 20:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for nominating me for administrator - your well wishes mean a lot to me. I'll be sure to use those new functions wisely. Let me know if you ever need an extra hand, whether it be writing articles, or other administrative stuff. See you around! :-) --HappyCamper 01:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent discussion

In the EB discussion page, you may have noticed alinktothepast posted 100% BS. Well I asked him to do so as part of a prank. EB previously thought they were posting anonymously. Taking advantage of this, we decided to plant misinfo with the hilarious intent of trying to fool Britannica into believing a secret Encarta-Wikipedia alliance was in the works. It might not be salvageable now...but please do not reveal we are bullshitting.

lots of issues | leave me a message 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I think you just let the cat out of the bag. I won't say anything else, but anyway how do you know about EB, and are they making valuable contributions or sabotage? - Taxman ^Talk 13:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Krag-Petersson

Hello.

I apologise for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but you was so helpfull to leave comments when the article on the Krag-Petersson was listed on WP:PR. Since I've just nominated it for FAC, I would be gratefull if you could take the time to look it over and leave a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Krag-Petersson.

Thank you for your time

WegianWarrior 09:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Footnotery

Hello, Taxman. I was disappointed that you dismissed my efforts on behalf of the Krag-P article so imperiously, with "very limited time to make that edit" (how about waiting to post till you did have time?). I'd examined WeganWarrior's references carefully, from more than a mere technical standpoint, and my main point wasn't that those over-numerous footnotes give too much information, but that they don't give enough. Please give this bit another chance:

"I can't tell what information they're references for, from the way they're placed in the text. It sort of looks like statements like "The function of the extractor was particularly praised in the official reports" are referenced by a mere entry in column--I don't have the source, but it seems surprising. WW, is that it, or are the notes meant merely to indicate where in a column some particular model (or, uh, part of a model...? a measurement..?) appears?"

WW hasn't replied to the question, unsurprisingly, after you let him know my incorrect comments and wrong advice could be safely disregarded. I still don't know what statements in the text his notes are supposed to reference, or what type of info is likely to be found in the "columns" they point to. This makes them extremely imprecise notes. They look precise, but that's the decorative aspect. The article is otherwise well done, but it's going to be an FA with incomplete, uninformative references. Oh, and laid out with the obsolete "ibid" formula, also, as I pointed out. That looks bad, but is after all a formal detail that can be fixed by later editors. The information gap can't. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well that does clear it up. Thank you for being willing to try again. And I apologize for dismissing your comments. My response was more to Peter, but where my response to your message was coming from was that Peter started with "There's no value in keeping them", and " Referencing things like uncontroversial historical dates and effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose." and you come back with "here [Peter]'s just, well, right.". Then I missed the crux of what you've explained above, because you seemed to be not just saying they weren't done right, but that they weren't needed at all too. By all means, please detail your objections to the way his footnotes aren't informative, and ask him to improve them, but please don't ask him to remove citations that tell us specifically and by page number where we can verify the material. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Hey, thanks for supporting me. Sorry I couldn't cite any specific examples- I was looking through my early Vfd edit history, and although I found some borderline-asinine stuff, nothing too horrific appeared. Thanks again.--Scimitar ^parley 17:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well we all make mistakes. It appears you've learned, so just keep up the good work and congrats. If you'd really like to be a peach, help me keep an eye on the situation at Talk:Hubbert peak theory. Read from the top to get an idea of what is going on. - Taxman ^Talk 22:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Uriah923

Blech. Yeah, I respect your decision. I guess I didn't see myself as "involved," per se, because he was just a spammer and I was cleaning it up. Just like if I clean up after a vandal, I can still block them. I blocked for 48 hours because this user has a history of warnings against spam, but you're right that it was his first block. Also, for the extent of this guy's spamming, take a look at my recent contributions removing them, (a ton) and I'm not done. Plus he's been using at least one other account as an anon to do the same. But I wasn't even going to block him since he wasn't adding any recently and we were in a dialogue, until, after I had been cleaning it up for more than 30 minutes, he started to revert me. I just needed a block so I could actually get rid of the spam. I feel severely trolled. He keeps repeating himself and saying no one's giving any reasons, but doesn't respond to Zora's and my (reasoned) arguments on Talk:Muhammad where most of the discusion took place. So, anyway, thanks for any help, and if I feel the urge to block again I'll take it to ANI. And sorry that my impatience got the better of me. Dmcdevit·t 21:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well I may have unblocked a little quickly, but we seem to have come to a reasonable agreement about how to move forward at least. If you can check that and help make sure that discussion occurs, that would be helpful. You looked more involved at first, but later I reallized you were probably only being civil on the relevant talk pages discussing the disputed behavior. Certainly though a warning on his talk page to stop would have been good along with mentioning you've listed the issue on AN/I. I also wasn't aware of the other account and anon edits. Having that in front of me on his talk page may have helped to. I have made it clear I will make sure he gets blocked if he adds them again now that he has been notified. In the end, no big deal, thanks for your work, and depending on the outcome, there may be a lot more links to remove. I think it's probably best to wait on that unless you have clear evidence they were added in bad faith or by sockpuppets, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 22:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways - Request to look at FAC

I talked to Raul654 recently about the article's not getting much attention on the FAC and he suggested that I talk to you about it. Can you look at the article and comment on it? Thanks. Pentawing 00:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

So he threw me under the bus eh? :) Maybe I should start rejecting these requests though so I don't get a rep. But ok I'll have a look. And you may be sorry anyway because I can be a tough critic. - Taxman ^Talk 02:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments (even though they are tough, it is better than nothing). Anyways, I went through the article once more and attempted to address your concerns. Can you look at it again and tell me if anything more is needed? Thanks. Pentawing 17:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, didn't he tell you I was a tough critic? :) I'm probably also being a bit harder on it since there's substantially only you as the primary contributor, so it doesn't have the benefit of a lot of people working on it. I went and updated my comments based on the changes. Looks quite good, so with those last few things to take care of you should be fine. - Taxman ^Talk 18:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Finished going through the new sources. Can you note your thoughts on the FAC listing? Thanks. Pentawing 23:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I went through the sources, but only to confirm information (I didn't add anything new). Exactly how am I to use the new sources and how much improvement is needed? Thanks. Pentawing 23:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, and I'm not trying to be a hard ass, it's just you're the only one writing the article. So if you say you went through them, but nothing in the article is incorrect, mis-emphasized and nothing is cited, how is anybody to know? I don't want you to make random, stupid changes, and I don't want to say you have to cite 5.3 facts to get my support. If you understand what I'm getting at, you can make the appropriate changes. - Taxman ^Talk 23:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific (though you said you aren't sure yourself)? I am a bit unclear of what you meant. Pentawing 23:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My "I don't know" was saying I don't know how to say. It's not a quantifiable thing I'm looking for. Basically it should be clear the source was used to improve the article, but not in a way that it's just to satisfy the objection and fail to improve the article. I'm not sure there's a more specific way to say it. - Taxman ^Talk 23:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I am going through the last new source that I have (Skygods), which chronicles the rise and fall of the airline. Some of the information that caught my attention included how people (especially pilots) saw the airline (as a glamorous company worth working for), and the airline's downfall, notably the uneasiness between employees after the Pan Am - National merger. Should I include this somehow? Or do you see other improvements that are necessary? Hopefully, I will be finished by the end of this week. Thanks. Pentawing 01:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Hubbert peak theory

Sure, Taxman, I'll take a look when I next get a chance (which may not be until tomorrow). Andre (talk) 01:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotery II

I accept your apology. Thank you. But I'm not going to open any dialogue about notes and references with WeganWarrior; since you and I disagree, I think it would only worry him pointlessly, plus take time for me that I can't well spare. My opinion of the article's referencing is all of a piece and well represented by my original post on Featured article candidates/Krag-Petersson: yes, I think Peter Isotalo is right in this case; yes, including in the remarks you quote above. I do ask you to reconsider standing guard to the death over these crappy ibid notes. Compare ALoan's vote. Compare this section of Cite your sources.

But my day job is quite enough infested with footnotes and references, I'd just rather not spend Wikipedia time arguing about them. I see myself as mainly an article contributor. I've been flattered that you've often supported them on FAC, btw. Their references are complete, IMO, but they're minimal, or optimized. See for instance in Colley Cibber, how the amount of detail in the parenthetical references varies? Page numbers are supplied iff the info can't be easily located in the source by other means. Lean and mean. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well what you've outlined about how they are used incorrectly is valuable and is different from telling him to take them out, so telling him how to fix them so they are correct would be valuable, and I don't think the guy is so worried that he would crack over it or anything. But looking at Cribber, I see you have at least 15 inline cites, and your lean and mean style is just fine as long as you are right in how easily someone else could locate the material, which I'm sure you are. So what I get from that is your saying WW should pull out his references is more about the way he uses them than that he does. But that they should be used I do find to be among the most important things we can work on here, and certainly worth carrying the torch. We are an encyclopedia, but as a Wiki, we have zero or negative inherent reliability/trust. The only way we can combat that, short of a formal review board or formal peer review process that vets articles fact by fact, is to use the tools of verifiability such as citations. I've yet to hear a compelling argument on any drawbacks to increased verifiability and citations for our articles. Asthetics is the only one I hear, and frankly I just don't see how that is important enough. Sorry you have to use them all the time and are sick of them. I will though take under extreme advisement that you were very unhappy with the way I went about it, and will try harder to handle it better in the future. I do value your opinion and contributions. - Taxman ^Talk 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Link spam

Thanks for your participating in eliminating the OmniNerd link spam. If you check my edits, you'll see I've made a habit of going after link spam for a while. Over on User_talk:Dmcdevit I've just made a proposal about maybe setting up a WikiProject to go after link spam. I'd appreciate your input, if you're interested. Jdavidb 17:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting ions and other miscellaneous notes

Hi Taxman! I'm not sure if dianion is notable enough to write an article about it other than to say it is an ion with a charge of 2^-. I suppose we can make a list of notable dianions? I rarely come across this term, and in fact, the last time I recall seeing this was when the pentalene question came up on the reference desk. I've posted a short response there if you are interested.

Well the point I was making is we don't include the word anywhere. I guess that we don't need an article, but at least cover it in ion and make dianion a redirect. - Taxman ^Talk 15:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

There are zwitterions too :-) --> it comes from German; "zwei" meaning "two".

On aonther front, if you get a chance, could you glance through phase-shift keying and see if there are other changes you would recommend? Also, what do you think of the new reference desk? It's capacity has more than doubled, and if you look at the talk page there's a really interesting graph of the number of edits done on a per month basis. --HappyCamper 14:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can have a look. What kind of advice are you looking for? If the goal is to have it be a featured article I can tell you what it needs for that. As for the reference desk I saw that graph and that is pretty nuts. There is definitely some extra overhead and maintenance, and it is harder to keep an eye on new questions, but based on the traffic it looks like we had to do something. - Taxman ^Talk 15:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Let's try for some featured article advice! :-) As for the RD, I'm going to wait until the end of September to issue a new graph. I want to see what the real impact of splitting the page did. --HappyCamper 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

About my RfA

Hi Taxman. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Which I certainly appreciate. Voting neatural doesn't take anything away from your chances of being promoted, which is why I did it. - Taxman ^Talk 23:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Brettingham

Hi, Taxman. Since you supported Matthew Brettingham on FAC in January, I was wondering if you might be interested in weighing in on its FARC nomination. Best, Bishonen | talk 11:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

BBC television drama

I was wondering if by any chance you could have a look at the BBC television drama piece, which I've been mostly responsible for, and is currently up on FAC. It's been up there for nearly a week and a half in fact and hasn't attracted a huge number of comments. I've addressed the issues that have been raised so far, but I felt it could really do with the input of someone such as yourself who always seems to be really on the ball with picking out what needs to be added or changed with featured candidates. Thanks. Angmering 15:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, I prioritize my time on Wikipedia based on topics I find important or interesting. Pop culture treads somewhere near the bottom of the barrel for me. No offense, but I can't help wishing people would spend time on more valuable topics. That said, I have three other articles I've agreed to review and I'll have to get to those first. But since I'm sure you've read the above and know I'm a tough critic already, I'll do my best to get to this one too. - Taxman ^Talk 15:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. For what it's worth, I've always held that there's quite a difference between writing about the 'fictional' side of television, radio, films etc (which I agree isn't excactly the most valuable content Wikipedia could have) and the 'reality' of people, organisations and culture that went into producing them, which I think *is* valuable, especially when it's such an important, long-lasting and large scale operation as the one covered in this particular topic. But anyway, that's hardly a debate for here! :-) Angmering 15:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a decent point, and proof that it is good there are people that think differently. It takes all types. In any case, I have gone and reviewed it, so see what you can do with what I wrote. - Taxman ^Talk 18:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to do that, especially considering it's not an area you're particularly keen on - I really appreciate it. From what you've said over there I don't think this'll make it through FAC this time around, but hopefully at some point in the future it might be ready. Anyway, thanks again! Angmering 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's the opposite of what I was thinking. If you successfully address the concerns I laid out I am confident it will be promoted. Raul654 decides the consensus on articles and will generally give more time to articles where it is clear suggestions are being worked on. - Taxman ^Talk 19:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and merged shorter paragraphs into larger ones where it seems appropriate - I've also bulked up that short paragraph at the end of the lead section, so hopefully that's better. I've also expanded the children's drama section as much as I'm able to for the time being, and had a good stab at tying-in the book references to the text which was researched from them. Angmering 13:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My edit to your user page

Hi. I just edited your user page to fix a small typo. Hope you don't mind. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, that's pretty funny, especially the edit summary. How did you happen to come upon my user page? And specifically, I corrected it to what I should have written in the first place. The Uni considers it one degree in two different things. - Taxman ^Talk 16:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was reading your response on "the in-law question" at the RD. I wanted to check where you're from since you quoted an Indian example. That's how I ended up reading that. Once, some user felt bad when I edited his user page. So, I was looking for a precedent before I edited yours just to be safe ;) I get from your talk page that you're learning Hindi. Is it over the web? If so, how do you manage that? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I thought it might be that. I at least appreciate the message, because you're right, many people don't like anyone touching their user page, though I don't mind for helpful things like that. As for Hindi, yes so far it is all online, though I have people I can practice with once I get the basics down. Following the links at the bottom of our Hindi article and some searching of my own I was able to fairly quickly put together some pretty helpful sites to learn the language. I'm starting with memorizing the script characters and I almost have that, then I need to figure out how they combine (the conjuncts, etc), because I still can't read a given hindi word and tell all the characters that are in it. If you'd like to help flesh out the Hindi Wikibook, I can at least help with telling you what I need to learn, and then contribute more as I progress. - Taxman ^Talk 17:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Good to see your interest in learning Hindi. Though I've learnt Hindi, I'm not a native speaker. I'll try to help with the Hindi Wikibook, if I get some free time between editing here and the Tamil Wikipedia. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Any help would be great. I thought you might be a native speaker because you remarked on my learning the language. Maybe I'll try to see what I can improve and then get you and any other willing Hindi speakers to fix my mistakes. :) I'll try the same for Hindi since that article misses a lot of things important for a language article like grammar, word order, etc. - Taxman ^Talk

Matthew Brettingham FARC

Thanks for the support. I'm afraid, with historical figures, I always give all the information I have, with an explanation for anything that is often repeated but generally accepted as untrue, or for ambiguities and disputed facts give a (hopefully unbiased) balanced and sourced assessment of both sides and leave people to draw their own conclusions. I have to admit to being unclear what is essayish or what is not. Anyway it is a featured article, and because of the much appreciated support looks set to remain one. Thanks Giano | talk 18:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well if I get a chance I'll try to note what I saw that made me think that way, and hopefully TBSDY will be forthcoming with that too. If we do that, and you improve the article where possible, we'll all be better off. - Taxman ^Talk 18:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Taxman:
Thanks for support and your confidence in me in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 19:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh quite welcome. I'm sure you'll use your new powers wisely. - Taxman ^Talk 20:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gerfriedc

Hello,

I appreciate your endevour but I find it unfair: - I'm investing time/money in writing articels - I'm linking towards wikipedia in my websites BUT - other may use my wikipedia articles without any benefit for me - I can't use the discussion section to acquire wikipedia writers to give their preferences for my work...

CONSEQUENCE

I will build my own content on my own sites if the mutual networking is not acceptable...

a taxpayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Gerfriedc (talk • contribs) 18:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just one user/administrator on this site, but I believe my understanding of our policies is clear on this point. The GFDL and similar creative commons licenses allow the creation of a public good that benefits everyone and no one can make unfree once it is free. That is very powerful and is clearly very successful. People choose to contribute or not contribute but either way, the GFDL is the rule. All text contributions must at least be under that license. So yes, that means people can use any contributions, including yours, without direct benefit to you. You benefit by having that information improved and expanded by others. And no, you can't advertise your site on a bunch of Wikipedia pages because that is considered spam, as it only benefits you. It's part of our policy for just the reason I told you, but you removed it from your talk page. We are a very popular website, and external links can only make it into the article if they add value to it. I can point you to the full policy if you like. That said, we would appreciate your contributions, but they have to be made under the GFDL and all that entails, just like the big notice at the bottom of the page says. - Taxman ^Talk 22:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are to strict - I DID NOT SPAM because I did not enter the link on the content pages but only in the discussion section (which is only usde by authors) and secondly its not a commercial site we do. We have 24 partners with 15 languages and could translate the content into all the languages- so I really have something to offer for you. So could you please reconsider and talk with other admins - I can't believe that this is the rule.

--Gerfriedc 17:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to discuss it on the general discussion board called the village pump in the policy section. But you have to understand, we get this all the time, and can't let people put lots of links to their pet projects all over the place. And yes, putting it on lots of talk pages is basically the same. If you had put it on one or two, I wouldn't have said much. But all it is is a survey, no content. There are plenty of alternative energy discussion boards that are appropriate for posting a link to your survey, Wikipedia just isn't one of them. Actually, if you want to post one comment and link to your survey on Talk:Future energy development, essentially the main alternative energy article, go ahead, but not more than that. Like I said, try other sites for advertising. - Taxman ^Talk 18:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ashlee simpson comments

You're welcome, but I moved comments to the FAC entry to avoid back and forth commenting. I hope you don't mind. I'll check there every once in a while. - Taxman ^Talk 04:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments

Thanks for the comments, Taxman on Karma in Hinduism.

Raj2004 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bhutan

I've commented on the 6 references on Bhutan on FAC. I did clean up some paragraphs and address some of your points, but I'm not sure which paragraphs you found staggered. If you could point them out, it would be great. Regards, and I'm off to bed, User:Nichalp/sg 19:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Taxman. Thanks for your strong support on my RfA, especially since you like to see a little longer in service. I was very surprised to see such wide ranging support. Thanks also for your comments on Phase-shift keying, I do plan to get back around to dealing with the article. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning my way around the new buttons. Thanks again, Splash 18:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

re [3] -you are one step from being reported -read this carefully.

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=22962113&oldid=22961898

I don't approve of what you are doing in the removal of a candidacy on the FA page:

the 1st removal was a technical error by Nichalp and he allowed a revert (he is an admin, so his allowing me counts here)

the 2nd was a premature act on the part of Z Scout 370 and my revert of such was allowed by Mark (aka Raul654), the Fac editor

the 3rd revert was Mark's and arguably valid, but after I reverted him, he allowed it, so your case of "four: editors is shallow, most especially since you are including yourself

Yes, I understand concensus, but this is an admin decision -while concensus counts, here, policy (as I understand it -I could be wrong) dictates that Mark gets to make the decision, and your decision to pull the candidacy prematurely indicates you are fearful that you don’t have a case: Even as we speak, there are improvements going on in the article in the image "Fair Use" issue -even though the "fair use" of a small portion of images is legally permitted; Additionally, I took four photos myself and posted & released them under GNU -if you don't believe me, look at the "proof" photos with me at the grave site

you are the one being disruptive; if the article is bound to fail, it will, but there is no harm in allowing the post to remain

however, in the interests of civility, I will yield to your actions because I am honest enough to admit that I don't know if you are permitted to do what appears to be vandalism; -- Show me where in the policy that you have the right to remove a candidacy -that is a privilege, according to the rules, only allowed for me -and I have a good mind to report you for vandalism, but since I am sure that my "legality" approach (though probably right) would be counterproductive, and I would win the battle and lose the war. So, I will abstain -for now, but I would like an explanation other than "it's going to fail." (You might try citing the rules or policy.) I await your answer, but I will not tarry forever. Cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Your characterization above is blatantly incorrect by the way. You assert that Nichalp removed the nom for technical reasons, but it's just as likely he was following the consensus that it was renominated too soo. His and other's letting your revert stand establishes nothing. Many experienced Wikipedians just like to avoid edit wars. You however are more than willing to revert multiple times. That's the problem. Also Raul's was the second revert, not the third. You should have let that stand, but didn't, so Zscout and I backed it up. 4 reverts is 4 reverts and is innapropriate. Letting them stand means nothing. - Taxman ^Talk 08:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Clarification: I will translate -I am not trying to cause trouble, but unless you can cite a rule or policy to justify you actions, you will be reported: I understand the policy to allow me to withdraw the candidacy or the Fac editor (Mark aka Raul654) can remove it -no one else. If you are correct and can cite the policy for your actions, then all is well ,and I shall not complain about your action, but, instead apologize for my oversight.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Report me all you want, but you'd be better off not making threats. I belive I have acted in good faith for the best interests of Wikipedia and there's nothing in stone that only you can remove the nomination. See, instead of the Wikilawyering, I just go for common sense. There are so many objections on the page, and so many people have explained repeatedly that your renomination so quickly was innapropriate, that after you reverted 4 editors (yes including myself) common sense kicks in and makes removal obvious. That people let it stay after you reverted them is only trying to be polite. I saw a clear case of disruption and that you would keep reverting (in violation of the 3RR by the way), so I was willing to remove it one more time. You really need to step away from the FAC nom for a little while, relax and let the article improve. There are many more problems with the article but no one even gets to those because you shout them down repeatedly. If I thought you would listen, I would detail them. Actually, most of them have already been stated by others, you just ignore them. Please re-read all the FAC objections, there's a lot to work on. Suffice it to say there is ample reason to remove the nomination. The person whose job it is to do that already did, and you blatantly disregarded that. That's where I'm on really solid ground. - Taxman ^Talk 08:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • • I agree that Mark's removal gives your actions some basis, but Mark was logged on long after I reverted him, and he did not object, so this indicates maybe I have a point; Yes, Mark is polite, I will agree, but he would not be afraid to remove the nomination if it were truly bad.

• • • You say I ignored the objections, but instead you also say I shouted others down. Now, which is it? Did I read the dissents or not? (I indeed read every single word and replied to every objection -except in rare cases where I had already answered the question.)

• • • Contra: Have you read my arguments? I wonder if you have, so please tell me honestly, have you read the whole page (Tt is not long now, but it is getting that way.) Have you really read the whole page -or not? Tell me, please, and be honest.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)