User talk:Crisco 1492

This user is willing to be contacted in Indonesian.

For me.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! / You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:

• Wikipedia:Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages.
• Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
• Meet other new users You may want to add yourself to the Wikipedia new user log.
• Assign edits to your username from before you registered.
• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you
• How to upload files and image copyright tags.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

∞Who?¿? 08:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent deletion of the D-Cubed page - request for a review of notability of the sources

Hi Crisco 1492,

I have a connection to a page that was deleted recently, the relevant discussion being here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D-Cubed

Having read some of the guidelines, I have some queries about why some of the supplied sources were not acceptable. With your broad Wikipedia experience, would you mind helping me out with my questions?

One of the contributors, Stuartyeates regarded this source as acceptable, so perhaps that’s a starting point for notability:

http://computingengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1399189

The author, Professor Hoffman, is a respected academic at a respected institution writing in a respected journal:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/faculty/cmh/

http://computingengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/journal.aspx

The next source is this one:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=112573&dl=GUIDE

The author is connected with the subject, but as I understand the guidelines if the source is reliable and is quoted without original research, it is a valid source.

The article is seminal in this field. It has been cited 55 times. It has a fee associated with it, not uncommon for academic journals, yet it has been downloaded 654 times, including in recent weeks, indicative of current widespread credibility in the academic community of an article published in 1991. The journal is peer reviewed, and highly reputable. To quote Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Computing_Machinery

“The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) is a U.S.-based international learned society for computing. It was founded in 1947 and is the world's largest and most prestigious[1] scientific and educational computing society.”

The final of the more substantive sources is this one:

http://www.ams.org/journals/tran/2007-359-05/S0002-9947-06-04049-9/S0002-9947-06-04049-9.pdf

One of the authors is the same as in the previous article, hence he is connected with the subject. However, the second author, Professor Power, is a respected academic at a respected institution that has no direct connection to the subject yet has contributed a large amount of time to a highly significant deeply academic paper related to the subject. Does this second author give this source some of the characteristics of a secondary source, which in itself is arguably very notable?

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fas/maths/people/stephen-power

The journal, the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, is peer reviewed and highly reputable. It is given an A* ranking by the Australian Mathematical Society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematics_journals

It’s sister journal, the Journal of the American Mathematical Society, is reported to have the eighth highest impact ranking of mathematical journals on the above page.

Together with the numerous less significant D-Cubed sources, I feel the subject is more notable than many other comparable pages on Wikipedia. If after reviewing the above you thought there was potential merit, I would be delighted to draft a new version of the D-Cubed page making careful use of the above and other sources for your review.

Best regards, MingleLane — Preceding unsigned comment added by MingleLane (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mingle, I trust you've read WP:GNG (and WP:NSOFT, though it is not policy)? None of the sources you list here seem to discuss the software in detail, but either the coder/creator or organisation backing it. Per WP:GNG, this cannot be considered enough evidence of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco 1492,

Firstly, I apologise if I have messed anything up on your talk page. I tried to add some formatting to my original version of the message below and got into a bit of a tangle (my posts to your page are my first on Wikipedia). I cannot yet work out how to use the indented bullets that are the convention for responses on your page.

Thanks for your feedback. I had read WP:GNG, and now I have read WP:NSOFT.

The following source is only concerned with the D-Cubed software:

http://computingengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1399189

May I ask, in what way is it lacking in detail?

This source:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=112573&dl=GUIDE

... is solely concerned with key aspects of the algorithms of the D-Cubed software. I realise that it is not accessible without payment (I could perhaps email a copy to you if you would like), but I understand that this is not a bar to being an acceptable source. I realise that it is largely primary, but it is in a respected peer reviewed publication, and has been validated by numerous citations and downloads. I would only use consistently with Wikipedia policy on primary sources.

This source:

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=112573&dl=GUIDE

... is solely concerned with a proof (an extraordinary piece of mathematical work as is evident from the prestigious journal) of key aspects of key algorithms of the D-Cubed software, as indicated by numerous cross references to the previous source.

If feel the following source may also be notable when taken in conjunction with the other sources:

By way of background, the D-Cubed software is part of the history of computer science in the field of geometry and user interfaces, stemming from the amazing work of Ivan Sutherland below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketchpad

It is used in most computer-aided design (CAD) systems, hence has a role in the design of many modern manufactured items (cars, planes, consumer goods...).

I believe the notable place of the D-Cubed software in the history of computer science and modern CAD systems can be established via the above sources when supplemented with the numerous less substantial sources that are available.

Thanks again for your consideration.

Best regards, MingleLane

MingleLane (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Crisco 1492,

Just wondering if you had seen my comments above and had some feedback.

Best regards,

MingleLane

MingleLane (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi MingleLane. That article was deleted by a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Cubed. The first step in the Wikipedia:Deletion review process is to contact the deleting administrator. You have done this a number of times, and you already know what the outcome of that has been. Please don't continue to send Crisco 1492 any more messages about it. You are only wasting your time doing this. Please follow the next steps in the deletion review process. I would be happy to help you out with them. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter, Crisco 1492, thanks for your help.

Peter, I have asked for your assistance with the deletion review process on your talk page.

Best regards, MingleLane

MingleLane (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for D-Cubed

An editor has asked for a deletion review of D-Cubed. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Abbotsbury POTD

The village is known for its swannery, subtropical gardens and historic buildings. That's what sources reinforce. I fail to see how that "sounds like a tourist ad". How is it justifiable to summarise the village without mentioning those features? I don't live there you know - I haven't even been there for 19 years - so I'm not trying to flog the place. But have it your way. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• The MP audience is considerably finicky. Did you ever read about Gibraltarpedia? A lot of those DYK hooks were even less like advertisements, but that never stopped the arguments over them. Having information about locations that may be visited by tourists on the main may cause similar arguments, though the content is fine in the article proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems daft to me, rather like having an image of Heidelberg and describing it just as "a city in south-west Germany" and not mentioning the castle or university. There's something ironic in seeking out the most striking, beautiful images for POTD, but then using accompanying text which deliberately downplays the location, just in case some of our readers are inspired to further their education by going and visiting the place. (This isn't a rant aimed at you personally - I appreciate you're just anticipating trouble. Rather it's a general rant.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Understood. Generally I focus on the town itself (history, for instance) rather than things which may be considered tourist attractions. Admittedly history is its own draw, but that's generally not as controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Palm oil production in Indonesia

Hi Crisco, I thought Palm oil production in Indonesia might interest you. If you're busy with other things, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Will see. I want to try and get the Disraeli FAC review a bit further along too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Another general question

Crisco, thank you for answer to my question above. I have another general question, may be you can help me to answer it: If I think that an admin interpreted Wiki rule wrong, it there any way I can take his interpretation of the rule for discussion with other admins on some discussion board? I.e. is there any discussion board where I can ask admins for an interpretation of the Wiki rule?

In this one case, I have an admin that says that WP:GNG is not enough to keen an article, and WP:BIO is always required for a person. I think he is wrong and want to discuss it with other admins. Innab (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• If the article has been deleted through AFD, you can go to WP:DRV and open it up for further discussion. Or you can try talking to the admin in question and arguing your point (I note, however, that the GNG provides only the presumption of notability, and does not guarantee it). Other processes have their own pages too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This helps. :) Innab (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

YL Ventures

Hey Crisco 1492, I have seen that you closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YL Ventures and I would like to add more info that might change the outcome of that discussion, which was deletion of the article. The global notability of YL Ventures is arguable, although in my humble opinion appearances in such publications as TechCrunch, The Next Web and VentureBeat might indicate that. After all, these are the leading news resources for the global high-tech and venture capital industry. However, I believe that there is no doubt that YL Ventures is a very notable VC firm in the Israeli high-tech industry (also known as Silicon Wadi). There are significant mentions of the fund's activity and interviews with the fund's partners in TheMarker, Globes and Calcalist, which are Israel's biggest financial news resources. In addition, there is a lengthy interview in Geektime.co.il, a leading Israeli high-tech news website. I can add these references if that helps. All of this material is in Hebrew, but it clearly shows that YL Ventures, a US-based fund, has a strong status in the Israeli high-tech industry. ThomasEq (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Links? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything you can do about this?

Template:Did you know nominations/Footpaths of Gibraltar is still being held up, nearly 2 months after I submitted it. It's gone through 3 reviews, it's been approved for DYK, and it's survived an AfD and a merge discussion by a large majority. At the moment a single editor is still refusing to accept that consensus is against him. How much longer is it going to be held up? Can you do anything to resolve this? If we can just get it in a queue and out of the way, that will bring this idiotic saga to an end. Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Have reinserted the tick. Bloody ABF filibustering... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, hopefully we can finally get this out of the way. Prioryman (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fingers crossed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gonesse memorial

Thank you for the message!

I found a French source that may be about the memorial specifically.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• That would be nice. Even a full paragraph or two about the memorial (or a whole section if there are enough references) would be enough for me to change my mind; that would be enough context IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK promotion

While I hope that a prep set will be promoted shortly, the fact remains that all four preps are full, and all six queues are empty. If the queues are still empty the next time you're editing, please think about doing a prep to queue move. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Did two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Crisco. It's good to have a bit of a cushion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Back down to zero. If you haven't stopped for the day, do you think you can promote one of the two preps? I'll try to populate a prep or two later in the day, when I'm less busy. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Million Award while I've been off and on. I really appreciate it. The moving truck will be here in the morning, eep. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Eep is right. Have a safe moving day! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hamzah

Rather surprised that you took this to FAC so suddenly. I was going to see if I could try to improve it further. I've long thought it FA material of course but I had a feeling that something might have been overlooked and it might be possible to find some further material. The problem of course is that finding scraps in google books is only likely to amount to sporadic bits of info anyway so maybe it's fine. Sorry that I only managed to provide some minor additions, I had rather hoped to be more of a co-contributor on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to help with responding to comments, that's always possible. I did post on your talk page, but I guess you missed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to help you out, although by the looks of it, like Disraeli, I don't think it'll be too long before it's promoted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Lopes (Guinea Bissau)

Hi! You reverted and revdeleted a huge copyvio here a while ago, for which thank you! He stuck it all back, so I've reverted again. I'd appreciate if you could check that what I did is OK, and perhaps revdelete again? Between us we forgot to leave anything on his talkpage last time around, so he may not be fully aware that re-adding it was a bad idea. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree and done. Do you want to leave the notice or should I? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for dealing with that so promptly. I left the notice, and will also add some COI tags as I think there is little doubt about that aspect also. If you have absolutely nothing better to do, could you perhaps look at some of the members of Category:Requested_RD1_redactions, and maybe comment on whether those requests are correctly made? Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'll try to do some. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Puck of Pook's Hill#Original illustrations

Hey, Chris. Is there any chance you could review the set I've linked above, and tell me if you see any problems before I nominate it? It's been a big project, and I could use someone with a bit more distance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Four supports on day one! I'm seriously impressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Triple Crown

It is a pleasure and an honour to award the third ever Genghis Khan Edition Conquest of the Wiki World Triple Crown to Crisco 1492 for his impressive work on good and featured content on Indonesian topics, and in general for all his contributions to the English Wikipedia. Well done sir, Genghis Khan himself would be jealous of your achievements. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)