User talk:Amberrock/Archive 15

talkeetna taxi

hi, you removed the contribution i put up on talkeetna taxi because it was promotional, but the paragraph above has an almost exactly the same promotion (Talkeetna Air Taxi). What was it about my contribution that was different than that? There is specific promotions for air and train travel, but none for shuttle service or taxi service. It is useful information. How about if I list other companies, as well? Or say "as well as other servicers"?

Thanks

dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0wyw0wy (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan, rest assured: just because I removed your edit, it doesn't mean that I automatically agree with anything that was already on that page. Feel free to rework that entire section on taxi traveling in Talkeetna, Alaska. Things to keep in mind with regards to this subject: make sure you only mention companies by name which are notable. The best way to establish that is by adding citations to independent third party sources that verify the authenticity of the claim and justify its addition to the article. WP:V and WP:SOAP are some relevant links with regards to this subject matter. I hope that helps!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mary Rose McGee

Hello,

What is your basis for removing images from the Mary Rose McGee wikipedia page? You seem to indicate that there is a copyright issue, but these items are from her (my grandmother's) personal archives and not subject to copyright protections. I am particularly perplexed about your removal of public campaign literature. Can you please explain or stop removing the pictures? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.119.185 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As indicated on your talk page, those images had very little information with regards to their source. Please update the file descriptions, which - according to the description you list here - should render them eligible for use on Wikipedia.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral?

You claim you try to be neutral, and then promote an obvious leftist agenda. I'm actually the one promoting neutrality by removing something that only a vast minority of the world's population supports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoodGoy (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for political soapboxing. GAB^Hello! 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheGoodGoy: All I can say is that you severely misinterpret my politics, but I'm not willing to discuss them here. Whether or not a "vast minority" supports something is really irrelevant when it comes to building an encyclopedia. It's all about having a neutral point of view and verifiability. Whether that offends people is really besides the point.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Switch at Better Call Saul

With all due respect, I have returned my wording. You think just the turning off of the switch is interesting. I think the entire scene, start to finish, off and back on, is interesting. Plus, as I state in my edit summary, the reader should not be left thinking the switch is in the "off" position when it isn't. Let's not assume we can know where the writers are going with what, on the surface seems like a minor detail. Consider: the episode is called "Switch" for a reason. And, the writers have said that the switch will be re-visited later in the season. It may be more important than it initially seems. Nice to meet you. Buster Seven Talk 13:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To me it seemed to appear as if the most striking thing about the switch was that Jimmy flicks it off when a note attached to it clearly states it shouldn't be touched. The noteworthy thing about that Switch scene was that Jimmy was committing a small act of rebellion amidst his new corporate surroundings which would probably require his best behaviour. To show the viewers that he wasn't going to change, despite his awesome new job. I think that's the obvious thing. But you're right about me assuming too much, so I won't undo your reversal.. for now. I'll see how the storyline of this season unfolds, and take action accordingly afterwards.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And to me turning the switch back to its original position (ON) is the obvious thing that shows Jimmy is willing to "play by the rules", at least temporarily. Lets see where it goes, (as you say) ...for now. Buster Seven Talk 16:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK rejections

Amberrock, I noticed that, as part of your recent DYK reviewing, which has been most welcome, you have been both marking with an X (DYKno) and rejecting DYK nominations in a single step. This is supposed to be a two-step process: one person marks the X, and someone else comes along and, if they agree, rejects the nomination.

The reason these are in two steps is two-fold: first, it gives the nominator one last chance to respond, and second, it allows a second opinion on whether the review should be closed. Both are important, and we're not in such a rush that we need to preclude either. It's not uncommon to allow up to the standard seven days after the X is applied before closing the review.

One of your recent rejections has already been reversed, per the DYK talk page: WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/State road D915 (Turkey) was posted, the nomination restored, and a review made that approved the nomination, all in under 24 hours.

Please do only one or the other of the two steps going forward. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. It's been a while since I've been involved in DYK, and I'm a little rusty. Thanks for the help!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RAF Intelligence

Hi Amber,

The information was removed as it was not relevant and the links didn't work. One goes to a bodybuilding shop and the other didn't work. Plus the names of these individuals shouldn't be linked to this page. Please remove them.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF Knowledge (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User page web space

Hi Amberrock. It looks like you deleted my web page on Feb 4th. I would like it restored. I put that page up for my alienated children to find, should they ever decide to come looking for me. My children have been taken from me, and told horrendous lies about me by a vindictive ex. I would like my page up to remind them of me, the good times we had, and to point them toward resources for finding the truth regarding the lies they have been fed. Please restore my page. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter.singleton (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Walter, although I express my sympathies with regards to the situation with your children - which is horrible, no doubt about that - I would also like to point you into the direction of WP:UPNOT. Wikipedia is not a webspace host, but an encyclopedic project. What you had on your user page ran contrary to that goal, so it unfortunately had to removed under the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:U5). Once again, I'm truly sorry for your situation, but Wikipedia is unfortunately not the place for this type of content... —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pokémon Sun and Moon

Hello! Your submission of Pokémon Sun and Moon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Inauguration of Mauricio Macri

I have done some additional copyediting to fix some of the issues that you have raised in the DYK nom and to improve source quality. Please review the changes and let me know if I am being accurate. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kamiya Kaoru

Thanks for your help at Kamiya Kaoru's DYK issues. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem at all!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Minecraft mods

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits at bicyclicbridged compounds

"It's okay, we're teaching him how to fly next week!"

Some of these were useful, but in other cases less so—the substituted prose to eliminate the copyvio was well-intentioned, but it is not standard chemical language used in teaching organic, and moving Clayden's description (which is the best UK text, and perfect for WP introductory material) out of the lede, and leaving instead only the very technical IUPAC language was not where we needed to end the lede. Also, there was no need to remove all of the example structures places by earlier editors; what was needed was a thoughtful culling to ensure good, non-repetitive examples remained. Finally moving the carefully chosen, and thoughtful "legend-ed" examples from the lede, into the Examples section left the article with no pedagogical thrust—the images were the only thing that made the IUPAC-based lede understandable. Have done some work, hold off for an hour, and take a look. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The nomenclature source that you provide was already provided in Further reading, in the long-form citation of the IUPAC nomenclature (look close, the same URL is there). So, I replaced the URL-only citation (as expanded by Derrick) to the full-featured, standard IUPAC citation (see, for instance, the Steroid article). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Note, in returning the various listed examples, it was a not a knee-jerk reversion, nor were removing "straight line" and "foremost" from the IUPAC paraphrase. In the first case, the examples provide the only example of heterocyclic bridged compounds, both with regard to bridgehead and bridge-containing heteroatoms; they are not all needed, but some are, and what remains need to be supplemented with other good examples (e.g., the common 7-Oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane). In the second case, the replacement of "unbranched" (which one could easily wikilink to the concept in other WP articles where unbranched is used) and "main bridge" with non-standard language does not make clear what was meant by the original IUPAC language (second problem not yet solved). No, that prose should not have been copy and pasted; but a personal paraphrase simply took the material out of chemistry, and did not make it chemically acceptable (to this ret. chem prof), or make it understandable (to this continuing teacher). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

When I edited the article, I was just trying to make less of a mess out of it. It was simply unorganized, layout wise, copyvright violation wise, structure wise, pretty-much-everything wise. Even I - an absolute novice when it comes to subjects involving chemistry - was able to pick up on that, so I did my best to improve the article. It's very possible I might have made some mistakes in the process. That's entirely possible, since I haven't been involved with chemistry since I was in the early years high school - about 15 years ago. As to the notes you left here on my talk page, I must confess I barely have a clue what you are talking about here. Which is not to say you are talking rubbish: quite the opposite, you are clearly far more versed in these matters than I am. I'm just your humble average generalist who was (in this particular case) trying to bring some improvement to an article which had a {{unsourced}} slapped on top of it for nearly a decade. So, I encourage you to be bold and reverse as many of my edits as you think will be necessary. I trust your judgment, and you shouldn't invest your precious time in pointing out to me the thousand ways that I've shown my lack of affinity with chemistry. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate you trying to teach me, but it's somewhat akin to investing time trying to learn a dog how to fly. Really, it's all good, and I'm glad you're improving this article. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your support and encouragement are appreciated. I am more used to people with your self-described level of science training nevertheless getting, how do you say, "bent out of shape" on being corrected or reverted, even in part. Thank you for the response, and for appreciating the hard work to move such articles in a good direction (even after a decade). (Amazing, despite my section title error, that you knew what I was on about.) Curmudgeonly I am, but you bring out the better nature. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Chuffer

Ah, I see you're an admin too. The original article is here. If you've got the same sense of humour as me and Martinevans123 you'll be amused; if you've got the same as my other half, you'll scratch your head in bewilderment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this and like how. I have withdrawn from the DYK review to allow WereWolf's DYK submission a proper review. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I made a similar allegation not too long ago, and it took less than a day for another reviewer to point out to me what actually happened ;) We all make mistakes, don't fret it!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Kills"

Thanks for approving the article. I was surprised, but perhaps I shouldn't have been after reading everything you wrote, that despite being a native Dutch speaker you had never heard a stream referred to as a "kill"

Because we have lots of "kills" here in the Hudson Valley (as the linked article above makes clear), thanks to your people settling here and naming things before the British took over ... of course, that didn't stop us from using both English and Dutch in naming them from then on. I can look across my street at the Wallkill River, named after the Waal, right now.

I think that usage also came from German ... Stadtkyll sounds similar. And yes, there's a German Kyll river. Although it's pronounced differently.

I trust that "verkeerder" is properly understood by a modern Dutch speaker, though? I don't mind choosing that hook; it was the first one I thought of and I think it would get more clicks.

Glad I helped you learn something today ... I hope someday you can return the favor. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have heard of streams being referred to as "kills", but I never considered the notion that this word could have been derived from Dutch. But yeah, the Dutch language has changed considerably over the course of many centuries and I do know Dutch settlers used to be quite prominent on the US East Coast. It used to be a lot closer to German, which is why it isn't surprising there's also a similar German word.

Verkeerder is understood by modern Dutch speakers, although nowadays we would probably spell it without the final r. I do hope that some day, I can teach you something new too. Cheers, and thanks for the interesting talk page note!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)