User talk:Dicklyon

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Taking my break more seriously for a while...RL calls. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

refs in Astronomical naming conventions

In reference to "Don't add malformed citations to sources you haven't looked at". 1) If they are malformed, then you should format them better instead of removing them wholesale and 2) I think that I have seen enough text to be sure that they support the statements in the article.

If you have a problem with those sources, maybe you should ask in WP:RS/N. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22Fragment_view.22_in_Google_Books_for_short_statements_of_fact. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have problems with the sources, since I don't know even whether they exist. Why is the title unknown? I don't believe you have looked at these sources or know what they say. Dicklyon (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

[Dick, thanks for your work on the RFC/U. I have sent the following message to all participants in it:]

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to do that, but got distracted by actual work. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Additive color article

Hello,

Glad to see that you have taken on the labor of Hercules over at the "Additive color" article. I am certainly not the best person to be attending to that task, but having linked to the article from quite a few others I was horrified when I looked in on it last night and saw what it had become. My editing in immediate response was strictly a "Round One" rev 1.0, meant to be heavily rehashed in short order, so please don't judge me too harshly by it.

The one thing I will lobby for is some prominent embodiment of the gist of one of last night's additions:

"The additive and subtractive systems, although superficially so different [that they may appear] contradictory, are [...] simply the two polar opposite approaches to reproducing a wide range of colors by controlling the relative amounts of red, green and blue light that reach the eye."

I know from sad personal experience how inadequate most textbooks are in getting this across. It took me years to recover from what Science: The Key to the Future taught me about color systems in the eighth grade. Another WP editor, who shares many of my interests and is very well-informed about most of them, is woefully unready for prime time when it comes to the subject of color, as demonstrated by a talk page comment suggesting that CMY filters are preferable to RGB when making separations for reproduction with a CMY system, because it "saves a step", or words to that effect.

Confusion about the additive and subtractive systems is ubiquitous and needs to be clearly and succinctly attended to in the related articles. I am still groping my way toward some optimal and technically correct stock wording for accomplishing that end. Constructive suggestions are very welcome.

Happy Holidays! AVarchaeologist (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And happy holidays to you, too. I mostly just do a bit of reactive tweaking, so no big plans to take it on. The bit about "may appear contradictory" and "polar opposite approaches" would be OK if sourced and attributed, but seems too interpretive to be normal encyclopedic reporting. Find a source or two that makes the comparison in a way you like and base it on those. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Negative value

"there is negative value in piping to avoid redirect"? Hyacinth (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Redirects#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Numa Numa

Hi Dick, I don't know if you always watch pages where you participate in RMs, but either you or I has missed something at Talk:Numa Numa (Video)#Requested move. Please take a look when you get the chance. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Yes...my family considers it to be some kind of addiction...here is how I explained it six months ago http://mechanicaldesign101.com/mechanisms-and-robotics/. I may need a better story soon. All the best. Prof McCarthy (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOC

In your article and policy talk page content, please remember WP:FOC:

Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.

It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below.

I bring your attention to this because of your focus on editor conduct (mine) rather than content. Two recent examples are here ("no need to disrupt a long-stable name just because Born2cycle finally got his way at Yogurt") and here ("This is just another tool that Born2cycle can use to argue to try to get his way").

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

junk

speaking before 1454 ad ... square root was the topic ... http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EgyptianAndGreekSquareRoot.html

I guess your editing of these facts keeps wikipedia in the modern time period. enjoy the present bye,

Milo Gardner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milogardner (talk • contribs)

Yes, I do often revert junk that's too incoherent to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

too terse does not capture your emotional actions ... that are not justified by the math history topic under discussion ... a topic that will resolve itself shortly ... miloi

thank you .. this issue will resolve itself shortly... outside of Heron's "Metrica",

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263417/Heron-of-Alexandria#ref218221

your domain of math thought .. math is my primary language ... English is only a means to an end .. to report math history as it took place .. concerning Archimdes arithmetic and algebra ... Heron came later ...

Maybe you can get an English speaker to help you. Try posting your ideas on the article talk page and ask for help turning them into article prose. Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:US airport data

As per your request on my talk page, I have updated the documentation for {{US airport data}}. Thanks for the reminder. -- Zyxw (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Name titles and style

Hello Dicklyon. I see your post at WT:TITLE#Distinguishing between Descriptive Titles and Name Titles and I continue to think that Born2cycle's have more merit than they seem credited. He does, however, seem to write too much, and I tend not to read it all. I also see evidence of a lot of bad blood complicating things. I wonder if you could help bring me up to speed, especially with respect to title styling of names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a long and complicated history. Before I ever interacted with him, B2C was on the campaign he describes on his user page, and in 2009 he became a big influence at TITLE, rewriting parts of it to deemphasize recognizability and precision in favor of conciseness and algorithmic approaches to naming. In 2011 he came to my attention with his push to totally eliminate en dashes from titles and from wikipedia more generally; kind of like Wikid77's recent thing. Probably no reason to dig deeply into all that, but it might give you an idea why I usually distrust his proposals and often disagree him in RMs involving tradeoffs with recognizability and precision. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See current example of his thinking here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunny 16 rule

Hi Dicklyon, I just read your message. I added a minor update on this article by giving it a link to a new article about night photography, titled Looney 11 rule. I would like to receive any correction and advise as I'm still newbie here. I even doesn't know how to reply your message at first. Thanks for your help. Adithia.kusno (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Ratio Links

Hi - got your note and I respectfully disagree with your removing the link to the Irrational Numbers Search Engine. Did take the time to follow the link? There are no other sites that I am aware of that offer this unique capability and the engine has processed over 400K searches in last 3 years. JamesT (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) jdmt (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

James, your edit history suggests that your main or only contribution to WP is to place links to subidiom.com. That makes you a de facto spammer. If you think these are good links that ought to be included, feel free to explain why on the article talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dickylyon, I take exception to your characterization - Please take a moment to more fully review my contributions to the site; while I am not a prolific user, I have made meaningful contributions to a variety of topics over the years. I am familiar with the linking policy I firmly believe that the links in question fall into the "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" category and indeed, have proven useful to many users interested in the studying large irrational numbers. Finally, the linked-to site is content driven and completely non-commercial. Please help me understand your concerns, and refrain from attacking my character by referencing me as a 'spammer' on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmt (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your 2012 contributions involved exactly 4 articles, and the subidiom.com link on all 4. Before that, I didn't check in detail. I'm not attacking your character, just commenting on your behavior. As I suggested, "feel free to explain why on the article talk pages." Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tristimulus (audio)

Hello. Thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I've looked it over but am not sure. You may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved once and for all. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be a few secondary sources referring to the "tristimulus timbre model", so I moved it to that. It needs work, but probably passes notability with this title. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Golden Ratio".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Caps Hi, quick question, only if you have time: I just created a bio stub with the disamb "(Coptologist)", am I right to capitalize? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Excellent question. But knowing nothing about it, all I can say is that it looks likely. I'm not sure what the underlying proper name would be. Copt? Coptic? Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I suppose both. I'll leave it as it is, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) WP:MOS guideline revert concerning WP policy COMMONNAME Earlier you reverted the edit by User:Kim Bruning to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Kim's edit added that the WP:COMMONNAME policy takes precedence over the MOS guideline. This edit was a result of a very long debate concerning the capitalization of the title of Star Trek Into Darkness (the debate was not only ongoing on the article's Talk, but had spread to a number of other article Talks, as well as to a couple MOS project Talks; the debate later spread into the "real-space" media as a result of an xkcd web comic from Jan 30th by User:Xkcd—Randall Munroe—which commented on the duration and content length of the debate). The publicity that resulted from the comic included several real-world articles disparaging Wikipedia as "uptight", "bureaucratic", and its editors as "idiots" (among other things). All this brought admins not aware of the debate to investigate. They determined that COMMONNAME, being a Wikipedia policy, took precedence over the Wikipedia guideline of the MOS (a result of which, admins User:Mackensen and User:Prodego, against the ongoing debate and RMs, moved the article to its present location). It also resulted in Kim Bruning's addition to the MOS project article which you soon after reverted. I thought that I would bring this to your attention in case you were not aware of it as the revert may spawn some debate at MOS Talks (particularly about Wikipedia policy versus guidelines), as well as potentially other editors making similar additions to the MOS in the aftermath of the STID debate. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I just noticed that you were participating in a discussion in the MOS Talk about this. Apologies for not checking that first before posting here. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Sexology arbitration case opened The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC) New MOS:CAPS discussion The topic of an inconclusive discussion that you participated in (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 8#Apparent conflict of guidelines) has been brought up again at WT:MOSCAPS#Contradiction and divergence at MOS:MUSIC. You may (or may not) want to express an opinion at the new discussion. Deor (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Indian railway line pages I shall be grateful for your kindly having a look at 1. Sealdah - Barasat - Hasnabad - Bangaon - Ranaghat Railway Line and 2. Sheoraphuli – Tarakeswar – Arambagh Branch Line. A new editor Bubaikumar has moved these pages. In the first case I had used the names of only the terminal stations in the heading. Bubaikumar has added an intermediate station. In the second case, the line is under extension to Bishnupur and the extension up to Arambagh has been completed. So, it may be all right to add Arambagh. Once it is extended to Bishnupur, the heading will have to be changed again. More importantly, please see the style in which the heading is set. Should it be line or railway line? Is the spacing in order? Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I undid those moves, since they mangled the styling of dashes and capitalization; see MOS:DASH and MOS:CAPS. Whether to include the various other names is a question more appropriately addressed by looking at how these are referred to in sources. You might want to start a discussion on the relevant article talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Please have a look at the Asansol Junction Railway Station page, or rather its talk page. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks once again - Chandan Guha (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC) f-number unit hyphenation Nevermind. I found that wikipedia's style guidelines differ from English standards on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens Balazer (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I understand the logic of unit hyphenation, and I used to do the same. But the SI specs say to not do that. I can't find the official doc, but here's a web page that notes "Use a hyphen between a numeral and its unit only when necessary to form a compound modifier, and only with a unit name, not a unit symbol: 3.5-inch diskette, 35-millimeter film." : http://www.poynton.com/notes/units/index.html – Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Color Subjectivity Hi Dick, The edits on the color page that you reverted are common knowledge to perception researchers, not POV. If you are curious to read more, Stephen Palmer's text book Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology, Chapter 3 on Color Vision, makes exactly the points that I summarized. I will add references when I have more time. Also, the informal paragraph that I deleted is misleading and largely irrelevant. The only useful lesson to be drawn about color perception from comparing a black and white photo to a color photo is that only one of three color dimensions is preserved in b&w: lightness. The other two dimensions, hue and saturation, are excluded by the process. This tells us something about technology, not about subjective color perception. Thanks for keeping an eye on this page. I appreciate that your intentions were good, and hope to collaborate on improving this page. Jj1236 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I think it would be good to represent what Stephen has to say about this. But the point about the lightness not showing breaks between different color categories is a completely different point; you could can challenge it if you want, but don't sneak it out by saying you're just rewriting it to be more encyclopedic when you're really replacing it with something unrelated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Please read the talk page. The discussion is already there, from other people. You are commenting on my comments, not on my edits, and you are obstructing improvement to the article. The edits in question remove content that was judged ON THE TALK PAGE, BY OTHER EDITORS, to be poor and irrelevant. I concur with these views. It is not productive to rewrite irrelevant commentary. Instead, I added encyclopedic discussion of relevant topics. I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful, and respect your efforts. However, please do not make edits on topics that you do not have knowledge about. First seek the relevant knowledge. There are infinitely many things I don't know about, but I teach college level courses on color perception, and am qualified to make the edits that you reverted. Jj1236 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Hello, Dicklyon. You have new messages at Buaidh's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Flip-Flop Diagram You said you want to take the logic-diagram I inserted into the Flip-Flop article to your talk page. Sho what should I improve in it? And what does crazy-busy mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipflop_%28switch%29 Ohnemichel (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I meant to the article talk page: Talk:Flip-flop (electronics)#New animated diagram. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Bortle Dark-Sky Scale Hi. You probably have it watchlisted, but thought I'd drop you a note anyway. I just closed Talk:Bortle Dark-Sky Scale#Requested move as not moved, but as I said in my close, feel free to start a new RM as soon as you want. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Brand New disambiguation I appreciate your help, but be careful to get it right. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Damn. Semi-brainless typing loses again. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Dicklyon Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country? United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC) No, no time for that. Good luck on it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CIE 1931 color space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stimulus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Wine grape caps discussion Hi Dicklyon, we've butted heads in disagreement over capitalization issues before, so I think nobody can accuse me of WP:CANVASSING by posting this. A RM discussion that currently involves only the participants of WikiProject Wine is ongoing regarding capitalizing the names of wine grapes. See Talk:Vidal Blanc#Requested move and especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Capitalization move request at Talk:Vidal Blanc. Your contribution of your knowledge regarding the application of MOS:CAPS, Ngram, etc. might benefit the discussion. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Demographics of Tibet I am puzzled by your edit summary here: "let the discussion play out". What discussion? Talk:Demographics of Tibet does not even exist. Can you please let me know where the discussion is taking place? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Oh, never mind, I found it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Frame Re Talk:Frame (beehive)#Move? - there is a very similar proposal at Talk:Frame (nautical)#Requested move which might be of interest. 188.29.25.115 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Belated thanks for good advice Hi, Dicklyon! I want to thank you for some good advice you gave me back in November: "Let others speak." [1] You were quite right that I had been dominating that conversation almost as badly as B2C. It's been a hard habit to break; if I'm the first one to see a comment I want to reply immediately. But I have found that if I wait a few hours or half a day before replying, very often someone else will make the same point as well or better. I've certainly found that to be the case at the latest discussion. So, please consider that comment of yours to have been bread cast upon the waters; you never know when a casual comment may make a difference to someone. Just wanted to give you that feedback. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC) You're welcome, and thanks for all your efforts at keeping WP professional. I learned that same lesson the hard way. Pausing is better; let B2C or Apteva be the loud troublemaker, rather than letting yourself be dragged in by their trolling and stupidities, and things become more clear... Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC) AE See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dicklyon Apteva (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC) M or m Hi, Your opinion about technical moves of monasteries to Monasteries would be appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Those would need to be considered individually. Some may be proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC) à la writers in some European languages Good morning Mr Dick Lyon, Apologies for my anglicising revision to Dash made yesterday. Careless of me to have not noticed that it was within a quotation. Thank you for reverting me. Sincerely, — Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard|—08:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The difference The difference between what I ask of you and what I did on WT:D is that you make specific/personal remarks about specific people on article/WP pages, and I'm asking you not to do that. My comments were general and impersonal, and made no mention of anyone in particular. Note that my ignore the signature rule applies - my comment stands without regard to who made the comment to which I was replying. If you observed and adhered to that same line, I would not have an issue with your commentary. --B2C 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC) So if I refer to the small group of one usual suspect who pushes for minimalist titles, that would be OK, because I could avoid your name? Seems silly to me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Depends on the context. If your comment would not make sense in reply to my same words but made by someone else, then it would not be okay. And I'm of course not the only one. Consensus is with me on this, title after title, with few exceptions, usually when special circumstances apply. --B2C 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Luminosity.png You mean this one? Hi Dick, I am presently trying to grasp the basics of photometrics, and have come across your Luminosity.png. Please could I ask you to complete the graph by labelling the quantities and units of the axes ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) If you click the image you can find its description, which includes links to the data sources for the plots. The abscissa is wavelength in nm, and the ordinate is relative sensitivity (that is, relative to the most sensitive wavelength, which is plotted at 1.0). The different curves are scotopic sensitivity (rod-cell sensitivity) in green and three different estimates of photopic sensitivity (which should be some linear combination of cone-cell sensitivities) in black. The curves of relative sensitivity can be compared for shape, but not for height, since each is self-normalized; rods are much more sensitive than cones. Probably the caption at the article where you found it has more info. The info page links 4 en articles that use it, so maybe they don't all have great captions, so try the others. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Between films of the same name Dicklyon, can you start a discussion at WT:NCF clarifying your reason for reverting the expansion of the "Between films of the same name" section? I think I know what you might mean but would like some articulation and maybe a couple of examples. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Betty said "if anyone is not happy with the rewrite feel free to revert", and I gave my reason in the edit summary. Next step, per WP:BRD, is if someone disagrees with the revert they can start a discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC) I started a discussion here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC) AE request result Per this discussion at WP:AE, you are reminded of the importance of maintaining civility and of avoiding gratuitous comments on contributor in discussions related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, and that failure to do so may result in the imposition of standard discretionary sanctions. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the reminder, and for dealing with that unfortunate disruptive mess. I will keep in mind the need to not let them irk me to the point that I behave badly. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Quadrupole moment What is this about? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadrupole&oldid=555462232&diff=prev What was there before, and is again after you reverted my change, is wrong, and not even dimensionally correct. "x" is defined in the next paragraph, just as "x_i" also in the formula is. Chymicus (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Your edit and edit summary were unclear, making the change indistinguishable from vandalism, as I tried to point out in my edit summary. The only x I see coming up is a vector, so its square remains unclear or wrong. You gave no indication of where you got this change from, or what source might support it. I allowed that it might be a serious edit, but there wasn't enough info to tell, and the end result did not appear to be interpretable, so it seemed best to revert and say why, which would then hopefully encourage you to make a better fix. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I don't understand what you want instead. Here's a source: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricQuadrupoleMoment.html. Using "x" squared as I did, referring indeed to the vector as you say, is a very standard convention of linear algebra, as you see in that source. And I really have to ask: have you ever seen "vandalism" where someone stated they were correcting a formula? Chymicus (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, I see that frequently, but that's not the point now that we know you were serious. I don't know what I want instead, except for evidence that the edit is serious, is an improvement, and is hopefully understandable. In the Wolfram page you link, it's more clear the bold r is a vector and italic r is distance from the origin, so I'd try something more like that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) My formula is just like the Wolfram page except that I kept the notation of "x" in the article rather than "r". I see no reason to change the article to use r instead of x as both are quite standard ways to write it. Regardless of typography, I feel strongly that the correct formula should be on this page. Apparently the wrong one has been there for years. Do you mind if I put it there again? Chymicus (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, the Wolfram one is an integral, like further up the page. The one you're working on just has two points, not an integral over a volume, and it says "scale the coordinates so that the points are at unit distance from the center" which explains why it is dimensionally OK even though you thought it was not. So, no, I think your edit makes it worse, not better. But please take it to the article talk page where you're likely to find someone who knows more about it than I do. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC) My Bad. In regards to accepting this that's my bad. Sorry. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Hi this was a little bitey. If you don't mind me saying. If I put in an RM it's because I'm aware of a minimum of 1 user who has an issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Sure, but you're not as sensitive as a newcomer. Title guidelines say we don't do partial disambiguation, so just fix it. Also, the comment helps to set the bar for anyone who might be considering objecting. Dicklyon (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Okay. But if title guidelines say we don't do partial disambiguation, how do you explain Talk:Nirvana (band)? The term "primary album" may now be deleted from MOSALBUM, but for songs/bands/albums I couldn't say the title guidelines unambiguously (irony intended) say we don't do partial disambiguation. Likewise we still have "tennis names" ... so these issues aren't uncontroversial enough (or title guidelines aren't clear enough) for undiscussed redlink moves or even TRs. I do do straight moves when I'm certain the guidelines are clear and not aware of individual editors bucking them. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I went looking and discovered that the implementation of that clarification was stalled after getting a consensus at the Village Pump. So I posted this. As usual, you can explain non-ideal state in many ways. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Question about Apteva and NPA Hey Dickyon, Is it really a personal attack to point out that Apteva is topic banned when he proposes things about the MOS? I feel like to the extent it even is a comment on a contributor – which it kind of is and kind of isn't; I feel like it's more saying the contribution is suspect because of its provenance than it's really about Apteva him/herself – that it should be okay to let people know he's banned from that topic. If we are forbidden from mentioning the topic ban, then what's the point of having it? And it really does seem like posting about why we shouldn't follow MOS capitalization rules violates his ban on arguing against the MOS applying to article titles. But I am not really a very experienced editor and it seems like you've been around for a while. AgnosticAphid talk 15:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Part of his strategy has always been to hide or remove stuff about his outrageous conduct. It sometimes works for him; pointing out the background of his suggestions seems sensible to me, and to most of the respondents he got when he tried to call me on the carpet for it. Thanks for your efforts; I don't have any particular advice. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I do. Avoid using the word you. Avoid personalizing the discussion. Stay on topic. It is not about me or you, it is about improving the encyclopedia. Learn to discuss properly. It is not that hard. See WP:ANI#Dicklyon. Apteva (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Hooray! Hooray! It's a Holi-Holiday. That applies to everyone, not just "you". ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the colorful remark! Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC) May 2013 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Apteva (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Lighthouse naming The page you link is only a proposal, and anyway its ideas are completely at variance with US usage — see its recommendation on churches, which are never followed by US church articles. As far as convention, it's quite obvious from looking at US lighthouse categories that the normal format is "Light"; this is the convention to which I refer. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I see what you mean. Lacking any statement of a convention, it would seem that WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC) What do you mean? The convention quite obviously exists; they wouldn't all have ended up there without decisions by whichever editors concentrate on lighthouse articles. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I mean I see what you mean. But if this is the convention, why don't we say so some place? Lacking that, as I said, I would think that commonname would apply. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Barnstar of Diplomacy The Barnstar of Diplomacy For your work to reach common ground on a minor, but important, issue at Harry S. Truman National Historic Site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Talk:Primary auditory cortex#Move suggestion Dear Dicklyon, please let us konw what you think about moving "Primary auditory cortex" to "Auditory cortex". Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Sign of the Times It's not "double quoting", it's following the precedent set by the artist. The reason "s are used between song titles is because the American standard is used on every page on here, apart from those related to other Anglophone countries who have their own standard. Just say single quotes were used instead, as per "Heroes" (David Bowie song), would that be OK? By the way, I didn't say you were anal. My IP address ends in .245 and has done ever since I had a cable-based ISP last summer. VEOonefive 15:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Sure enough, that was my confusion; no IP inference intended, just a confusion between the two of you reverting the same edits. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I don't see what the extra quotation marks in "'Heroes'" are about. Can you show me any sources that do that, by way of example? Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Milia What was your basis for deciding that milia has no primary topic? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC) It's a name of multiple people and places; making a plural primarytopic under that circumstance just seemed silly. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC) My impression is that this particular medical term is a bit like 'data' – a noun nearly always found in the plural form. Your change was rapidly followed by a technical move request that was rapidly acted upon, so milia is now a dab page that has a lot of incorrect incoming links that should be pointing to the article about the type of cyst. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Show me one. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of waiting for the template transclusion cache to catch up. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC) You're probably right about that. I based that comment on what I saw in "what links here", but when I look at the actual articles, they aren't linked. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Because I had fixed them all already. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Orange (colour) Hello! You certainly have a broad erudition and generally you are a valuable contributor for Wikipedia. But the habit to react with clicking on Twinkle popups without thinking damages your reputation. Stop to be a dick, please, and join the discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC) And Hello to you. So you think reverting unsourced original research is going to besmudge my reputation? Perhaps. Maybe you can stop being an Incnis. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC) It turns out I was a bit hasty and confused. But probably you could have found a better way of telling me so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC) BTW, in this drama your warring skills would be appreciated. I tired to expel the red–green heresy which persistently respawns, and, sadly, not only due to casual IP edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Retiring (?) editor Hello! I thought you might be interested, or at least willing, to reply here. I think it'd be unfortunate to lose this editor, and a response seems warranted or at least not out of order, and I think you could be much more persuasive than me since I'm pretty new and I think you have a lot more experience with the process side of Wikipedia than me. But I see from the top of this page that you might not be very enthusiastic yourself, and maybe you think it's better to just let things be, either of which I understand. Best, AgnosticAphid talk 02:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I sympathize with him a lot, and he's a definite wiki friend of mine. I can't in good faith tell him that his beating his head against this wall is a great thing; but I hope he stays; or comes back eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Recent MOS talk comments Dicklyon, I gently remind you that WP:CIVIL applies to all MOS talk page discussions, and that personalization of MOS talk page discussions is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I urge you to delete, redact or strike the following comments from the MOS talk page: [2] and [3]. After reading this message, please feel free to delete it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I thought it necessary to clarify that one doesn't get taken to AN/I for using the wrong style, as he was claiming, but rather for tendentious, pointy, obnoxious behavior. What part of that was uncivil? Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) IMO, characterizing another editor's behavior as "tendentious, pointy, obnoxious" is treading a very thin line in light of ArbCom's admonitions regarding incivility, personalization and commenting on other editors in MOS discussions, especially when the consequences are discretionary sanctions imposed by any uninvolved admin. In my opinion, writing "Indeed, those suggestions do make you look like a jerk," is clearly on the wrong side of that line. My goal in giving you this nudge is not to score points (there's been too much of that already), but to help ratchet down the rhetoric in the present discussion. There are valid points to be made by both sides in the present discussion regarding quotation punctuation, but the discussion needs more dispassionate statement of relevant facts and less back-and-forth jaw-jawing. I have also privately asked several other participants to be mindful of their tone in responding to the comments of others. I ask that you review the linked comments, and delete, redact or strike anything that comments on another editor or otherwise personalizes the discussion. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC) He was trying to associate the term "jerk" with those who disagree with him on style issues. In doing so he made himself look like a jerk, don't you agree? I hope you have advised him as well; it looks like not. Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) As I said, I have privately advised several participants to be mindful of their tone. None, however, commented directly on another editor (which is an identified problem under the ArbCom sanctions), and that's why I am giving you this gentle nudge to clarify your discussion comments -- which do appear to comment directly on another editor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC) How could I not comment on his behavior in trying to refute his statement that "I got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation in American English articles"? And when he said "...Why not put any old flight of fancy in place and enforce it as a rule? Because that would make us look like jerks", how could it go unremarked the only person looking like a jerk with such suggestions was himself? Don't you think he should be advised to stick to "more dispassionate statement of relevant facts and less back-and-forth jaw-jawing", too? You're right that I was weak in letting him troll me in this way; I'll try to resist in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Yob Thanks for your comment. I've replied with rationale. --RA (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC) non-admin close Nice to be on the same side with you. This seems like an AN/I issue to me, rather than WP:MR. We just need a quick revert for blatant violation of the closing instruction, not a long drawn out discussion by multiple people. What do you think? --B2C 01:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I figured a revert would prevent it having to go to MR. What's up with Nathan? If you want to complain to AN/I, I'm with you. Or first try reverting his close again; he has no right to repeatedly do that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Yes I do. You both were heavily involved in the discussion. I was not. My actions did not violate any policy or guideline. My close was in line with the closing instructions. You have no leg to stand on. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC) It seemed to me that the close would have to depend on how an admin would interpret the various guidelines and policies. Maybe you took that on, but in your rationale, it appears not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I think the lack of consensus would be clear to any uninvolved person. Actually, I would think the lack of consensus would be clear to those involved too, but obviously not. If I thought that the discussion was not a clear-cut no consensus, I would not have closed it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The lack of consensus is clear enough, but the implications relative to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC need to be considered. It would appear that with no consensus for a primary topic, there should not be one. This is the issue that I was hoping an uninvolved admin would address. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC) As for WP:MR, that's the process that admins have abandoned. There's a simple case there that has been open and ignored for over a month. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The lack of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might arguably be clear, per a !vote tally, but not the lack of WP:CONSENSUS, which is what matters. And that's determined by evaluating the arguments and relevant policies and guidelines. An admin needs to do that. --B2C 02:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC) "The lack of consensus is clear enough..." Good. There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Can "no consensus" mean "move"? as to the other issue, as you know. I didn't know WP:MR was abandoned. Don't usually go there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Dick, you were mentioned in this AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F. --B2C 03:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Responded there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Brand New Hi - I was hoping to get a better feel for your reasoning on the Brand New issue. It really seems to me that by just about every measure we come up with, it's better for WP's readers to have Brand New = band article. Using pretty solid stats, we determined that the band is the target of 85-90% of people looking for "brand new" on WP, and that a similar percentage of dab page users go straight to the band article. You yourself have said that primary topic should have around an 80% threshold. You supported primary topic for Miracle on 34th Street, even though the movie receives much less traffic than the Brand New band article, and even though the movie gets a much smaller percentage of views for "Miracle on 34th Street" than the band gets for "brand new". I don't mind disagreeing with people on things - that's a part of life. I do try to at least have a good understanding of where they're coming from, which I don't have yet here. Any elucidation would be appreciated. Dohn joe (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC) In the movie case, you have a well-known movie title, which is only ambiguous with minor remakes and derivatives. In the case of Brand New, you have a generic term after which are named 7 songs, 4 albums, a TV channel, and a band. A disambig page makes more sense, whether your numbers are correct or not (which I have not investigated, but remain skeptical of). Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC) What about your 80% threshold? Why wouldn't that apply here? Or, more generally speaking, why would a dab page ever make sense when 90% of readers could be sent directly to the page they want with no extra clicks? And as for the numbers, I always am open to suggestions on experimental design. If you are skeptical, show me what you doubt and how you'd fix it - I'd love to share my thinking with you, and I'd welcome your investigation! Dohn joe (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I don't have a threshold. In general, I believe disambig pages are a lightweight and effective place to land for ambiguous queries, and that the cost of going to an article that you don't want is much higher. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC) In general I agree. But haven't our readers told us that "brand new" is essentially not ambiguous in this context? Dohn joe (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see it that way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I guess that's what I don't understand. We have a fairly popular topic (30,000 views/mo. over the past 8 years), that is sought by the vast majority of people searching a particular term. Isn't that the quintessential primary topic? Dohn joe (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Plant common names Thanks for working on consistent capitalization of members of Category:Plant common names. The ongoing debate about capitalizing plant common names based on "official" use shouldn't apply to the set indices covering multiple plants sharing a common name (where there's no clear official use). Redirecting common names aren't as straightforward, but I appreciate consistency in the common name category. Plantdrew (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I think all the changes I made should be uncontroversial for the reasons you note. I haven't seen much discussion about this, just some comments on the Talk:Whitebark Pine multi-RM, but no real opposition to the proposed case cleanup. I checked to make sure that every one I changed appears commonly in lower case in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC) TenMuses Since you watch RM, you probably already saw the technical restore on TenMuses move Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies to Han-Nom Research Institute. Ed and Bob left messages on User Talk. As formal opener of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive you should be aware that I notified Cuchullain here. I also received this post on my Talk page. Any advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What a mess. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) L'Aquila Parchi Airport I wrote "L'Aquila — Parchi Airport" because on the website the name is "Aeroporto dei Parchi" and under "L'Aquila", but I can't use two lines for the title. I used — because in the website are in two lines. The city on Wikipedia is almost always before than airport name. --Wind of freedom (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, you used a spaced en dash, which is not as bad as the spaced em dash you use here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I changed it to a more conventional form, one that's found in English sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sumatran pine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: ''Pinus merkusii'', the Sumatran pine, is closely related to the [[Tenasserim pine]] (''Pinus latteri'', which occurs further north in southeast Asia from [[Myanmar]] to [[Vietnam]]; Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Downsampling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Your technical move request for trees Hello Dicklyon. You're suggesting that the recently closed RM at Talk:Whitebark pine now gives carte blanche for lower case for all pine tree names? EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. Don't you agree? Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I suppose if you stay away from Category:Banksia taxa by common name there won't be too much objection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I've already stipulated at least twice that Banksia is from Sir Joseph Banks, so is a proper name part, and should be capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) The word Banksia is normally capitalized. But check out Western Mountain Banksia, Woolly Orange Banksia, Yellow Lantern Banksia etc. Luckily these are redirects and the articles themselves are at Latin names which have no problem about case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 17 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Signal-to-noise ratio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Requested move of Deadmaus You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48 Links to Howmuchblur Hi, I see you removed links to howmuchblur from several articles recently as being spam. I do not understand why. Yes it is my own tool, but I genuinely believe it is useful for people visiting these articles. Besides, it is a free service, and only there to help people. I gain nothing myself. I think if you remove these links as spam you also need to remove all links to all other DoF calculators etc. (which is something different, and thats why I believe my links definitely make sense). Johann3s (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC) You should propose links to your own work on the relevant article talk pages and let other editors decide, rather than linking your own stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC) FYI This is the part remaining that was a "personal attack" (any sentence containing the word "you", or an editor's user name): Apteva, yes, there are a lot of things you fail to see about wikipedia article naming. Why do you press for such changes, given that your views are so out of step with the how titling work here? How can want to move a title that is just precise enough to say what the article topic is to one that is ridiculously ambiguous? How can you interpret the popularity of this article as an indication that it is named wrong? Your logic makes no sense. --Just so as you know. Apteva (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)