User talk:Graham87

Archives: March 2005 to March 2006 April 2006 to December 2006 January 2007 to May 2007 June 2007 to September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 to April 2008 May 2008 to June 2008 July 2008 to September 2008

Featured sound

Le Bourgeois gentilhomme

A set of sounds uploaded by you has been promoted to featured sound status. Your sound files, listed to the left, were nominated on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, gained a consensus of support, and have been promoted. If you would like to nominate a sound file, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the template rather breaks with big sets like this, but the other option is to spam you with 11 templates, or use something that looks less official. =) Anyway, thanks for setting this up - it's a fine addition to the encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a little unbalanced looking and takes up a lot of space (though, yes, definitely better than 11 seperate templates) But yes, this is a great find, and a wonderful addition to the project. =)

By the way, if you want to join in on Featured sounds, please do so =) I and a few others decided it had languished long enough, so have been working to revitalise it, and we'd love more people =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I didn't realise you were blind. I suppose the visual layout probably doesn't matter then, and am very glad I didn't go down the 11 template route. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Classical mechanics

What did you just do to the classical mechanics page? There are about eight consecutive change notices in my watch list and I can't figure out what happened. Thanks, MarcusMaximus (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Nothing to worry about, then :). By the way, I can't even imagine how you are able to efficiently edit Wikipedia using a voice synthesizer interface. It must be quite a skill! MarcusMaximus (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New article CUES was deleted

Hi there Graham!

How's it going down under?

I recently started the Credit Union Executive Society article, and it was speedy deleted. This is unfortunate since this organization is on par with CUNA (Credit Union National Association), which is clearly worthy of inclusion. Unfortunately, I didn't start the article with references, so this is my bad. I know of at least one other editor who is knowledgable in the credit union space who can back me up on the merits of this one. There are so many articles written on CUES in industry magazines, I almost don't know where to start with the references and citations. Here's just one: http://www.cutimes.com/article.php?article=40011

Also, you can see by my body of work that I am not a fly-by-night wiki editor, and not a newbie. I've delivered a lot of solid material to wikipedia, and credit union related articles in particular. I'm certainly not an expert either, and don't know the intricacies of wikipedia by any means.

Any guidance you can give here would be appreciated. --Mmpartee (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deuterostomes and Bilateria

Hi, Graham. I watch Deuterostome and Bilateria as I'm interested in paleontology and have got involved in the Cambrian explosion task force, which about the early stages of animal evolution. Are you thinking of merging Deuterostomeand Bilateria? If so, I don't think it's a good idea at present. From what I've read there's quite a lot to say about the evolution of the bilaterian body plan from presumably Cnidarian-like ancestors, and about the mechanisms and evolutionary history behind the split between the protostomes and deuterostomes, which account for most but not all of the Bilateria - not to mention the question of whether flatworms are pre-split bilaterians or protostomes that have secondarily lost the coelom and anus, whether the Lophotrochozoan theory of protostome phylogeny is right and Chordate phylogeny. I think it's much better to leave Bilateria, Deuterostome and Protostomeas separate articles for now, and then we can look at how much overlap there is. -- Philcha (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Graham. Thanks for explaining. I won't ask you found out about the parallel versions. I notice these have slightly incorrect correct titles, e.g. "Deuterostom", although the editor concerned says he was trained in biology. My guess is he was dissatisfied with the articles and wanted to experiment, but at that stage didn't know about sandboxes. -- Philcha (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Plant

I've been trying to figure out your recent activities on Plant, but I'm having trouble making sense of it. Could you explain, please?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My hat's off to you; I can certainly see the potential for error in that complex procedure.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tasman Bridge disaster

Graham - thanks for the copyedits you recently made on this article.GlenDillon 06:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Scooby Doo Frank Welker

Hi Graham,

Good job as usual on keeping up with all the pages you work on. I can confirm that Frank Welker did indeed succeed Don Messick as the voice of Scooby Doo. Scott Innes did the voice for a couple of direct to videos during the period listed, however he was never really considered the "new voice" it was a trial period and no series were being produced. However, it still is accurate enough to say preceeded by Scott Innes...I have no problem with that, it is just that Don Messick created the voice and did it for 30 years, and Scott did a couple of projects over two years. Frank has done the voice for the last seven years. He has been in all the Scooby projecst including three new Scooby series and several moives, video games etc.and is currently working on the newest live action Scooby. Scott has also, done some Scooby commercials. This is probably more than you wanted to know, since this is not your area of major interest. I corrected the box. If you want more info just let me know.

Greenskeeper (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Miami

Re your comments in Talk:Miami/Archive 0 -- now that the page has been move, please take a look and see if anything else needs doing. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Supernanny logo under a free license?

Hi. I discovered that User:Tennisdude92 plagiarized episode synopses of the TV show Supernanny from ABC's website into the List of Supernanny episodes article. I removed it, but then thought to check through his User Contributions, and the first thing other than that plagiarism that I found was this image page, in which he uploaded the Supernanny logo with the GNU Free license. Is this right? The various licenses are not my forte, so could you look into it as far as what should be done? Let me know if this is okay with you. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Your name was at the top of the Edit History of the Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License page, so I just contacted you. Thanks for the advice! Nightscream (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Johann Gottfried Walther

Hi Graham,

how are you? I am back here after some work "outside" of wikipedia and I saw your media list with concertos and choral preludes. I find it very interesting and it is my opinion that articles about composers must have a certain amount of sound examples. I will add some more items on my sandbox and the Petrucci project is a real treasure for my. I read a lot of pieces and then decide to print and play them. My next organ session will be about 10th of november I think. Have a nice time: here the cold days are coming! next week we have perhaps the first snow. my best greetings to you from Germany Uli

--Metzner (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually Barouqe.

The concerns were that there was no explict (C) notice or license attached to the works concerned, it may obvious to you that the works are by the site owners, but it wasn't to me. I raised this issue on IRC, and was told that I was justified in commenting such links.

In respect of deep links, feel free to re-instate those, Generally speaking though it's better to link to the html page that contains a file, rather than directly to a file, as this WILL show the copyright/attribution information as requried. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FS!

Template:Multi-listen item

A sound file uploaded by you has been promoted to featured sound status. Your sound file, Image:Mozart_-_Eine_kleine_Nachtmusik_-_1._Allegro.ogg was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate a sound file, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay! :-) Graham87 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done! SatuSuro 01:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive. It is an excellent performance, by the way, quite distinct from any I have heard before. Cheers from me too! cygnis insignis 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

You know, we don't have any Johannes Sebastian Bach (or any of the other Bachs)) as a featured sound, largely because noone's nominated one yet. Would you like to join in with one? The link is WP:FSC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sonata for Flute or Recorder and Harpsichord in B minor, BWV 1030. Graham87 02:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New script for aleatory fugues

Hey Graham, I made another script, User:Proteins/followrandomlinkonpage.js, and I think it's a fun one. It opens a random link on any page in a new tab or window. It's like the 'Random article" function in the navigation portlet, but the script allows you to restrict the range of articles you're randomly jumping to. Also, you can spawn multiple random pages from a single page, so you can for instance generate a dozen random Featured Articles in the time it takes to say "In Piccadilly Circus, people pursue peccadillos." Programming-wise, the script is relatively simple, but it suggests interesting variations...

I thought you might enjoy this new script, but it isn't accessibility-related, so I thought I'd post it here. Cheers! Proteins (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Proteins, the script is neat! It's fascinating to see what is linked from a page. However it probably shouldn't follow the category links at the end of the page, especially hidden categories; it followed the link Category:Template computed age non-articles on my userpage. It should follow category or image links with a colon in front of them like [[:Category:XYZ]], but not actual category links. I'm not sure about image links. Graham87 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion, Graham; I hadn't thought of those exceptions. I think I've fixed the script so that it doesn't follow Images, Categories and Special pages. It already follows only links in the main article; it doesn't follow those in the left-hand column, the article tabs such as "edit this article" or the user-associated commands at the top edge such as "my preferences". Enjoy, Proteins (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

The fair use of Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_3.OGG and Image:Haydn_op20_Movement_2_Second_Variation.OGG has been challenged on the grounds that a free recording of the opus 20 quartets could be found. On what basis this challenger assumes that there is a free recording I have no idea. But, since you are familiar with the problem, perhaps you can help me deal with this.

These images were the first two of a whole raft of examples I was planning to include in the article String quartets opus 20 (Haydn). But if I am going to face illogical fair use challenges all along the way, I might as well give it up. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Later: I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_of_media_to_illustrate_points_about_a_piece_of_classical_music. You may want to add your two cents worth to that discussion.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I need you to fully protect this talk page. The blocked user is abusing it. You can delete it and then create=sysop only, or whatever is best. 211.30.109.24 (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Its been a while...

Our rugrats vandal has returned. Special:Contributions/24.187.8.111. Same start to IP address and he still targets Rugrats and other nickelodeon related articles. The vandalism is the same trademark misinformation. I level 2 warned him, but he ignored it and continued his vandalism spree. I've now level 3 warned him, but he's already done more than enough to be blocked. If you could help me keep on top of the situation, it'd be most appreciated! Thanks :-) Sloan ranger (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure, i'll keep an eye on them. After all the help you've given me, it's the least I can do :-) Sloan ranger (chat) 12:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LegalWikiPro

I left a comment on the LegalWikiPro deletion page. As you will see there, I discussed some of these issues with an editor when I first created the article. I'm a newbie, but was aware enough of some of the issues, and thought that I had worked them out to Wikipedia standards. Maybe. Maybe not.

On other issues: I feel like the external links were very relevant to the topics at hand. The legal articles on Wikipedia are, by nature, quite general. They are good, but they lack a lot of specific detail that an attorney or interested layman may need in order to fully understand an area of law. Here is a quote from the "external links" guidelines as to what SHOULD be linked to: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." I think the links were completely appropriate under that guideline. For example, Wikipedia may have an article on Intentional Interference with Contract. It is good as far as it goes, but it does not give the reader a lot of nuance or detail. The links to LegalWikiPro gives the reader jurisdiction specific detail, quotes from cases (public domain), and an organized outline of various defenses and evidentiary issues that simply can not be found on Wikipedia. Your readers seem to like it. LegalWikiPro has about 20 hits a day from readers linking to it from Wikipedia. And...they stay and read. Not sure why that's a bad thing. I'd ask for the links to be restored, if possible.

Thanks for your time. I know you don't make a lot off of the service you provide. :)

Briefer (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī

Hi.. can you see the matter here Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī i put sources from britannica encyclopedia and encarta encyclopedia put they deleted it.. i dont know what should to do... can you please advice me because i dont know alot here... many thanks --Bayrak (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

please i want to know is this true...

• Encarta/Britannica are Teriatary sources. Per Wikipedia Rule: Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources." Secondary sources are exactly Professors of history of Islamic mathematics who were consulted for this article. So Teriatary sources do not have the same weight as primary and secondary sources.) --Bayrak (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't

Just because someone "constitutes vandalism", which hasn't happened much at all, doesn't mean the whole IP should be blocked.216.114.210.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Message originally added to my user page. Graham87 14:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-edits

Thank you for the copy edits of my user page. I didn't know line-breaks destroy lists and therefore accessibility. I find it somewhat amazing that you became an administrator on Wikipedia despite being blind. Keep up the great work! I've been to Austrailia, by the way, near Canberra. Great country. I'm currently in Chile. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Biscuits and the biscotti

Americans take too many liberties with non English languages.

It is wrong to refer to the Italian Biscotti with the American definition. It would be similar to Italians defining "biscuit" to be what we refer to as a "dog biscuit". It is true that a dog biscuit is a biscuit; but there are a lot more biscuits than dog biscuits.

Or to state it mathmatically "The set defined by the Italian term 'biscotti' is mmuch greater than the set defined by the American term 'biscotti'.

And furthermore the word is pronounced "bis coat ti" not "bis Scotty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.135.180 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've Replied at User talk:72.203.135.180#Re: Biscuits. Graham87 03:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

deleting and reverting

Sorry, in 'non-Wiki' usage, I tend to use the words 'delete' and 'revert' interchangeably, I'll keep better tabs on that in the future. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though.LeeRamsey (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

LegalWikiPro...

Thanks for your comment re LegalWikiPro. Since I am relying on other lawyers to help edit, I am finding it difficult to get some of these self-interested lawyers to freely contribute. But I'm getting alot of interest in the concept. "I'll be back" when this thing gets off the ground. :) Briefer (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey Graham-
Just a quick note; through my work with the account creation team I have recently made accounts for two new folks using screen readers, User:Guardian Knight and User:Nshugart- in addition to links to pages like Using JAWS I have encouraged them to get in contact with you if they have any specific questions, so they may be dropping by. Just thought I'd give ya fair warning! L'Aquatique[talk] 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sewer Cover Barnstar

		The Sewer Cover Barnstar
		You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner.

• I award this to you, Graham87, with humbleness and awe. You’ve done what I truly can not. Greg L (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)