User talk:Juliancolton
A little question...
Hello,
I have a little (trivial) question. On the logs, I searched for User:Priyanka and it does not show up (no "new account" log) but when I went to try and see if I could register an account (just for the heck of it), I said that the account was already taken. Could you explain why.
Thanks,
--Priyanka 00:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- For any user where the Special:Contributions page (in this case Special:Contributions/Priyanka) has the username colored gray, that means the name is not registered. If it is in red or blue, it usually* means it's registered (even if it has never edited). Not all accounts are in the logs because logging of user registrations only began sometime around 2006.
- *Unless a user has created a page for an unregistered user, but this is generally discouraged and such pages are routinely deleted. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Priyanka 17:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for February 1987 nor'easter
|
On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 1987 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Existence - permission to clear up
Hi Julian. I saw your note on Wikipedia Review about cleaning up the atom article. I would also like to take the mop to Existence which is a good example of how bad Wikipedia can get. The concept of 'existence' is at the core of the Western philosophical traditition. Every good reference work should deal with it. For example of a good article about it, see the Stanford Encyclopedia article by Barry Miller (philosopher).
However I would like my proper account unblocked if I am to do this. Can you help? Edward Ockham (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sir, I see you have signed this page under a heading stating "{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}", but I recall absolutely no contact with you on this matter. Perhaps you meant to sign slightly lower down the page under "Other users who endorse this summary"? WuhWuzDat 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, as I recall, I've left a number of messages on your talk page advising you to take more care with Twinkle and such. (See here.) Perhaps it would have been better for me to sign the endorsements list instead, but I feel the difference in this case is rather marginal. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
- gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
- ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Admin Coaching: The Phantom Menace
Just a reminder that I completed the last bit of "homework", and am happy to continue when you are ready! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied. Sorry for the hold-up. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
RMHED
Per WP:NPA, would you please block Baconfat's talk page access? Şłџğģő 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, it's not really so bad as to justify locking their talk page. Maybe another admin at ANI will disagree with me, in which case I have no objections. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Since this is my first time using huggle
Could you please look at a few of my huggle edits to see I am reverting the correct things. Please and thank you. rymich13 (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for February 1995 nor'easter
|
|
On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 1995 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Young editors
Yes, I like that. More importantly it makes it more appealing and therefore hopefully likely to be read by young editors. I still think it's TL;DR, but as a WIP it is shaping nicely and was a good idea. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it might be a good idea to split it up into a couple sub-essays. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
- News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more
- In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more
- WikiProject report: Where are they now?
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Admin coaching: Blocks
Blocks are an area which (were I to become an admin), I would not get into initially (apart from very obvious cases, such as an ANI discussion where it is clearly shown that many editors think the editor in question should be blocked). However, I have answered the scenarios you gave me, hopefully they are OK! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for letting me know so I can plan the next lesson accordingly. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Adult Web Movie Database Deletion
Hi, you do realise that website has been referred to in mainstream and major industry related publications don't you? How does that have any less significance than say the Internet Adult Film Database and Adult Film Database that remain on Wikipedia? Seems a strange decision unless it's a "culling of adult-related topics" measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathyw (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have no opinion on the article. I simply carried out the proposed deletion, though I can restore it if you'd like. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Article LOE Index/LOE Model
Dear Julian Colton:
I am writing to inquire about my article that was deleted on January 15. Can you please help me understand the reason the article was deleted? The only note stated that I did not address the concerns placed by the nominator. If you look back at the discussion, we did add ALL of the secondary sources that are out there. It is a new theory and thus does not yet have an abudant supply of secondary resources, but it will. Was the nominator actually requesting supporting references? I can supply those if that is what you would like. The resources listed below are tantamount to a chronological line for how the theory developed.
ALSO, the only person, please understand that my knowledge and use of wiki in this way is VERY basic, (I am learning), who had academic or life experience to rate my page was the individual who noted that he was suggesting a STRONG KEEP. Again, I am not being critical, only noting that the readily available biographies of the others who cited me for deletion did not indicate a background that supports the comments that were made.
What can I provide that might get you to reconsider my page? The supporting references are listed below if that is what you wanted me to supply based on the nominator's comments.
Where will I be able to your dialogue with me? I do not want to post my email publicly, do you have a way to get it from within wiki as I gave it when I signed my login name up?
Thank you in advance. I am glad to provide ANY additional information if you will reconsider the deleted article.
References:
Bowlby, John. (1969). Attachment and Loss Volume I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowlby, John. (1973). Attachment and Loss Volume II: Separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowlby, John. (1980). Attachment and Loss Volume III: Loss. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Harvey, Jerry B. (1999). How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed in the Back My Fingerprints Are on the Knife? And Other Meditations on Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jaques, Elliot. (1990). Creativity and Work. International Universities Press, Inc., Madison, Connecticut.
Jaques, Elliot. (2002). The Life and Behavior of Living Organisms: A General Theory. Praeger Publishers, WestPort, Conneticut.
Lynch, James J. (1977). The Broken Heart: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Noer, David M. (1993). Healing the Wounds: Overcoming the Trauma of Layoffs and Revitalizing Downsized Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spitz, Rene A. (1983). Rene A. Spitz: Dialogues from Infancy. Edited by Robert N. Emde. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
Spitz, Rene A. and Katherine Wolf. (1946). Anaclitic Depression: An inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood, II. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 2: 313-342.
Winnicott, D. W. (1951) Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena. Through Paediatrics. 229-42.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. New York: Routledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallreagan (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but the answer here is simple - deletion review is the correct venue for you to challenge JC's closure of the AfD. Tan | 39 17:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am confused, when I look at the deletion review page it indicates that I should courteously approach the adminstrator and ask for reconsideration. My posting above is intended to ask the JC for reconsideration based on the information I provided above--- additional reference material, etc. I believe this article is a noteworthy article given that it is included in a multi-national textbook that is used in business schools all over the world. Can you please help me understand what the article is missing in terms of its contribution so that I can substantively improve it if the re-consideration is not successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallreagan (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus at the deletion debate indicates that the community believes this topic isn't notable at the moment. If you disagree, DRV is the most appropriate course of action. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
arthur 08
yo buddy! i saw u wrote the article on arthur 08. that's part of a litttle project i'm doin, on the out of season atlantic hurricanes. all the other articles are ga's already, or they;re mine and will be gas soon. i'm mad busy lately, but i was wonderin if the arthur was like done already, or if it needed more work. peace --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, nice work on the project so far! IIRC, I wrote Arthur while it was still active (or shortly afterward), so it probably needs an update and expansion. I'd be happy to help with it. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- awesome bro, thanks a lot. also, quick question... in the main list of the out of season storms, theres only tropical storms and hurricanes, but there was the tropical depression in may this year, right? so should depressions be included or what? and should they be part of the topic, u think? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I know your specialty is tropical storms, but you're the only serious weather editor I know, so I'm gonna ask for your input anyway. Anticyclone's opening sentence makes my head hurt. My editor fingers just itch to turn it into a sentence with a subject and a predicate, and maybe even a direct object or two. I know it's badly written, but what I don't know is weather (sorry, couldn't resist) I'm going to change its meaning with a cleanup - hence my need for a weatherman like yourself. You willing to take a stab at it?--otherlleft 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- How's that? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Coldplay Expert
You're much closer to Coldplay Expert in age than I am. Is there no way you can get him to see sense? Disagreeing is fine, I do it several times each day, but there are ways of going about it that don't involve blatant abuse. I'm always saddened to see another editor blocked, almost as saddened as I am when I'm blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I always regret having to block a fellow contributor, but sadly CE's behavior has crossed the line far too many times recently (although I really can't blame him for being frustrated with the project). I'm not sure how I can help him, to be perfectly honest. After his block expires, I'd be happy to try an even more rigorous and blunt mentoring processes, but seeing as the mentoring thing never seems to go anywhere, I guess I can only advise him to keep this bit of advice in mind. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Another HV selected picture?
This is certainly one of the handsomest small Greek Revival buildings in the region. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Works for me. I'll add it into the rotation this evening. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Question on deleted article
Hi,
I just saw the article on the NASA Ames Research Center CIO Chris C Kemp was deleted following a 2nd deletion debate. I'm wondering whether there is any suggestions you can give as to how to create an article about him that satisfies the wikipedia standards. I still believe the article is valid and appropriate, given he is a rising star driving IT innovation inside NASA and the wider US government. There is a real interest in his work and achievements from within NASA and the government, and there are several third party references which back this up so its not a subjective story I am trying to push here. Thanks Navarenko (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. If you feel you can write an article that adheres to notability requirements, please create a draft in your userspace, complete with references to credible sources. You can list the new version at WP:DRV to see if other editors agree with reinstating it. Good luck. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Any chance I could get the deleted version into my userspace as a start? Navarenko (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Muck and Brass query
Julian
I was doing my best to strengthen the page that I created for muckandbrass.blogspot.com
I haven't done a page in wikipedia and my curve is therefore vertical.
An early comment was 'only one mention on telly'. I added a number of other media references eg Dail Mail, Guardian, Times, also Conservative Home page and Labout Home page.
Can you advise as, sadly, the page has gone and I didn't think to copy the text.
Many thanks.
Niall Connolly--83.104.35.146 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry, but I'm not sure which article you're referring to. Could you please provide a link? Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Making DYK nominations
Julian;
You may not be aware of it, but at DYK there are templates for nominating articles. For a self-nom of an article you wrote yourself, it is {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=}}. These templates are listed at the top of Template talk:Did you know and make life much easier for the DYK reviewer, as well as whoever organizes the sets of hooks for the main page. If it's not too much trouble, could you please use them in the future? Thanks a bunch. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I always thought that template was a bit silly to be honest, which is why I tried to avoid it. I'll use it if it makes a difference for the reviewers, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's a template for tagging article talk pages and giving credit which is hidden, but the nomination template generates automatically. When it's not used, someone has to produce that template by hand. It takes 45 seconds if the reviewer notices- but much longer if a hook gets moved into a prep area or queue without being done. (If it was just formatting {{*mp}} at the beginning of hooks, it would be quite silly.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, alright; fair enough then. Thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's a template for tagging article talk pages and giving credit which is hidden, but the nomination template generates automatically. When it's not used, someone has to produce that template by hand. It takes 45 seconds if the reviewer notices- but much longer if a hook gets moved into a prep area or queue without being done. (If it was just formatting {{*mp}} at the beginning of hooks, it would be quite silly.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Arlene (1981) review
I've just begun the review of this article, but would like another eye to look it over. The article seems short, but since the system affected so little land and wasn't very strong, I don't think much content is truly missing. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I found some new sources, but I'm not sure how much worthwhile info there is. I'll look more closely this afternoon. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for February 1969 nor'easter
|
|
On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 1969 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism Question
Is this vandalism, I was not sure if it was please check this pages history, Ubaidullah_Sindhi rymich13 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Some of the ones I am not sure about I just skip. I want to be sure it is vandalism. rymich13 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a mess in this article with a word. Is there a way to correct this? Asexual_reproduction Please check history. rymich13 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
DELETION of Mazes and Minotaurs page
As requested in the Deletion review policy i'm first asking you to reconsider your evaluation of the "consensus" on deleting that page. The arguments for deletion certainly weren't strong nor complete and seemed to come from biased individuals, or at least condescending ones. Even if you decided not to agree with the notability issue, the merge/transfer to an existing indie rpg list option suggested by other posters (including me) should have been preferable to outright deletion.
Thank you for your time --Gebeji 142.213.176.140 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazes and Minotaurs; the arguments for deletion were strongly based in policy, which there were few valid arguments for retention. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Philip E. Daniels
Hi there. Please explain why you deleted the article. There was no consensus. The article was originally created with very few citations, peacock terms, etc, which is why deletes were quickly stated. I improved the article to establish notability and verifiability. I have even made an RfC on the article, but no one came in. I respectfully request that you review the article with fresh eyes with all citations now included. In line with wiki policy, I wish to first try and resolve the matter with you. Many thanks.Pea12345 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was indeed consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip E. Daniels to delete the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't consensus mean that everybody agrees? Not everybody has agreed to the deletion. Please clarify.Pea12345 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- There were more deletes than keeps, but there was no reevaluation with all fresh citations/links. Please explain where there is no consensus. I'm genuinely unclear as to how you came to the decision.Pea12345 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)