Talk page archive

hi, sevan aydinian 's page has been cleaned up. what's not verifiable? it even has links directly to mtv.com

HELLO? Are you going to adhere to the rules?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I remembered you were involved in editing New Creation Church in Singapore a few months ago. Recently some new editors have been removing contents by the chunk since at the moment, there's hardly anyone to monitor what these editors are doing. I agree where you drawn the line last time but now I don't think these new editors were as careful in deciding what to remove. Their focus seems to be on removing contents especially on negative things about the church rather than adding contents giving me the impression that they could possibly be followers of the church. If you have some spare time, I would appreciate if you could monitor what they're up to as you're a pretty experienced editor. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.43.58.221 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat MountainThanks for the heads up on my archive numbers and for the tweak of the WMSP hook. It's better than what I added. Have a great day! --Dincher (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK requirementsI think I read your comment on the Bo 46 DYK incorrectly. It seems you were not commenting on the hook, but on the article body? If so, your comment is not correct. See section D2 of the DYK requirements. An inline is not required for all paras, and the section in question is paraphrased from the patents (click through, the entire first section of the patent is a discussion of the issues). Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes I was commenting on the article and not the hook - this is part of the normal DYK review process. D2 at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Onepage says "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Where did you read a version that said one is not required? I've had a a look at the patent but can't seem to find the info in the background section. Parts like "For instance, if the helicopter is flying forward at 100 km/h, the advancing blades see 300 + 100 km/h = 400 km/h, and for the retreating ones its 300 - 100 km/h = 200 km/h." sound like you have written them based on your own knowledge rather than getting it from a source, making it original research, like I said at TDYK if this is incorrect, please add a source. Smartse (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It seems that there are a couple of separate issues here, so I'll try to separate them out: Doing basic math is not OR, a well-discussed issue here on the Wiki. As you can see in the patent, the concepts of drag, wave drag and stall points are all talked about at some length (longer than the article). All I have done is put numbers to it to illustrate it. If you see statements that you believe are not discussed in the patent, feel free to list them and I can trivially provide additional cites (this basic discussion is in every book on rotorcraft dynamics). As to the references, I believe you are confusing "rule of thumb" with "requirement". There is no "requirement" for a cite-per-para anywhere. No really, look around, it's not even part of the CITE guidelines. Yet clearly there's something wrong with the wording, because this issue comes up over and over again. Here's a recent example: this thread. This one has some clear statements of fact in it, like "It's a convient guideline, but not a strict rule here at DYK". Don't get me wrong; there is a strong sub-current to make the rules more stringent, but they always fail. It failed to carry in that thread for instance, with strong statements along the lines that DYK should not be more difficult to get than a GA, or there would be no DYK's any more. Now that leads to the obvious question: if D2 is so confusing, why don't we re-word it? Great idea! But the bureaucracy is so strong that changes to make the wording more clear appear to be close to impossible to get consensus on. If you wish to re-open the debate, this is the place to do so. But you might want to don your flame retardant suit first! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Ok whatever, I'm not happy to pass the article, but we can see what others think. IMO everything should be cited - how do we know if it is verifiable if it isn't? Maybe I'm a bit of a hardliner on that point. GA requires a relatively complete article, whereas DYK doesn't, that seems to be the main difference to me - the DYKs I've written are fully cited, but not really complete. I'll drop a note at TDYK to ask someone else to have a look. Smartse (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Not to belabor this, but you noted above your distinction between B and DYK. The original purpose of the DYK was to encourage the creation of new articles through a sort of mini-reward -- after all, there's nothing like seeing your article on the front page. The rules were deliberately written to be as lightweight and inclusive as possible, in order to meet that goal. Every new rule that's been added makes it harder for DYK's to pass, makes the process more adversarial, and reduces the relative reward. It seems this goal is being lost over time. For instance, consider D2 on the rules page vs. [rules|what should be the same rules] on another page (hoping the link works). It's a bit up in the air. I would welcome a re-start of the discussion, but with one caveat: perhaps we could get D2 to reflect B-status levels, or agree that if consensus could not be reached on that change, that D2 should be changed to clearly state the current rule as at the link above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Purves referencesThank you. The references are from a report to be submitted to the Lepidopterist Society of Africa on the life cycle of Sevenia boisduvali boisduvali. The butterfly drinking cranberry and apple juice can be seen in the photo with author Purves, M. The reference to two female flowers in Sclerocroton integerrimus was observed on 3 inflorecences (none were seen with only one) and pictures were taken (still to be uploaded). Richard Boon (a tree book editor) confirmed the tree as being Sclerocroton integerrimus. I felt in important to note that there could be two female flowers and not just one as stated in the Justor link, if you can find a documented reference to two female flowers - please replace the Purves reference. I have also redone the description on the fruit, please see if you can however put septicidally dehiscent into 3 bivalved cocci into more simplified English... and also please check the references again - I had trouble combining some of them. I still have more photos to upload for Sclerocroton integerrimus. Michaelwild (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Ah, ok I see why I couldn't find anything about it yet then! Because it hasn't been published yet the information should probably be removed - our guideline on reliable sourcing says that things should be published before they are used - otherwise it may be original research which is forbidden. Seeming as the information referenced is minor, this seems like the most sensible thing to do, then once it has been published, we can add it back into the articles. I'll wait to see what you think before doing anything though.I don't think "septicidally dehiscent into 3 bivalved cocci" can be put more simply unfortunately, botanical nomenclature often needs to be complicated to explain what the flower is like. I've redone the references - for future reference, change <ref> to <ref name=XXXXX> at the start of the reference and then add <ref name=XXXXX/> wherever you want to cite the same source. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Well the information can be removed - the info and 'evidence' is there in the pictures (for the butterfly at least - flower picture still to be uploaded). As for the combining of references - I think I left out the /. Thanks for the help.How about "the fruit opens by splitting into three roughly circular parts"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, I've changed it. Smartse (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks!Hey Smartse, thanks very much for your help with my quest to update a load of links. I was beginning to tire of the repetitive work but your help has made it much easier! Correctaboot (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK nomination of SysteminHello! Your submission of Systemin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AngChenrui (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]You can contact me at my talk page if I don't reply anytime soon on the DYK nomination page. Cheers, AngChenrui (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for taking a look, I've replied at T:TDYK. Smartse (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK nomination of Shrewsbury HoardHello! Your submission of Shrewsbury Hoard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Fair use rationale for File:Alf-howard fair use.jpgThanks for uploading or contributing to File:Alf-howard fair use.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It was my understanding that photographs of people who have died are considered to be fair use. I've added a rationale to the image but if it is not sufficient then please go ahead and delete the file. Smartse (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Freudian slip?At the COI noticeboard, you told a spammer, "there is always going to be a recipe for making Mexican shilled eggs, even if you stop maintaining your site." Thanks for the smile. --CliffC (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK for Shrewsbury Hoard

On 19 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shrewsbury Hoard, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References in Light front holographySmartse, thank you for your suggestion. References have been added to the first two paragraphs. Indeed a more comprehensive list of references was added in the previous update. Regards, asterix --Conjecturix (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Anogramma ascensionis DYKHi Smartse, I tried adding you as a second contributor at the DYK page, but couldn't figure out how to do it without using the template. Feel free to add yourself on my behalf, since I'll be away from Wikipedia for some days and won't have time to figure it out. The addition of the image is a big plus. The one odd thing is the confusion around when Hooker described the plant. It really looks like Kew and BBC got it wrong. IPNI, which typically has the last word on these things, says 1854.[1] That's the date that his official description was published and recorded, even though he had the specimen in hand during his visit in 1843 (which is why I re-phrased it in the article: "then described and named by Joseph Dalton Hooker after a visit he made to the island in 1843"). Interesting story, including the story about Hooker's own part in making 'his' plant almost extinct (couldn't quite phrase it that way, though!). Thanks, First Light (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, I've added myself. Re the original discovery - the Kew press release says it was described as being fairly common in 1876 when Hooker visited - but doesn't actually say when it was first described. Cronk tried to find it multiple times, so I think it's sensible to assume that what he wrote in his 1980 paper is accurate. I think Hooker's part in making it extinct is unfortunately repeated around the world - have you heard of the acclimatisation societies? Smartse (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Indeed, there are many such 'societies', the British Empire in this case :-). What makes this really unusual, and perhaps singular, is that Hooker himself was likely responsible for the (now) near-extinction of a plant that he was credited with naming and describing. First Light (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Rulingia dasyphylla DYKHi. Given that I have edited the article Rulingia dasyphylla to ref the hook, could you okay the nomination Articles created/expanded on July 17(assuming you agree it is okay) so there is no appearance of conflict of interest? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Richard MiniterThe material that you've repeatedly reinserted to Richard Miniter is a very clear BLP violation- it makes a very controversial, defamatory statement about a living person and is very poorly sourced. I've fully protected the article for 24 hours and removed the BLP violation, which I will delete from the history. Please pay attention to what you revert and restore- if you re-add that without iron-clad sourcing, you'll be blocked. Imagine if you were the subject and that were written about you- aside from the defamation case waiting to happen, BLP is strict to imagine the real harm that can do to the subject and their reputation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Improving Josh and the Empty PocketsThanks for improving Josh and the Empty Pockets. Can't argue with any of your pruning or deletions. Goes to show there's a reason for Wikipedia having guidlines about close relationships and the need to avoid COI edits. When you have a COI it's hard to remain unbiased. Thanks again, Smartse, for taking the time. Ludasaphire (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]