Jump to content

User talk:Nagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conch Shell (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 16 August 2006 (Rewrite of Physics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives of this talk page


DZK / Richard James Burgess

Just go ahead and remove these sites, I seem to be far too inept for this librarian shit. Keep up the good work, Nagle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DZK (talkcontribs)

Israeli Apartheid arbitration

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the move to arbitration, but please remove the term "wheel war" - moving and reverting moves isn't an administrative action, it's something any user can do. -- ChrisO 00:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the messages indicated that moving had been blocked at one point, which is an admin action. Did that happen? --John Nagle 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was wheel war, there were moves and deletions that can only be done by admins. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the moves and deletions point - I was under the impression that any user could do that? But you're certainly right about the move protection; Humus sapiens (I think) un-move-protected the article so that he could move it to Allegations of Israeli apartheid for the fourth time. I've documented the timeline with diffs at WP:RFAR#Statement by ChrisO. Please let me know if I've left any significant points out of the timeline. -- ChrisO 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please put your comments in the appropriate place on the arbitration page, not here; the arbitrators won't read this. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Homeontherange's precedent, I edited my name on the list to point out that I was not involved in the move/revert war. I hope this is acceptable. Bibigon 06:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbComm

Hi, I think it best if I stay out of the ArbComm case, I don't really have time to deal with it right now and I wasn't involved in the actual revert war. I think if I were to get involved I'd just end up being a magnet for personal attacks that would just distract from the real issues. Homey 06:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really up to ArbComm now. Let's just see what happens. --John Nagle 06:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid RfM

Nagle, Fred Bauder indicated that he supported the idea of mediation, so my guess is the committee may want to wait to see whether that can go ahead, rather than the other way round. Normally, we're supposed to try mediation before asking for arbitration, if at all possible. I was about to file an RfM anyway, so I hope you'll reconsider whether you want to be part of it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

John, I saw your note about Zeq. I think you may have misunderstood the nature of an RfAr. Anyone who was involved may be added as a party by anyone, regardless of who has filed the request. The ArbCom may also add anyone at any time, even if they have not been named as a party. The situation is fluid for good reason, because ultimately the point of arbitration is to get issues sorted out, not to wikilawyer. So Zeq is allowed to add himself, and to add others too, if he believes they contributed to the situation. Only the Committee can decide what evidence to include in their assessment. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq never actually added himself as a party; he just made comments. My point was that I'm not claiming that Zeq did anything wrong; he's banned from editing the article, and he didn't. --John Nagle 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Collectibles

Why is it neccesary to remove an article that largely mirrors a feature of collectible car magazines, a section that discusses what models and toys have been made of a car? On what basis does this article deserve deletion? Who has it offended? Why is the information contained, namely fairly specific and cited information deemed of no consequence? Is this not merely an act of malicious hostility against an editor?? --matador300 07:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert Peak Theory

You've been doing a nice job editing the Hubbert Peak Theory article. The way you reorganized some of the sections a couple of weeks ago was well done. Jkintree 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John Nagle 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar backgrounds

I've been editing the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article as well as a bunch of others you've edited. I just realized that we have similar backgrounds in computer graphics/animation -- strange. Checked out Animats website, technology and patents. My list of recent publications (including a 2006 ACM TOG paper and two patents) is here [1]. I was in negotiations a few years ago with Softimage with regards them licensing some of my software for inclusion too. I also wrote a package called Deadline which sold fairly well [2]. I did some work for DARPA back in Uni too. Feel free to give me an email and we could grab a beer at SIGGRAPH 2006 in Boston if your going. --Ben Houston 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I notice that you've suggested that Humus Sapiens might have abused admin authority based on the fact that he "deleted to make way for move", but you seemed to have missed the fact that ChrisO "deleted to make way for move" 3 times. Was that just an oversight? Also, you say at least 3 parties to the arbitration have admin authority, but in fact 6 parties to the arbitration have admin authority. Was that another oversight? Also, you say " a race condition on page protection between Jayjg, Humus Sapiens and ChrisO" occurred, but it appears that only ChrisO was attempting to protect pages, not Humus Sapiens or Jayjg. Am I missing something? --User:MPerel 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed elsewhere, the moves to "Allegations of" were out of policy, so those are the ones of interest. As for who's an admin, I originally put in "at least 3 have admin authority" back when there were fewer participants in the arbitration. I didn't realize we were up to six now. I've fixed the race condition statement. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have always been the same number of participants in the arbitration with the same six admins. And I thought the issue was "wheel warring" not "moves out of policy"? --User:MPerel 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check back in the request for arbitration, where there was a big argument over who was a participant. Two people wanted out, and two people wanted in. --John Nagle 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on the evidence page was made after the case was accepted and all the parties were notified. You may want to fix your incorrect statement about there being only 3 admins on the evidence page. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the recent Jimbo-intervention at this article? Themindset 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It is absolutely not an overreaction to see an article with completely unsourced claims like that. QUALITY means something. --Jimbo Wales 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full apology here

hopefully you see the before you even know what I am apologizing for

Seizuredog/SeductionWiki.css

Doh, forgot the User. Go ahead and speedy it. --SeizureDog 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

That's a particular hobby of mine. WHile I prefer in-line/Harvard style (see Actuary ) I still like cleaning up references. I'm about halfway through Circumcision, and that was an unholy mess. But it is a pain to open each reference, check that it is accurately reflected, drill down through the research to see if there is actually a better source, etc. So thanks for the note, it helps :) -- Avi 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Carter

This is an effort to create an historical article about the environmental activist Kiki Carter. I am adding sources as requested by the original notice, but the list is exhaustive. Please review the sources on the article page and advise. Eaglefeather11 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot substitution of templates

That is quite a question, and my answer is but a referal to WP:SUBST. Hopefully you'll find all of your answers there. :-) --ZsinjTalk 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Meople.net to the Attention Economy Entry

I am trying to add the reference to the Meople site which you refer to as "email spam." I am trying to tie Meople to the attention conversation just as Root.net is. Please let me know the best way to do this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.106.207 (talkcontribs)

Actually, the general idea is that Wikipedia doesn't carry advertising. Also see WP:VAIN. Thanks. --John Nagle 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from FloNight talk

What's going on with District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act? Your last edit changed a valid link to one with a 404 error. Please recheck your last edit. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Nagle ; - ) In reply to your question, I was reverting the edits of a banned user AMorrow. Feel free to improve the article as needed. You need to make the changes in your own name making sure that you do not violate copyright laws. If you have further questions, leave them on the talk page of the article or my talk page. regards, FloNight talk 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that from a bot? --John Nagle 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? --FloNight talk 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheggit

hi, cheggit is fully merged, not merely redirected, to empornium, so it is appropriate. the other one i leave as is. Zzzzz 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moller

I was aware of his advancing dates as you noted on my user page. The difference would be that if he doesn't do it this time, he's going to have to hand back at least $250,000 in deposit money in early 2009 or face fraud accusations. According to the recent WSJ article he links to on his site, he's got a hundred deposits of $25k. Offering to hand a significant chunk of change back if he doesn't hit his deadlines is something new in the long history of Moller's Skycar. TMLutas 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He already missed the 2005 deadline. I wonder if he refunded the money. --John Nagle 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shubnikov

The "citation needed" was outside the parentheses, i.e., it looked to me as applied to the whole phrase about repressions of scientists. Anyway, right now I updated Lev Shubnikov and working on details of his fabricated affair that concerned other Ukrainian scientists, UPTI Affair. `'mikka (t) 06:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Amnesty or Refocusing of the IA RfA

I just posted this [3] at the IA RfA -- its in a section on just defaulting to a general amnesty for all participants since the current RfA has clearly gone off the rails. I am not sure if you agree with it or not but I would welcome your thoughts since you initiated the RfA and not myself. --Ben Houston 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Mediawatchlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mediawatchlogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Al-Manar

Thanks for the work and the clean up, especially finding its new website, they keep getting taken down.Hypnosadist 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to drop your tone. You are not entitled to be rude nor demand as you do that I justify my actions. Nothing whatsoever was recreated. The redirect remains protected. The band will redirect to its notable member until and unless that article (Kiki Carter) is deleted. I have also userfied the text of the deleted article to the original creator per s/his request for use elsewhere. I hope and pray that my actions meet with your kind approval - [personal attack removed]. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inlining fair use images

Re:Talk:Buck_Rogers_(science_fiction)

Fair use images are to be used on article namespaces only. Please read WP:FU if you have any questions on usage of fair use images. Retropunk 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing that is fine. It was just used there temporarily, until all the relevant articles were updated, which they have been. --John Nagle 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miniclip

User has been blocked for 5RR --mboverload@ 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. That was wierd. --John Nagle 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle redirect

Dear sir, I'm working on the Articles requested for more than a year project, and the non-existent John Nagle article was one of the items on the list. As you note elsewhere, there is not really enough material on you on the internet to knock up a proper bio. I unlinked your name on the Nagle's Algorithm page, then redirected John Nagle to Nagel's Algorithm. No offence intended, I'm just cleaning up. Ordinary Person 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Possible error in escape sequence

Thanks! I think the problem is now fixed. -- Where 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It was just a vandal. Or a nutter. Doesn't matter. As you say, it's just good that it is now gone :o) ЯEDVERS 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD/A bigger, better machine i will be

Done. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation... activated! :P

Hello! I've accepted your mediation request... sorry for the delay in accepting, we're unusally clogged with stuff at the moment. Check the case page for response. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 Mosaic: World News from the Middle East

Rewrite of Physics

Thanks for the pointer I think I've created the page under my talk namespace as you've suggested. Now if you can delete the original page, I'd appreaciate it. Also feel free to comment on the changes. Good luck in DGCIII. Tmcsheery 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I can't delete it. Put {{db | Moved to talk space, owner requests deletion}} on the page you want deleted, and someone will do it. --John Nagle 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Hi. I noticed Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg keeps removing sourced material that you've added. Whenever I've done this on the Israel Shahak page he's done a revert and stated "Please do not remove sourced passages unles you have another reliable source that disputes it." Perhaps you should suggest the same to him? Conch Shell 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]