User talk:Deacon Vorbis

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Disappointed

Hi Deacon Vorbis. I was looking at Ammarpad's RfA, and while I was disappointed with a number of opposes, yours stuck out like a sore thumb. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and one of our largest issues is that we are geographically biased. Almost all of our editors are from North America or UK. There is a Australasian element, a south Asian one and a European one, but we need to be encouraging growth outside these zones, not stifling it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: For the record, I didn't know where Ammarpad was from (I still don't, exactly); I was simply struck by the consistency of language errors in his answers. Also, I'm not sure if you're referring to bias in content, in editors, or in administration. Each is certainly present, but I'm not sure what's of most concern to you here. In any case, English Wikipedia is run in English, and administrators need to have a certain mastery of the language to do so properly – more even than required for content contribution. In fact, English Wikipedia already has a huge leg up on other languages due to the widespread use of English as a second language in many parts of the world. However, I don't think that anyone should get a pass at RfA simply because they're from an underrepresented part of the world. (Edit: I wanted to add that I do appreciate raising these sorts of concerns here, so certainly no hard feelings or anything) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've taken my comment in the spirit it was meant, I'm not one for badgering and have no issue with your opposition to the candidate - I just felt it was important to discuss the issue. I believe the bias it all tied up together, it stems from editors, who then write the content and become administrators. If we have the perception of blocking administrators from an area because they are from the area, then we will have the ongoing effect of discouraging editors and therefore content from those areas.

Effective communication is essential for administrators, I'm one of the strongest advocates for that - however grammatical accuracy and eloquent speech isn't necessary for effective communication, just the ability to get ones point across clearly. I agree that no one should get a "pass" at RfA (though I do believe standards are too high at present, per my reconfirmation of my support - we only have 17 admins who have started editing in the past 7 years) but I also think we need to be mindful of what we're actually looking for in an admin, and be careful not to be sidetracked on an easy tangent which can lead to geographical or even racial bias. Worm^TT(talk) 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you thanked me

Deacon Vorbis, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)

15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC) ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack others calling them "attackers" totally without reason !

Please do not call others "attackers" without any reason at all. You may be blocked. Boeing720 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: Here is the diff in which you pretty clearly called me a name, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA, irrespective of whether or not the owner of the talk page you made it on is a friend of yours. My issuing of a warning to you is hardly the same kind of violation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him for his honest recollections. We have spoken to each other. He lives in the Greater Stockholm region. You call that "attacking". But your lines at my talk-page was hostile. If you stop delete talk-pages etc, I will stop deleting your messages to me, if you will have any. Is this reasonable ? Boeing720 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: "... That other person is just a besserwisser ...". You hurled the name at me, not him. And I didn't delete your most recent message; I moved it, as I indicated in the edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been deleting quite a lot talk-page stuff though. And I did't write that to you, did I ?. It wasn't intended for you. It's a German wor.. - no never mind. If you simply stop deleting discussions others have done at talk-pages (how ever trivial they may seem to you), and - before deleting my supposed "crude English" etc - you could just had given me message or corrected it yourself. Or, why not, use your rights; a contributor who has used foreign sources, can well be asked to translate and explain them for other contributors at request. Then I think we can forget all of this. Honestly.

Please have a look at this "classic" rabid petty matters discussion - Talk:Danish_pastry and at headline "Exotic names" there is a hidden part. It includes the following suggestion: "Also, were he new, I would propose baking Boeing720 into a bacon danish with a side of bacon as per WP:DELICIOUS for bringing this to AN/I in an instance of unintentional forum/admin shopping." (To this, I just wish to explain that I thought it was funny. And I had been played by someone else (not this joking guy), I had no knowledge of this furious discussion, but I was asked to press a link and write something. This happened to be AN/I, of which I had not a clue of by then. I didn't participate otherwise.) Boeing720 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circle vs line

Moved to Talk:Four-dimensional space § Circle vs line

– –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would have been the best way to handle the link to what I found?

If I hadn't found the link to the scene from the movie, I might never have gotten any kind of answer. Someone might have asked why I didn't try to find a video.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I knew there had to be a reason but I couldn't see it. There's nothing on the IP's talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the second part; it's just kind of habit whenever I see them pop up anymore. As for the link, I guess you could try to describe it, or advise people to look for it on their own, but WP:COPYVIOEL is pretty clear about that stuff. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It did come up on the first page of whatever I decided to search for. So I guess it would have been easy enough to describe the search. I was hoping there would be more of a fun explanation of the mathematics behind those circles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out a video's copyright status?

I was thinking about using a video as a source. Bill Carroll (musician) has only two sources. One has been fixed but is dead again, though I have contacted the people who might be able to give me more information. The other is a YouTube video which I realize I can't even link to for anyone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reference formatting in that article is already kind of screwy. And yeah, the YouTube link really shouldn't be in there. In any case, you can still cite the actual TV episode without linking to it ({{cite episode}} seems good for that). As far as the status, I think the general rule of thumb is that unless something is old enough for copyright to have expired, or there's text from the the author releasing it into the public domain (or at least some other sort of grant to redistribute without relinquishing the copyright), then you should assume it's under copyright. So for YouTube (or similar), if the video is actually up on some sort of official channel of the holder or their affiliate, (which you see a lot for music and TV, at least for clips), then linking is fine. But if it's just some random dude with an old TV episode, then that's pretty surely not kosher. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I finally realized I don't have to link to the video because it's in the article. But my goal was to find sources for all the information there and merge with a draft about his band.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undo on Catalan numbers

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catalan_number#Second_recursive_formula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranomostro (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup HTML

I'm sure you mean well, but this mass WP:DRIVEBY tagging with {{Cleanup HTML}} isn't helpful without some indication about exactly what and where the offending tags are. I looked at the first one that popped up in my watchlist (Gamma function), and I couldn't even find anything. So unless you've got a tool that can generate a report about what the problems are, can you go back and remove these? Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and sorry for the surprise tagging! I do actually have some scripts that can generate reports of HTML problems by article (though in this case I was relying on live search engine results) and the detection of unwanted HTML tags in the by-tag report at Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss#HTML_tags is actually the reason I'm filling up the de-HTML work queue. But any editor should be able to pretty easily find HTML markup by looking for "<" in the wikitext. In the case of Gamma function, I guess it's a bit harder because there are a bunch of legitimate <math> tags, but if you keep searching you'll see it also has <tt> tags, which according to the documentation are obsolete. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged

I spent most of the day researching the most common notation for representing sets with limited cardinality & when I made the edit, you hastily reverted it without any constructive words. The section I edited was wrong & failed to address the various questions/concerns on the article's talk page. I felt that I addressed these in addition to correcting the existing mistakes. Could you tell me what I need to do change about (or add to) my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspawn9911 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cartesian theater" @ Infinite regress

At your undid comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinite_regress&oldid=prev&diff=886155153 You had said "I'll just leave it as a "See also" section hatnote". And have made no further changes. Why? When? Make it, please! --Nashev (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]