User talk:ජපස

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited

[1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange nuclear physics on user subpages

Hi, what is the policy on enwp regarding user pages like User:Edguy99/Nuclear Physics and User:Edguy99/Matter and Energy? I noticed this user's drawings in commons:category:Nuclear physics, and I do not regard them as educational. But it is a bit difficult to get them deleted as long as they are in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that if someone has a picture of their pet cat or something on their userpage, then that image will tend not to be deleted from Commons; but that images illustrating theories of physics and stuff like that are probably only acceptable here if they're being used to work on the encyclopedia. In my opinion this might include images with significant problems if they're being used to discuss the development of images that might eventually be usable. Articles in userspace may suffer from significant problems but may be there because the purpose is to eventually fix the problems sufficiently that they can be moved to article space. If, on the other hand, it looks as if the articles are being kept in user space for some purpose other than contributing to the encyclopedia, then it may be a good idea to propose deletion of the userspace articles via WP:MfD.

I suggest that you begin by discussing the matter directly with the user, explaining the problems you see with the images. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now left a message at User talk:Edguy99, using a template from the page you suggested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like he's using his page as an educational or self-publishing site rather than as a user page. kwami (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Sheree Silver

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Optics

Hi, thanks for the invitation. Optics is quite a magnum opus – my compliments. Is there any reason it's over at wikisource, though? I don't have an account there, and did not plan on getting one. Wouldn't a sandbox over on WP be more appropriate for a draft version – such as Talk:Optics/Sandbox? That way, we also wouldn't have all the red links. Anyway, once the text is ready to come here to WP, feel free to give me a shout, and I'll take a look, do some copy-editing, suggest some additions etc. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. I'll just wait until things have moved here to WP, then. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)