User talk:Mindmatrix/2015

Archive: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023

Template:Infobox academic division

Mindmatrix, ping me if you would like some input on how to modify the template for use as a universal infobox for constituent colleges, schools, departments, institutes, etc. I have replaced most of the previous uses of Infobox university in University of Florida-related articles with Infobox academic division, and I would suggest we restore the other 60+ uses that were replaced by the TfD nominator. I think the template could be improved with addition of two or three additional optional parameters, and maybe delete a handful that duplicate parameters from Infobox university and are probably unnecessary at the university subdivision level. Let me know -- I'm happy to help any way I can. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the infobox on some of the articles from which it was deleted, though I didn't do a wholesale revert (some of the parameter deletions or {{URL}} fixes, for example, were sensible). I certainly wouldn't object to receiving help in restoring the others, and perhaps adding the template to more relevant articles.

I've updated the infobox to use Module:InfoboxImage, though it'll need more work. We can discuss further template changes at Template talk:Infobox academic division, and I still think the subset of parameters dealing with location should be addressed (for all infoboxes) per my aside at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 8#Template:Infobox academic division, though that's a large and unrelated undertaking. Mindmatrix 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, here's a list of academic colleges and schools (including med, law and business schools) that Andy replaced the previous infoboxes with Infobox university during the first week in December: [1]. These all appear to be candidates for Infobox academic division. I would think that the med school and law school infoboxes can and should be easily folded into this one with the addition of an optional field or two. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I just read Lucky iron fish, and it is the most fun article I've seen this week. Thanks for writing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it! Mindmatrix 19:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rifts

Hi, 18 days ago i saw you edited Rifts page in wiki. I need a lil hand to help my favor. Would you deliver my words to developers of rifts? Most people wanting Rifts game in smartphone. Most RPG games now contains a kingdom based-story. RIFTS is different. Well, thats all i wanted to say. I wait for reply. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothern gun (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 January 2015

I made a minor change to the Wikipedia page. I otherwise have no connection with the game or to its developers. If you want to send a message to the developers, you can contact them at +1 (734) 721-2900, the company helpdesk, or the company's web forums. Good luck. Mindmatrix 12:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Best of The Transactor Volume 1

Hi Mindmatrix. The discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/The Transactor is now closed, but given your final comment I thought you might be interested in seeing the cover of The Best of The Transactor Volume 1. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By the way, I based my comment on a quick web search I conducted, by which I had found an article that mentioned Best of The Transactor without a volume number. (It may have been this Google Books entry, but I don't precisely recall.) On a lark, I also just found The Best of The Transactor Volume 1 at the Internet Archive and at 1000bit. The former may merit a link in the article. Mindmatrix 15:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, done! —Psychonaut (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I seek revenge

First warining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.143.48 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How about you not make silly threats or incorrect changes to articles? Mindmatrix 15:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been fighting for years

I WILL NOT TOLERATE BEING CALLED SILLY I AM MISS ALISON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.143.48 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 January 2015 UTC

Quit leaving useless messages on my talk page. Mindmatrix 15:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vincenzo Pipino page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox academic division

Template:Infobox academic division has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already voted and expressed a rationale in the new TfD. In case you missed it, Andy Mabbett filed a DRV with regard to the non-administrative close and got three users to agree with him. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the notice and update. I was not aware of the deletion review. Mindmatrix 22:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

MM, as the creator of Infobox academic division, you may want to chime in these pending TfD discussions from December 8/January 22 and November 29. I am going to request that these two TfDs (and all of the related TfDs) be closed tomorrow; in one form or another, they have been pending since the end of November, and it is evident that there is no reasoned consensus to merge the templates per the nominations of the nominator. It's time to stop the silliness, and punt this back to the WikiProject for discussion and quick resolution (7 to 10 days). I think we can accomplish your original purpose of merging all of the constituent college and school infobox templates into Infobox academic division in short order, while maintaining it as a narrowly tailored template separate from Infobox university. I look forward to wrapping this up with your assistance and moving on to less contentious endeavors. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

OpenBTS

Re [2], do you have a suggestion about what to do about the naming/linking given [3] and [4]? —Sladen (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably best to delete it from the list. A few of the other entries should probably be deleted too, as some are old and outdated. Mindmatrix 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm politely raising it again, as it would appear that the project has effectively been re-named, when its main developer switched employers, and the previous employer held a trademark for the previous name… in which case pointing to out of date materials may not be entirely helpful. —Sladen (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First, your original comment wasn't clear - I thought you were talking about the inclusion of a link in the "external links" section. Since you're talking about renaming the article, I'm not sure why you asked on my talk page, as my recent edit of that article is the only one I've ever made to it. This question belongs on Talk:OpenBTS, where you're likely to elicit responses from people who have previously edited the article. Mindmatrix 13:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jolly Darkie Target Game

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Canada Job Grant

Harrias ^talk 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

creation–evolution

An article you recently edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Brownies' Book

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox academic division

Hey, Mindmatrix. The TfD for this was finally closed today (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division). Are you interested in starting a template talk page discussion that considers what parameters should be added and deleted to implement your original intent in creating this animal? With the addition of a handful of discipline or profession-specific parameters, this template should become the standard infobox for all constituent colleges and schools, including architecture, business, dental, divinity, engineering, fine arts, law, liberal arts, medical, nursing, pharmacy and other professional and graduate schools. In addition to notifying WikiProject Universities, I would also suggest asking User:ElKevbo to participate, as he brings some specific RW experience to university-level topics. Let me know what your thinking is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I haven't devoted much time to WP lately (mostly reverting vandalism for the past month or so). I posted one suggestion at Template talk:Infobox academic division in early January, and I'll certainly try to come up with others, particularly to consider template redirects to this template. I'll look into it this upcoming weekend if I get a chance. Mindmatrix 02:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MM. I suggest we review the TfD for your template, as well as the other related TfDs from November. There are some good hints in those discussions as to what should be added to Infobox academic division, and I think there are several parameters that can probably be safely removed too. I'll ping ElKevbo and request his input. After we clean it up, we can recruit some other editor to implement its use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've set up a draft parameter map [5], so that we can start an insiders discussion before presenting a proposal on the template or WikiProject talk page. It's a draft, and is ready for your comments and revisions when you can get to it; we can add proposed optional discipline-specific parameters for divinity, law, medical schools, etc., as our reviews of existing articles indicates. I have invited ElKevbo to participate in the preliminary discussions. Looking forward to working with you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's a nice start; I've already made a few comments, and will propose a few more soon. Mindmatrix 20:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, MM, it's an organizational shell to get the insiders discussion started. I've found that if you get the input of the knowledgeable folks first, you can avoid a lot of embarrassing omissions/mistakes before throwing it out to everyone else for criticism and approval. You may also want to critically review the discussion purposes/goals stated at the outset to make sure I'm not missing any obvious issues that we want to discuss as part of this. Over the next couple of days, I'm going to re-read the TfDs for the various related infoboxes (law, medicine, academic faculty, etc.) which started last November, and compile a list of the subdivision-level parameters that we want to add for discipline- or profession-specific data for divinity, law, medical schools, etc. Before we're done, we may want to review all of the categories of constituent colleges by discipline/profession to see what subdivision-level parameters we may be missing. We also need to distinguish this template from that for universities, but also from that for residential colleges in the template documentation/instructions. This is our chance to implement your original concept, get it right for a whole host of articles, and I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll review the purposes section this weekend, but I see no glaring omissions from a first reading. Mindmatrix 20:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ku Klux Klan in Canada

Hello! Your submission of Ku Klux Klan in Canada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already drafted a reply but had not yet submitted it. Mindmatrix 15:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ku Klux Klan in Canada

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ontario provincial budget, 2013

Thanks for your contribution to the Wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

and so it continues.....

the sandboxing of the POV opus is currently repeating, without any attempt at NPOV/fairness, and only enablement re approving of formatting (see V's comment on WTM's talkpage) and no concern whatsoever with balanced content and better/broader sources.....and the obvious SYNTH of many passages and the way quotes are stitched together in pseudo-academ-ese e.g. the Hongcouver section; the poor writing style is bogglingly bad; but not as bad as the overt POVism.....many "old stock" BC Chinese have complained about Chinese with no roots in the province making a bandwagon out of issues and events they were not connected to; this is a case in point, as are also many of the cites he likes to use (MA and PhD theses as if notable commentary??). Whatever, it's just more evidence to me that Wikipedia has lost any integrity it may once have had, and that those with "authority" (or who pretend to it) are not equipped to deal with POV content in areas they know nothing about. Is it worth me even caring anymore? Well, I'm going to fix the execrable English composition and remove a lot of the bunk on the CCinBC article, and wonder why whole sections there are larger than e.g. Economy of Vancouver, where such material rightly belongs; ethnic segregation of history and society is what this really is, and it's very worrisome in terms of Wikipedia pandering to it, while vilifying me for daring to challenge it....Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lake Hill

Redirecting a community to its county is thoroughly unhelpful, especially as a county should not have information about communities aside from a list of them; we have enough community articles that readers can expect a separate article for a bluelinked community name. This is, moreover, an excellent way to prevent the creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vincenzo Pipino

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks anyway

saw your reversion then restoration of TE's threat. The absurdity of what's been going on is boggling/ what's odd about that new threat (one of so many sword-rattlings) is I haven't actually said anything about WTM in days; POV is being violated, and pushed off the table by mounting claims/threats about blocking me...but none of those threatening know enough of the content to have any valid say even if they did read what I have to say about it (The Interior is a BCer now working within WMF so he's one editor among that group who does know BC history/geography). I've been soldiering on with making the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia article readable, organized, without repetition, and have yet to substantially tackle is mass of POV tub-thumping soapboxery, similar on the other articles WTM created out of thin air....but it seems that me proceeding with cleaning up his POV work and awful writing and SYNTH is where this is latest threat is coming from.

As with the Cypress Hills Massacre downcasing issue where Canadian editors have rallied to overturn guideline-based external meddling, this particular case of the hounding of a BC Wikipedian who dares complain about ethnopolitical SYNTH/OR/obstructionism and procedural harassment being threatend repeatedly while what he says it outright rejected as "too long" is a black mark in the history of Wikipedia.

I'll be writing a list of projects that I was going to do, or things that were in need of fixing, before giving up with months and months and months of ongoing personal attack (before this was the ottawa shootings matter, the Mt Polley thing, and the needlessly long RMs on native endonyms and the regional district hyphens, and the war over WP:NCL and WP:NCET.....so much bureaucracy used to stop/revert correction of bad mistakes or to diddle titles by people who don't even read the article or the policy/guideline they invoke.

Seem the section with bits from the NPOV policy on my talkpage where Viriditas put it after blanking it from his page and refusing to discuss it; and Anna Defrosiaks' similar dismissal of my explanation....why do people who have gotten power have so little inability to read? And can so blithely ignore the mountains of excess writing that WTM fielded in various arenas to defray and distract any work on improving/balancing the article he clearly has WP:OWN problem.

Calling me a DIVA when "regional expert" is more like it, or "combative" for defending myself against ongoing onslaught, is topsy-turvy.

I've heard so much bullshit it's getting time to pull the plug. I'll be making a list of titles where I'd meant to do work and titles I've never had a chance to create and then writing a retirement statement as to why I'm giving up; too many POV problems mounting across Wikipedia, and behaviourally-based squabbling to "go after" those editors "trying to do the right thing", and endless title-fiddling with very little actual article-writing. I will probably also write about Wikipedia's mounting problems of bias and info-war and bureaucratic inanity for the real world.....about thee penetration of Wikipedia since its start by the info-war establishments, be they corporate, American, British or Russian....or Chinese as I believe the case to be here, and also noting the mandarinization of English articles of late and more

Why someone who' never been to BC is so hot-to-trot to control content about it for a particular agenda, to the point of mounting massive campaigns of complaint and sophistry to challenge a long-time BC editor for calling "bullshit" on that control effort, is a very good question. The answer is fairly obvious; but our narrative is being changed b y the "victors" and history as we know is written by the victors...who are usually liars, and who invariably suppress true history to advance rankly politicized versions of same.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Our history is being colonized....aggressively by one faction, blindly tolerated by another. And all by people who don't actually know enough about it to be even offering an opinion, never mind assigning blame.Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)