User talk:0x0077BE/Archive 1

Hi

I agree with your comment on Talk:Scientific consensus. In my experience this group of articles is "owned" and strongly defended, so it might be hard to change the article. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into an edit war or anything, but I don't think my statements were all that controversial. I get the feeling that the consequences section was something like padding in what overall looks like a sub-par article.User:0x0077BE (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello! Thanks for removing that image from the Wiki. It made a difference! - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 01:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Careless (Devon) Whisper"?

Even though the list has been "disappeared" (for now, anyway) I must admit that the article looks a lot "tidier" as a result. But I'm missing George already! Maybe he deserved his own separate mention after all, as a (more) notable case, haha? Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The old list can be found in the history of course. I wasn't convinced of that diagnosis from the cite for George Michael anyway, but I think it's more appropriate to put that on George Michael's page rather than on the FAS page. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"I'm never gonna edit again; Guilty links have got no rhythm; Though it's easy to revert; I know you're not a fool!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

I am here to inform you that, on scientific consensus, the citation on the line "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." is a dynamic webpage, guess what, it changed, and that line was removed a month ago by reason "this is not in source." Maybe you can help find some RS (or inform the others) to update the source? Thanks. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I really

... like that colour of yours! - DVdm (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 0x0077BE (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Barnstar, most appreciated!

— Cirt (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've never given a Barnstar before, but I really appreciate the work you've been doing in so many Freedom of Speech articles, thought it was the least I could do. 0x0077BE (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you make a page by mistake

Do this (remove the spaces):

{ { db - g7 } }

Good luck Wgolf (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the advice! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

They Live

If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. Not in a spam way. Not really, anyway. I think you may find "we" totally agree. Maybe even the other two. Kumbaya.

But if you have, and just aren't thankful for being reminded of it, that's also cool. It wasn't perfect. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:TYS

Hi 0x0077BE, congrats on hitting the ten-year mark and welcome aboard. — Scott • talk 12:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you're right

You're right to mark it for deletion. It's too soon. But carried away me thinks. Thanks for picking up on it I guess.WilmaT-H09 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I looked around to see, most of the other Pinoy Big Brother stuff has extensive articles, so I'm sure that once Season 5 actually starts you'll have a chance to turn out a nice page on it! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 04:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigma Beta Phi

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is page listing information on a sorority recognized by the University of Ottawa and University of Ottawa Greek Council. It is a sorority listed in the fraternities and sororities of Canada page here on Wikipedia as well as the page university of Ottawa's Wikipedia page. I made this page because it is mentioned on two legitimate pages on Wikipedia and needs further information to let people know what Greek life is in Canada. It is the first predominantly black bilingual sorority in Canada. This page is essential for those seeking information on the University of Ottawa's student life as well as sororities in Canada. If it was deleted this means you must delete all the pages concerning greek lettered organizations here on Wikipedia Where it is mentioned on Wikipedia:

• University of Ottawa
  
• Fraternities and sororities in Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbruc022 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

--Rbruc022 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Rbruc022

It's not actually my decision whether it gets speedy deleted, but it didn't seem like the case was made that it was especially notable, as it is a single branch of a fraternity organization. It's a borderline case for speedy, but I think a clear case for deletion. I actually did look to see what the rules are for notability in fraternity organizations. If you'll notice, on Fraternities and sororities in Canada, the most recently founded article with a page is Sigma Lambda Gamma, founded in 2004, and that is an international organization with dozens of chapters. One of the redlink organizations is Omega Theta Alpha, which was speedy deleted twice, and roundly failed an AfD because it was a local organization in a school with no special claim to notability. If you'd like there to be an article about Sigma Beta Phi, the best thing to do is to find reliable coverage from trusted sources establishing notability under the general notability guidelines. You can also consult this working draft of notability guidelines for fraternities and sororities. If the organization that you are trying to add now doesn't meet these guidelines, but you are still interested in editing articles on greek life, try joining WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and they can likely assist you in finding appropriate topics that would interest you. Best of luck with your future editing! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph Berkeley

Thank you very much for reviewing! I would like to know what header you might recommend? Of course I think the area is quite distinctive and many of the students who live in the vicinity never venture much further, so seemed useful to distinguish it and begin to pull together documentation of its history. There are individual wiki articles on components, such as Shambhala Publications and Cody's Books, but only pulling them together conveys an understanding of the area. I've been a registered user for a while but not sophisticated user. I read article wiki which said registered users can post. Happy to use process that might add value.Miss Wasky (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, in this case I think that the common title for that general area is Southside, as far as I can tell. The content in the articles you've worked on is good, but because you're just getting started, you really may want to go through the Articles for Creation process to iron out the details. You can get feedback there from experienced users on things like this. In this case, I recommended that the article be deleted here, mainly because I don't think Telegraph is distinct from either Telegraph Avenue or Southside. However, both of those articles need expansion, so you may want to consider moving the content you've created into those articles.

Additionally, this is something I didn't know about until recently, but I love ProveIt - you can enable it in your preferences and it adds a very easy-to-use box for adding perfectly formatted references, which I think goes a long way in making an article look high-quality. Since you're very good with the references, you may want to use it to make things easier. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm - I suppose I might also mention that if you haven't lived in the area for a while, it might be helpful to understand that these days Telegraph Avenue is gaining a significant....weightiness...to the south, in Oakland. Telegraph Avenue is now just as likely to refer to the Temescal district, or the home of the Oakland Art Murmur and First Fridays street festival, as well as other exciting things happening in Oakland. I think the new article disambiguates in an important way. (I hope this is where I'm supposed to be having this conversation...?) thank you - Miss Wasky (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved from Berkeley less than a year ago, but my personal perceptions aren't really important anyway, that's just what made me suspicious that it was the wrong name. What's more important is finding reliable, secondary sources for notability. I didn't find anything that referred to the Telegraph Ave area as anything but "Telegraph Avenue" or "Southside", both of which already have articles. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay that's very helpful. I'll look at expanding a subsection on Telegraph Avenue and will check out ProveIt - much appreciated!Miss Wasky (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Started updating the citations using proveit. fantastic tool, thanks.Miss Wasky (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, I agree! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion taking place at my talk page: User_talk:Binksternet#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FTelegraph_Berkeley. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Making sure new editors don't lose your messages

Hello. A link trail starting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk has led me here. I noticed that you left a message on Miss Wasky's talk page about the location of responses.

If you are concerned about other editors missing your messages, you have at least two options to notify them:

• {{ping}} them. Use this template or otherwise link to someone's user page and a notification will be sent.
• {{talkback}} to them, which is the old way of doing it. Leave this on a user talk page and point to a page where discussion is taking place. (Don't substitute! This allows new editors to remove these notifications more easily.)
  • There are other specific "talkback" templates, such as {{Teahouse talkback}}, {{helpdeskreply}}, and {{subst:AFCHD/u}}. (The last one should be substituted, unlike the rest.)

Make sure you fill in the right parameters for these templates! Anon126 (talk - contribs) 08:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck reply

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

In response to your concerns, I've gone ahead and reset the auto-archival from one (1) month to three (3) months for inactive threads with zero new posts for that time period.

I also reset the bot to leave at least a minimum of five (5) threads on the page.

Hopefully this is now satisfactory,

— Cirt (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I also moved several threads back to the talk page, per your suggestions. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)'

Yeah, shouldn't be a problem. Thanks. Wasn't a huge deal, just different talk page philosophies I suppose! Glad it wasn't too much of a hassle for you. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. Glad we could come to a most amicable resolution here! :) Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Hindus: An Alternative History - copyright-vio?

Are you sure about this? I think those quotes are functional. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, no, but I think they are likely copyvio. The quotes used to be part of the article, and it was something of a WP:QUOTEFARM, the person who added them was very outspoken about keeping them in, and when they were removed per here (at the very least), he moved them into the references. When pressed on the talk page as to why they were actually important for the article, his argument seemed to be that many people would not have access to them to check the sources. Without any specific reason given for why these very long segments of copyrighted works need to be included in here instead of being summarized (as is the case in the text of the article), I don't see a fair use justification for including them, which is why I think that it's likely copyvio. I also think the quotes should be removed for other reasons (including stylistic ones), but copyvio and quotefarm are the most critical. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The one good reason is that the book has been "banned" in India - I think. But I understand the explanation. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify, though, these were not quotes from the book, they were quotes from review articles about the book in journals. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Have a look at being Different. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian

There is a recently begun but long-running discussion about the pronunciation of the name Aram Khachaturian on the article's Talk page. I've added a few comments but apparently I don't understand the issues, so I'm leaving it to others to continue. I may be wrong, but I believe Kwami and Lddr or something are on the right track, but Yerevantsi is confident and persistent, so I don't know. I've just been searching for a linguist who might help resolve the issue, and I found you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, that looks like a doozy! I'm not actually a linguist (I'm a physicist), I'm just a participant in WikiProject Linguistics. Either way, it seems like maybe the conversation could use a neutral 3rd party, so I'll try and wade in and help find a way forward. Thanks. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Lddr or something'. Charming. ;P — lfdder 01:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, lfdder! I didn't have the other page in front of me and I couldn't remember your user name exactly. I figured 0x0077BE would figure out who I meant. I guess I have to have two windows open at the same time so I can refer to the other page while I'm typing a comment somewhere else. (Maybe one reason I couldn't remember it is because I couldn't tell whether the first letter in your user name is a capital i, a lower-case l, or the number 1.) But I apologize. And please know that my searching for another linguist was no criticism of you (or kwami). I was just hoping to find a neutral third party linguist who could help resolve the issue (and convince Yerevantsi). CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Molybdenum

Since you're a physicist, I can ask you about something in Molybdenum. Inspired by some beautiful photos I found of synthetic bismuth (see my User page), I read the article about bismuth and then proceeded to begin reading articles about other elements. I learn as I read, and I look for things that need fixing. I saw an abbreviation I've never seen and I wonder if you could tell me what it means. It is just the letters "nm" after a range of sizes for wire thickness at the end of the section Molybdenum#Physical properties. Do you think this should be explained briefly for the average reader? CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

nm stands for nanometer. I've pipelinked the units in the first instance on the Molybdenum page to the Nanometre page (as well as the reference to Gigapascals) to make that a bit more clear. I'm not sure if that's standard practice or not, but checking a few of the links on the "What links here?" page for nanometer, seems like it's done in at least a few places. That'll probably help. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cadmium

I'm on to another element. (Let me know if you don't want me to bother you with questions like this.) In the first paragraph in Cadmium#History, we read:

"Cadmium...was discovered simultaneously in 1817 by Friedrich Stromeyer and Karl Samuel Leberecht Hermann, both in Germany, as an impurity in zinc carbonate. Stromeyer found the new element as an impurity in zinc carbonate...."

The first sentence says that cadmium was discovered simultaneously by Stromeyer and Hermann, as an impurity in zinc carbonate. The second sentence says that Stromeyer found the new element as an impurity in zinc carbonate. I had noticed the repetition of zinc carbonate and was trying to figure out the best way to avoid the repetition when I noticed that the second sentence singles out Stromeyer and ignores Hermann (and I don't see any mention of Hermann further down in the section). Do you have any ideas on how to deal with both issues? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I did some sleuthing. Back in 2010, Stromeyer was in there on his own; the unfinished story of Hermann was added later. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering if you're still editing

I wanted to ask you a question about an article, but I thought I'd first find out if you're still editing on Wikipedia. I haven't seen any recent edits by you. Hope all is well. CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I've been quite busy lately (as always), and haven't had time to go through and do any editing lately. I even forgot to weigh in on that name dispute! I'll look back over some of the other stuff you posted a bit later. Sorry about that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'm glad you're back. I forget what name dispute you are referring to. CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

We seem to have made simultaneous edits that resulted in your edit not showing up; the thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tarc reported by User:R3ap3R (Result: ) if you wish to repost your comments, thanks. R3ap3R (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciated your comments

YOu left a comment on the RFC I posted about on the ANI board and I appreciated it. You've said you don't believe it's neutral nor clear, and TonyTheTiger has said the same thing. I'm not so sure one sentence will do, and I have seen RFC's with more that just one sentence, but I'll go ahead and do as you've suggested. Thanks again Kosh Vorlon    16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, is that better ? I'm not trying to be a smartass, it appears to follow the example formats I saw on the RFC pages Kosh Vorlon    16:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a much more well-formatted RFC. I imagine it'll generate much better discussion on the subject. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typo

I was surprised to see your revision of my addition of the ASAT abbreviation to the Facilitated communication pages, until I noticed that I had somehow inadvertently added "as" in the middle of the name "Anne". I'm not sure how I did that, but thank you for your diligence. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)}

Oops, I actually didn't even notice that you added that acronym elsewhere on the page! I saw the diff, saw that you changed "Anne" to "Aasne" and figured it was some random defacement (I took at look at your contributions and revised my assessment to "probably some weird mistake"), so I reverted it. If I had seen that you had made other changes I wouldn't have done a straight reversion. Thanks. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please review this article

Hello! I have done a substantial rewrite of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article and would like to have it assessed. I submitted it for peer review but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice. I am resorting to directly contacting Wikipedians with a background in physics. If you have the time, would you care to review this article, and tell me if it is worthy of being featured on the Main Page? Kurzon (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)