User talk:Edwin Herdman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Laundry List, Talk:Thief: Deadly Shadows[edit]

This article is too big! There are too many fiddly details, and the article should be cut down some to bring it in line with other gaming articles. --Edwin Herdman 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Condensing and reorganizing the Mission Overview should help cut down a bit, especially with understanding the complex story.
(see Thief: Deadly Shadows#Story)
The original expanded text can be found here at the Thief Gaming Wikia.
Tomjenkins52 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Peltier and...that band's song laughing about him in jail[edit]

Hey there. I noticed you reverted the [of a reference to Leonard Peltier] in the song of a band as being "inappropriate." While the placing of the quote and the style of writing aren't up to Wikipedia standards, the reference itself is legitimate, and the band has their own page. I'm not really agitating, as this is the first I've heard of it, but it looks like this is notable. --Edwin Herdman 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I thought. But I decided not to move it to the right place and merely deleting it for not following wiki standards. If you want, you can do it yourself. I believe it should be in a "popular cuture" section, with the reference being that the song "mentions" Pletier instead of "makes fun of".Maziotis 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The song is actually named "Laughing When Leonard Peltier Gets Raped In Jail," but I'm in no big hurry to add it in. (Edit: Oops, right, I don't agree with "makes fun of." Sorry, here's a totally useless post, then. --Edwin Herdman 04:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

US Capitol vandalism[edit]

Hi, I recieved a message that my edit on the US Capitol page was considered vandalism when it is actually factually correct. It stated the fact that Trumbell painted himself into not only the Cornwallis painting, but in fact, all four of the paintings he completed in the Capitol instead of signing the art he created.

I apologize. I think what happened is that the vandalism occurred right before and after your edit; I had to revert it to get to the original. Ignore that warning, then, and please put your edit back in. I'll delete the bad warning from your page, as well. Thanks for the message! --Edwin Herdman 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


For references, see the bottom of the page at Simutronics. I'm not sure who's nommed it for deletion, the "assertion of notability" is pretty clear in the lead. --Elonka 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I've seen of this AfD, but I'll definitely go chime in. I'm new to AfD but there are an awful lot of nominations that assume things are not notable or advertising (I'm probably guilty of some of it). --Edwin Herdman 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait. This is another one of the AfDs that Martijn Hoekstra lumped in with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AVATAR_(MUD). This is going to be problematic sorting out. --Edwin Herdman 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I"ve played Gemstone for years....and it's associated other games. It's perfectly notable. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break![edit]

Check out Martijn's second comment here. The fact that his simple mistake is causing people to have that view of things is a problem. The guy's a true MUD fan and I feel partially guilty for not asking an admin to close it sooner and give Martijn a chance to try it again. A simple mistake has been very hard on the guy, and most people aren't aware of his comment there. --Edwin Herdman 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on my user page[edit]

Thanks for noticing the comment left on my user page instead of my talk page. I replied to the editor about his question. Usually if I run across a new editor (or an old one who made a mistake) that leaves a comment on the user page and it's a good faith comment, I'll move the comment over to the talk page and then leave a note for the original editor that I moved it for them, usually with a link showing them where I moved it. Thanks again for noticing. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to help! --Edwin Herdman 04:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I was pretty stoked when I found that it wasn't already taken! Gaff ταλκ 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Stay on Topic at Village Pump[edit]

Please don't discuss off topic items at Village Pump Policy. If you have a concern about my user page, please bring it up on my Talk Page. If you want to bring it up on policy, please start your own catagory. Please remember WP:EQ and stay on topic. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel you misunderstand some points in Wikipedia policy. Discussions over a disagreement must have context, and since you did not provide any I went for the closest source. While I don't mind that you have commented on my Talk page, I do mind that you did not provide any inkling of the true scope and nature of your problem, and that appears to be misrepresenting things. If you would like, I can go to an admin and they will make these same observations. --Edwin Herdman 04:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Gee Ed, if I had known you were gonna get all eloquent at ANI, I wouldn't have been quite so blithely flippant. My post looked quite shabby in comparison to yours. Thanks for clarifying the situation and expressing it so well; your comments were extremely well-written, and exactly on topic : ) Doc Tropics 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was a bit off-put by the attack, but I recover quickly. Been moderating various forums since 2002, so it comes naturally (although punctuation still doesn't). I checked your userpage and see no mention of adminship...if you aren't one, I think it's time to get one involved so we can at least have somebody justify the correct interpretation of Wiki policy. Thank you for the note, look forward to dealing with you again. p.s.: I'm in an IRC channel with another guy called Doc Sar (for Sarcasm), who is also a very calm sort and quite knowledgeable. Asked him if he wasn't in fact you. Small world! --Edwin Herdman 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL, no, I haven't figured out IRC yet. I keep meaning to, but other things keep bumping it down the priority list. Thanks for the admin comment, that's quite a compliment. I'll probably stand for an RfA one day, but I'm still trying to master the fine points of policy, hone my people skills. heh. I could obviously take a lesson from you (in fact I did). The next time something like this comes up, I'll just copy your comments and put my sig on them! Happy editing. Doc Tropics 05:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Why, I'll...I'll sue for copyri...oh, frog blast, I can't. In all seriousness, if my comments are helpful, I encourage you to use them with abandon. Feel free to drag me into any dispute you want help in clearing up, as well.
Ironically, I've only got the {{User en}} Native Speaker tag up on my user page. I know there's a professional one, as well, but I don't use it. (I do forget to sign my posts, though) --Edwin Herdman 05:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edwin, thanks for the talk page comments. I do appreciate the offer of help. I'm not sure if you're an admin or not. I'd rather have admins only do this, because mentorship (different than mediation) has teeth: it's to help a troubled editor learn what it is he's doing wrong, and stay out of trouble. Mentorship is successful because it can be enforced through protections, blocks, and deletions. Mediation, in contrast, is non-binding.

You seem to have a good grasp on policy though. You're of course more than welcome to help talk to him directly. Perhaps ask him if there is an area of policy that he would like to learn a little more about, and then help him with it? SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and that's a perfectly good reason for me not to be involved (I expected that to be said, in fact).
I consider myself to have a decent grasp on any policy I come across in Wikipedia...about 10 minutes after I first encounter it ;) I know some very well, others, not at all. For this reason I refuse to call myself a "Wikipedia policy wonk." Maybe someday. Thank you. I started writing another comment for the AVATAR (MUD) AfD above; check back in a minute. --Edwin Herdman 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Addition - I almost forgot. SanchiTachi did reply to me, which makes me quite happy. There is definitely a lot of progress on this issue tonight. I also wrote a comment for the other party that I'm quite sure will be seen. I think what happened is two people with an imperfect understanding of Wikipedia met and caused a critical mass. Move the control rods in and the reaction slows enough so that it's back under easy control. --Edwin Herdman 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm not certain whether you want me to move or not, I would take a look at this, as well. It's something that Finell wants to address but in all honesty shouldn't. I think SanchiTachi should be informed of the policy on user pages and ownership, of course. --Edwin Herdman 07:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! Ocatecir Talk 18:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Abolishing ANI[edit]

Thanks. You have any ideas where we can go from here?--Fahrenheit451 03:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your vision for merging AN and ANI makes sense. Let's start. Next step, find some way to organize it so that admins don't get impulsive and cranky who monitor it.--Fahrenheit451 05:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. You seem to think RfAs have some political overtones. I think you are correct. Yes, let's gather support for this change.--Fahrenheit451 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Edwin, I propose that the merged noticeboards be called ANOSI, Administrator's Noticeboard Of Serious Incidents.--Fahrenheit451 22:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the first editor I have mentioned it to. It's a place to start.--Fahrenheit451 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:OSW Box.jpg[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:OSW Box.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:OSW Box.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:OSW Box.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


The figure farthest to the right is a polygon for which some line segments that aren't the sides of the polygon (but that are inside the area) are shown. Georgia guy 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems nonstandard and confusing, and a reader might assume that drawing interior lines is fine (as far as I know it's not). That is also flatly contradicted by other sources, i.e. this one. The big issue here is that the description and the image's own summary are at odds. The summary states: "the shape on the right is not a polygon because the lines cross." --Edwin Herdman 16:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I went to the link and it says that the page doesn't exist. Georgia guy 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there's an error; you put the | at the end. I went to the URL with the | removed and the figure that it says is not a polygon is not a polygon period. It is simply 2 triangles that touch at a vertex, which is not a polygon. Two triangles that touch at an edge is an example of what you are saying is not a polygon based your info. Georgia guy 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the broken link. I don't understand why we should rationalize one figure being not a polygon while on another we call it a polygon with line segments. One could call the rightmost figure a collection of polygons touching at the edge. Something should be done so that it's clear that most people do not want a figure drawn like that when they ask for a polygon. --Edwin Herdman 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The figure on the far right in the polygon page is most certainly a polygon. It happens to be a self-intersecting one, sometimes also called coptic or (mistakenly) complex. There is a brief discussion in the text on how to calculate the area of this kind of polygon. Each side runs from one outer point right across the figure to the far end. If people do not want a figure drawn like that, they need to ask for a simple polygon.
The reference given by Edwin Herdman is plain wrong: don't believe everything about maths that you read on the web! This is perhaps easier to accept when you consider that the famous class of regular star polygons, which include the time-honoured pentagram, are entirely missing from the page. The figure claimed not to be a polygon is of course a perfectly good cross-quadrilateral, see for example this page. Interestingly, if both "wings" are the same area then the net area of the polygon can be calculated to be zero (depending on how the "area" is defined!).
Cheers, -- Steelpillow 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, folks, but thanks for the corrections. I think it would be a good idea to make a note that the farthest-right figure is a coptic polygon, to address the confusion I noted (and evidenced) above. --Edwin Herdman 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought about this a bit, but I can't see a way to bring the subject up in the introduction, without making it a bit awkward, and distracting for people who do not have this concern. There is already a section on Self-intersecting polygons listed in the Table of Contents. I can't think of anything better, sorry. -- Steelpillow 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomohiro Nishikado[edit]

Back in June, you made an edit on Nishikado's page saying that he was against depicting human death in a video game. For reasons I stated on the talk page, I removed that line. I was just curious if you had a source for your assertion. As I stated on the talk page, the bio linked to at the bottom of the page [1] (you have to plug it into a translator which will not give much sensical result but will associate the game and the programmer) clearly shows that Nishikado was the creator of Western Gun (which makes sense since he was, I believe, Taito's only video game engineer at that point in time and I have seen other sources credit this game to him, just none that are reliable enough for wikipedia). This game is a duel between two cowboys better know as Gun Fight in the United States and clearly depicts humans killing each other. Furthermore, there is an interview snippet at [2] in which Nishikado himself states that he experimented with using soldiers in Space Invaders but decided it did not fit the "image" of the game. I grant you that is a vague statement that does not necessarily contradict your assertion, but combined with his work on Western Gun, I do doubt its veracity. I do not know if this was one edit in a million for you or someting you just wrote on the fly one day, so my apologies if I seem to be dogging you on a minor point in your wiki life, but if you have additional sourced info on Nishikado I would love to hear about it. Indrian 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why that doesn't square with his comments on record elsewhere, but he has clearly stated this in an interview:
Please review his comments there, and thanks for asking. ---- Edwin Herdman (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that is certainly interesting. I guess I will restore the line for now since it is hard to get any more clear than that interview on the issue. I still find it puzzling, however. Thanks. -- Indrian (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OSW_Box.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:OSW_Box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphim Whipp 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Can somebody please delete this bonehead's account? It serves NO purpose anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: When you make "bonehead" comments on somebody's user page, your IP is recorded - and aside from potentially endangering your privacy, you are degrading yourself for no purpose. Let's not do that! Thanks. (I am leaving this here as a record as unsolicited 'contributions' from a web user, somehow related to Konami's "Contra" game franchise, have happened before and elsewhere.) Edwin Herdman (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the franchise which has a website that you neglect and which you have no interest in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi Edwin, regarding your comments on Jimbo's talk page, please note that there is currently an RfC ongoing at the santorum (neologism) talk page: Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content. Cheers, --JN466 07:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You might be interested to know that I [solicited input from WikiProject Countering systemic bias], partly in order that my angle would be exposed to criticisms and checks, and also for new thinking. I think that Jimbo is clearly trending in this direction when talking about what is really a core policy about WP:COATRACK and also bios of living persons. Edwin Herdman (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting angle; I never thought of posting there. But it is relevant, as our demographics are skewed, and I agree about the systemic bias in favour of press sources. (I used to think encyclopedias were written by scholars, or at least along scholarly principles.)
The santorum article was actually a lot worse a couple of weeks ago; it completely misrepresented The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (3rd para of the lead, compare what it said then to what it says now), cited (and quoted!!) several self-published erotic novels, plus another erotic novel that was actually published in 1971 and had misspelt "sanctorum" as "santorum", and among other choice sources it cited an alternative crossword puzzle book (not kidding) and a "geek limerick contest" from a (self-described) satirical geek website. (There is also an arbitration request ongoing, though it presently looks like it will be declined.) Ah well. Thanks for your comments. --JN466 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 05:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Edwin Herdman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)