User talk:Gavia immer/Archive 3

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


Rubicante[edit]

Hi, unsure what you are trying to do with this redirect but it now redirects to itself. Keith D (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for catching my screwup. That's what happens when you press Control-V without looking, I guess. Gavia immer 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

I undid the redirect you put into User:Main page because when a page is redirected to the main page, it is difficult to access the redirect page. Second of all, it is not likely to be a useful redirect because it is only used about 8 times a month and it is a highly unlikely search term. -- IRP 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I'm not going to contest it. It's not a huge deal either way. However, I do think it's useful, if only marginally so. Moreover, I generally don't see the point of ancient sockpuppet tags for weel-known vandals; it's not as if they actually do anything. Nonetheless, as I said, I won't contest it. Gavia immer 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Nanotechnology Fail-Safes Page

The page that you have edited is our college project. May I ask why have you taken our pictures down, taken off our survey and edited our redirects? We need all of these parts for the next 4 months. Could you please fix the changes that you have made because this is effecting our project.

We are WPI students (www.wpi.edu) and if you have any concerns, please contact us at nanoiqp@gmail.com ASAP.


Thank you,

Nano Fail-Safe IQP team

Silly me![edit]

I just realized that what i reverted on the main talk page shouldn't have been! Nice catch on your part! I think I need to sleep now. Thanks for the save. PumeleonT 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem from me - it happens. Rootology might not like your edit summary, though. In any case, it's better to have people watching the page rather than not. Gavia immer 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Taisho 3[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Taisho 3, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Taisho 3 is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Taisho 3, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx[edit]

For the catch here. I still can't figure out why it did that, as it doesn't appear in the code of the page. I corrected it and blanked that one so it will be deleted sooner rather than later. Maybe I'll ask someone on line to zap it. --KP Botany (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to catch those fairly quickly, because they can end up mangling the page markup almost invisibly. The wikilink syntax has to allow single ticks, but I wish it just wouldn't allow multiple single ticks in a row. On the other hand, because these are a pet peeve of mine, I usually notice them quickly enough. Gavia immer 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's useful new page patrolling then. Please feel free to stalk my contributions anytime. Still, if you manage to figure out how I did it. Oops, I know, quick editing, school 50 hours a week, family, work, .... --KP Botany (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis[edit]

I saw your stylistic improvements to On Basilisk Station. Thanks. Just for your interest I quote from the wp:Manual of Style: "Capitals are not used for emphasis at Wikipedia. Where wording cannot provide the emphasis, use italics". See you around. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right - if you see similar examples of capitals being used simply for emphasis or decoration, you should feel free to change them immediately. Actually, it's best not to use italics in an image caption, either, but I was doing blanket formatting and didn't want to reword it. Gavia immer 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Meiji redirects - thank you for the "heads up"[edit]

Hi Gavia, thank you for the notice/invitation. I have nothing concrete to add to the discussion that you mentioned on my talk page - I was basically filling holes and following up after the RfD close of Meiji 3. I defer to the will of those who know more about about this than I do, and hope that consensus is achieved quickly. B.Wind (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wanted to give you an invite because you were doing the changes, but of course there's no obligation. The discussion seems to have support for redirecting to years instead of periods, but I suspect there's never going to be an unambiguous bright-line consensus for one over the other. Oh, well, it's not a problem unless it is one... Gavia immer 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the speedy dletion of Melanie Pavlik[edit]

Thank you for helping out there. I was looking through WP:Speedy, but of course I always tend to look at the specific headings and tend to forget the general ones. So when I did not see anything that applied in the redirect section, I took it to RfD. In future cases, I will remember to look at the general section to see if any of them apply first. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Attack redirects are always speediable (tag them as {{db-attack}}), but BLP-violating attacks like that - where the only content on Wikipedia is a redirect to some crappiness - are especially bad, because they poison web searches, too. You'll notice that administrator JClemens performed the actual deletion in record time; in general, that sort of thing can't happen too fast. Gavia immer 04:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Hello. When created redirects from Japanese to English names, could you tag them {{R from alternative language}} ? This might help avoid misunderstandings like this. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can. Thank you for pointing that template out to me. I probably knew it existed, but I wasn't really thinking about its existence (so to speak). Meanwhile, you're right that it probably will prevent misunderstandings, which is of course why it exists. Of course, now I have to go back and tag the already-created ones. Gavia immer 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I got these ([1], [2], [3]) when I declined the speedy deletes. You might try WP:AWB to do them all quickly. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Eep. Thanks for not assuming that my actions indicate "a vandalism-only account". Gavia immer 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Admins are selected for their good judgement, not for the speed with which they click the 'block' button.  :-) In this case, 30 seconds of research made it pretty clear what you were doing. BTW, to avoid any more speedy deletion requests, I have started churning through them with AWB. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the idea, at least. Good to see proof of it, though. Gavia immer 04:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: tagging them- I saw that, and thanks for doing it. I started in on it myself, but I'm mostly playing catch-up to you, it seems. Gavia immer 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, my knowledge of Japanese is somewhat limited, but I just used AWB to cruise through the last couple of hundred of your edits that looked like they could be foreign language redirects. Of those, I found and fixed 150 redirects, eight were already done, and I declined one more speedy deletion request. Most of the ones I got were Taishō, Shōwa, Meiji, and Heisei. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help with. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You did most of them, and you did way more than required; so thanks! I'll mop up the rest. I'm mostly finished creating these, by the way - I'll make sure to tag the remaining few new ones, but I'm debating whether it's better to get it all finished now or take a break and do them after the current mess cools down. Either way, I've had a fun and exciting evening :) Gavia immer 05:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad I could help! It has been a fun and exciting evening for me too ... especially since the weather has knocked my power out eight times in the past 20 minutes (but never long enough to exhaust my UPS ... yet). Good luck with the rest of your project, and feel free to let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel your pain - my net connection was humming along well enough to create 2-3 redirects per minute manually (with results as observed ...), but as soon as I started getting talk page messages, the wiki decided to slow to a crawl. It's Murphy's law, I guess. I believe I've got it now, but thanks again. Gavia immer 05:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Showa redirects[edit]

Hi Gavia immer. Can you please explain the utility and reason for your recent creation of all these "Showa #" redirects to years? They have me puzzled.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see above and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Japanese_era.2Fyear_redirects; in short, these are year names in the Japanese calendar. Gavia immer 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I Hadn't seen the posts above when I posted this as they were done in the 5 minute period I had the edit screen open. In any event, of course it was not correct at all that you were reported as a "possible vandalism only account", but note that because these redirects are not intuitive to outside people, it's likely you would have avoided the vandalism report as well as any speedy deletion tagging of the redirects (and possibly future attempts to delete them), if you created the redirects with an explanatory edit summary—possibly something not unlike "redirect from Japanese name for year". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, apparently bulk redirect creation tweaks some people - I did the first half of these about a week ago, and got one tagged for speedy deletion back then, too. I probably should have used a better edit summary, but I was originally just trying to run through them manually as quickly as possible. Probably I need AWB or a bulk script if I'm going to do that again, so I can add a better edit summary without having to do it manually. On the other hand, I don't intend to do another bulk creation any time soon, so that can wait. As I said to Krazilec already, thanks for not taking a block-first approach to the AIV report - and thanks in general for monitoring AIV in the first place. Gavia immer 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please excuse my hasty action. There were lots of nonsense pages being created yesterday, I was tired and failed to recognize an editor acting in good faith. Obviously, I should have shut down my computer and gone to bed. Sorry. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's fine - in the long term, no harm done, although of course it did tie up people's time following up on it. Thank you for apologizing, and consider your apology accepted. It happens that Certain People do create a lot of crap as a means of vandalism, so it's not unreasonable for mass creations like that to warrant scrutiny. However, in the future, please do be certain to check before assuming someone's edits are vandalism - if you had asked, I would have given you the information I gave Fuhghettaboutit and Krazilec, and it wouldn't have needed to take up any more of your time, either. Please do continue watching for vandalism, though - when you noticed my creation of redirects, the Certain People had hit us twice in two days, so it's worth watching (carefully) for. Gavia immer 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Acabashi[edit]

Thank you for your concerns about the upload of possible non-copyright images. You say that 'some' of my images appear not to be mine.
It would be very helpful if you could point out which of these listed your feel are suspect:
ACABASHI KEEF TROUBLE KITCHEN SINK.jpg , ACABASHI JEREMY STACEY.jpg, ACABASHI MEL COLLINS.jpg, ACABASHI FRANK COLLINS 06.jpg, ACABASHI NEIL HUBBARD 01.jpg, ACABASHI MARK SMITH 01.jpg, ACABASHI ADAM PHILLIPS.jpg, ACABASHI DOUGIE DAMONE 02.jpg, ACABASHI BRETT MARVIN 01.jpg, ACABASHI ANDY NEWMARK 01.jpg, and ACABASHI OMALLEY 01.jpg.
I can understand that the image ACABASHI KEEF TROUBLE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.jpg could be a problem, even though I have had this newspaper clip for many years, however I am worried that you or other monitors might down other of my images that you yourself have obviously identified. A particular one, ACABASHI DOUGIE DAMONE 02.jpg was downed though it was was attached to the section beneath the section you removed. Attached to the 'down' notification on my user page was the claim that no copright-notification was given by me thereby not allowing Wikipedia to accept this image; I have double-checked; this is not the case.
This properly copyright-released image was taken from my own personally shot and edited video under my 'aka' name Jack Slipper on www.youtube.com/user/OMalleyTony, www.youtube.com/user/BrettMarvin, and www.dailymotion.com/JackSlipperProductions, (thereby the copyright tag for Acabashi / Jack Slipper) as with most of the other info box shots listed above. Of the two remaining that don't, ACABASHI BRETT MARVIN 01.jpg is a photograph I took myself of the band, and ACABASHI KEEF TROUBLE KITCHEN SINK.jpg is another picture that I took in 1978; in both cases these have been uploaded with the knowledge and sanction of those pictured.
By both searching the vid sites above, and the Wikipedia pages on which my info box pictures have been placed, there will be seen a personal musical and historical connections between the artists, to whom I am also connected - connections for which I have spent much time in developing links. The positioning of my images therefore is not capricious.
It takes considerable time and effort to find and capture a suitable particular video still and render it for upload for the benifit of not only the artists involved but for the enrichment of Wikipedia. To remove the image ACABASHI DOUGIE DAMONE 02.jpg that has been properly uploaded, and to receive an implied and shrouded threat that others, legitimately added, may be liable for removal, doesn't give users the encouragement to continue being involved in such a web site as this. I shall append for the third time the copyright-notified ACABASHI_DOUGIE_DAMONE_02.jpg again; please give me a reason why this image should not be allowed.
Many thanks.

Minus signs[edit]

Please do not replace − with a hyphen, as you did in this edit. They are different characters with different meanings and different appearances, and the use of a hyphen in this context is just a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Gavia immer did not replace the minuses with hyphens, but merely converted HTML entites − to the equivalent Unicode characters − (U+2212 MINUS SIGN) which these entities represent. These are different notations for exactly the same character. Note that the Wikipedia manual of style encourages the use of literal characters over HTML entities, as the latter may be confusing to some editors. — Emil J. 16:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I was about to post the same thing - those are unicode minus characters, not hyphens, though browsers tend to render them near identically. The literal characters are preferred, but I agree that it's very easy to confuse various "dash-like" characters; basically, there are editing problems either way. I tend to go with the literal characters simply because it saves a few bytes - that adds up in edits like the one I made. If it's a real problem, though, I can revert to the HTML entities. Gavia immer 16:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. The similar appearance confused me, obviously. I think it is better to keep these entities expanded for this reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you've got specific evidence on your side :) No big deal; as I said, the dash characters all look very similar. I'm going to redo that edit with the − characters left as is so there's no confusion - I guess that won't be a problem. Gavia immer 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama incident?[edit]

What was this? A link in your comments at the poll might be helpful. -- Kendrick7talk 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean the whole business with Jerusalem21, WorldNetDaily, Fox News, etc. - see the Barack Obama article's history and the talk page archives for way too much on this subject. I'll see if I can find a single link for this that's appropriate to include in my comments. Gavia immer 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. -- Kendrick7talk 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Thanks for reminding me.I did realized my mistake so refectified it there and then.,but atleast thanks for notifiying me.Please do correct me if I make a mistake.yousaf465'

Wiki is a bit techinal!.yousaf465'

Teleprompter AfD[edit]

Just to be clear - I did not remove any comments. I removed a list of sources that was a duplicate of the list on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is still arguing that it's okay to remove listings of sourcing from AfD discussions [4]. The problems speaks for itself. This comes in addition to a pattern of personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. The only change I made to the AfD was to try to restore the comment that was removed, and to remove a duplicate keep when it was pointed out as duplicate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that this is spilled over on to your talk page, and I promise this will be the only time I post here. ChildofMidnight is incorrect. I admitted it was wrong to remove the list of sources (many times, in fact). My argument is that the list of sources should not have been there in the first place, which is why I originally removed it. I make no apology for the reason behind my action - I only apologize for acting. What he says about my alleged "pattern of personal attacks" is just nonsense, and should not be taken seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I already said this at ANI, but let me be more emphatic: both of you should step away from the AfD until it gets closed. There's plenty enough record of both of your opinions, and plenty enough discussion by others at this point, so it's best to let it continue without disruption (you are both engaged in disruption) until it closes. By my estimate, there are approximately 4,494,770 other articles that could use some improvement, so if you need something else to distract you, that's a good place to start. Thanks. Gavia immer 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Steven Brust[edit]

First off, you are aware that there's currently a dispute going with regards to identifications of ethnicity/heritage like "Hungarian-American". It is not acceptable to use an opaque edit summary like "ce" when what you are actually doing is changing the article to suit your preferences in this matter; you know better than that. Moreover, even if it were acceptable, Brust is particularly vocal about being of Hungarian descent - mentioning it is not only appropriate, but frankly required in a neutral biographical article. Please don't make blind changes like that, and please don't make any such changes with an intentionally opaque edit summary. Thanks. Gavia immer (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of the dispute. Could you direct me to the appropriate link? Also, that he is vocal about his ethnicity means what exactly. Is his notability due to his ethnicity? If this is the case, then that should be made clear in the intro. I will revert this back per MOSBIO and also note this on the article talk page. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Persistent_.22Filibustering.22_of_List_of_X-American_sourcing. Because it specifically concerns labeling Hungarian-Americans, I assumed your edits were connected. If they were not, then you have my apologies. I sometimes make the mistake of assuming everyone reads everything on ANI, which is of course not true.
In terms of the relevance to Brust specifically, of course being of Hungarian descent doesn't make him any more or less notable, but I'm not sure why that matters. It's a correct description of his ethnicity that Brust himself considers important, so it's reasonable to include it in the lead. If the issue is simply that you think the lead sentence implies by inclusion that being a Hungarian-American writer is more notable than simply being a writer, then I can see your point - but most biographical articles start that way, mentioning the more important details together as tersely as possible, and Hungarian descent is an important detail for Brust. It doesn't make sense to excise that information from the lead because you feel it's an improper emphasis. Perhaps it could be rewritten instead.
One last point - if you weren't aware of the dispute over American ethnic heritage before, I trust you are aware of it now. To repeat what I said above, please don't use summaries like "ce" to describe such changes, since it can look like you're trying to conceal a disputed edit. Instead, when adding or removing information, it's best to describe what you added or removed.
Thanks for reading. Gavia immer 20:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually do follow ANI, but not all the time, and no I didn't see that thread. I do appreciate your appology. Not to sound condesending but have you read WP:MOSBIO specifically where it says: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability(under opening paragraph section)? I usually do add an edit summary saying "added nationality" or "corrected nationality" ect., and should have done so here, so I do apologize on that point. I have probably made over 1,000 of these edits so far. My first block, for a month, was over a misunderstanding where I had removed "Jewish-American" from the leads of approximately 300 articles after a series of ips had added them. Is the "dispute" about ethnicity being discussed elsewhere? Anyways, hopefully no biggie at this point. Cheers, Tom (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)ps, looking at the Brust article as it stands now, details in the lead should be ordered in "level of importance" or notibilty it seems. Which is more notible/relevant, being Hungarian or being in the Scribblies? I don't know, but I would leave that to others to edit acordingly at this point. Tom (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have read WP:MOSBIO. It reads as you say, and for exactly the reason you mention in passing - people edit warring to add "Jewish" descriptions for people not particularly known for their Jewish identity or to remove them from people who were known as Jews, or to restrict "Macedonian" descriptions to meet their own personal private definition of "Macedonian", etc. In other words, the MOS rules are written to address contentious editing. I guess I don't see any undue emphasis in mentioning the ethnicity of someone who clearly identifies with it, when that ethnicity is not itself controversial.
As to how important Hungarian ethnicity is to Brust, the best example is his literary output, which you said you're not familiar with (and aren't required to be, of course). Two of his books (The Sun, the Moon and the Stars and The Gypsy) and a lot of his short fiction deal directly with Hungarian folkloric concepts, and his Dragaeran fantasy series of (currently) 17 novels includes a conceit that the fictitious nation of Fenario is Hungary with the serial numbers filed off. Mentioning that Brust is of Hungarian descent is as important to Brust's article as mentioning that J. R. R. Tolkien was English - except that Tolkien's ethnicity actually has been the subject of controversy where Brust's has not. I do not otherwise compare them, you understand - only on this point.
In any case, this has reminded me that Brust's article needs a general copyedit of the lead regardless. In the absence of any other dispute showing up on the article's talk page, I'll do this in the next few days, keeping in mind both of our opinions on the matter. Until then, I'm willing to let it stay as is without controversy; I hope you're willing to judge my revised version in light of the points mentioned here. Gavia immer 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Absolutely. Your connection of his ethnicity to his writing should be noted as long as sources are provided and it is not original research/synthesis. Again, my original involvement was more of MOS change and I usually differ to others with more intimate knowlege of the particular subject. I usually will go through an entire category/list of bios, trying not to change folks who were not born in the US since they can be more "problematic". If other editors raise concerns with any of my edits I usually try to work it out as we have done here. Anyways, thanks for the discussion and good editing to you. Tom (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. And you are right, the article does need better sourcing. Gavia immer 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List of suicides[edit]

First of all, please do not accuse me or any other editor of intents for which there is no evidence, as you did in both your Edit Summary and in your note to me. Unless you can exclude all other possible explanations, glomming onto the one motive that allows you to attack another editor is is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:Attack and WP:Civility. The reason the section in question was changed was because that's what those sections are called. Notes sections are for footnotes (hence the name) into numbered links that are placed in the passage containing the material in question, and when clicked, bring the reader down to that list. References on the other hand, are for non-formatted lists of sources, as indicated here and here.

As for the tag, I apologize. I meant to put "refimprove" (the proper tag to use when there are some references in the article, but not enough), and by mistake, I put "unreferenced" (the tag used when there are none at all). It was a simple error, and no reason for you to get upset.

As for the issue of sourcing, all information in articles must be sourced, especially for a topic like this, and yes, that means a list of hundreds of sources at the bottom. That's how it works. Whether the suicides, or "most" of them, are sourced in their individual articles, is insufficient for this. The Diane Arbus article, for example, was filled with unsourced material, including that of her suicide, which is why I removed from that article. If said sources are not placed in the List article, the same will happen in that one. Nightscream (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

[sic] — no superscript[edit]

Hi, about the comment you left on your edit. I've read the sic article, but I didn't notice anything about how it should not be superscript. I've seen some other article that use "[sic]" instead of "[sic]" and I think that it simply looks better and that's why I changed it. Could you please clarify why it shouldn't be superscript? I've used it in some of my article as well and I want to know if there's some reason I should not use it any more. Thanks! :) Diego_pmc Talk 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be superscript because a superscript [sic] could be confused with a footnote, or with one of our citation problem templates like [citation needed]. The notation [sic] is part of the normal text flow of the article, rather than a note on the article, so it shouldn't be confusable with endnotes. A further point is that quoting a direct quotation that itself contains [sic] - already a dicey proposition that needs a careful approach - can be a big problem if the [sic] is marked up so as to appear a part of the material quoting it, rather than the quotation. We shouldn't cause such problems for future quotation, so we shouldn't format [sic] in superscript. This also means that any other such uses you saw were just as wrong; I change these when I see them. Thanks for asking, by the way. Gavia immer 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Church–Turing thesis[edit]

A recent edit you made to Church–Turing thesis [5] added lots of spaces that it should not have added; there is no space in "Church–Turing thesis". In general, there is no need to replace HTML entities with Unicode symbols. However, if you do so, please ensure that the substitution does not add spaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Em-dashes in prose should generally not be spaced anyways, see also MOS:EMDASH. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The dashes here were en dashes, but the principle is the same, since these are "disjunctive" en dashes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a problem with a tool I started using - and, of course, my fault for not proofreading the changes well enough. Sorry about that. It appears that Drilnoth, the tool's author, is aware of it, but I'll follow up with him. Sorry for causing the extra trouble. For the record, I think it's probably more correct to use hyphens for this type of conjunction - but that doesn't mean the extra spaces were correct. Gavia immer 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The convention used in that article is that the Smith-Jones theorem was by one person with a hyphenated last name, and the Smith–Johnson theorem is by two people, Smith and Johnson. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to navigate the Smith-Jones–Johnson theorem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That does, in fact, make sense; thanks for explaining it. Gavia immer 20:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of a uw-vand[edit]

You uw-vand4'd at User talk:VinnyCee#February 2009. I don't much like that editor, but unless you had in mind an IP they use, other than 24.11.91.3 (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS), you seem to have been mistaken in including Tard as one of their vand targets -- or AFAI can find even benign edits. (In fact, IIRC, a Rdr-byp bot lk'd it, abt that time, to GWB as the result of rvn of vand on Tard!)
In fact, while i find VC's edit suspicious, the summary "rvv" and the close proximity (3 min) to the series of vands and rvvs by others leaves some thot in my mind that a sub-1k-edit editor might be clumsy enuf to carelessly rv the last rvv; i haven't reviewed VC's contribs for actual rvvs by them that could buttress that theory, and i think such review would be more valuable if done by you, who's in a position to factor it into reweighing your vand decision in light of (what i take to be) your misunderstanding abt Tard.
(I'm delaying a somewhat unfavorable note to VC, lest i deliver it as the next msg following an apparently partially false accusation.)
Thanks,
--Jerzyt 08:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy. At your request, I've looked over the circumstances related to the Tard, Hungary vandalism and VinnyCee's involvement in it. To be clear, I included Tard in my warning deliberately; at the time, double redirects worked due to a technical glitch, and the intention of the vandalism at Tard, Hungary was to change the practical target of Tard without making any edit there. I don't know anything particular about VinnyCee; to the best of my knowledge I only ever encountered him on that article. However, a review of the circumstances at your request has confirmed my opinion that VinnyCee was intending to vandalize, for several reasons.

Firstly, he does seem to have frequently switched from editing as an IP address to address to editing as a logged-in user. I wasn't aware of the edits by 24.11.91.3 before you pointed them out to me, but it's obvious that's a static IP that he uses. Secondly, this was sophisticated vandalism, intended to affect the target of Tard without making any vandalizing edit there. VinnyCee's edit, which resulted in the vandalized version persisting for nearly twenty hours, seems consistent with that sophisticated approach. Lastly, he didn't communicate with me or anyone else. If he had said, at the time, "I was reverting and screwed up", I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and removed my own warning. In fact, however, the edit to Tard, Hungary was the last one he made with that account; even in the period before that edit was noticed, he made no additional edits. The IP, too, made no edits for two months afterward. This looks like an editor laying low to avoid being held responsible for his conduct.

Thanks for voicing your concern, and feel free to bring up any other concerns you have in this matter. I am only human, after all, not perfect, and I don't mind having others review my actions. Gavia immer 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the extra effort. I think i was a bit afraid he'd gone away mad bcz you'd slipped up; of course going away mad bcz he got caught is entirely different!
    Cheers!
    --Jerzyt 19:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Azala[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I goofed (see rfd page), and I have restored the redirect to what it was before my meddling... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your prompt response as well. Believe me, I've screwed up a deletion nomination before myself - it happens. As for Azala the landowner, we only know him from this one record, so there's probably not enough information for a full article. I do wish we had an article on the map, though. Gavia immer 17:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good faith…?[edit]

Greetings, Gavia immer. In reference to this discussion, please take note that his company's logo ( File:Karheim.jpg) was deleted today (copyvio: corporate logo, not text only), and Psikxas immediately re-uploaded the very same image with a new title and replaced it on his user-page-cum-billboard. Are you quite certain this user is acting in all good faith? Sock puppets, numerous violations of behavioural protocol, putting his commercial pseudo-article on his front userpage, and now these copyvio logo shenanigans. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked this over yet (just saw the new message bar), but that is a bit concerning. You should probably bring this up at the MfD discussion; that's permissible, so long as you're civil about it. If he is just trying to spam, I'll change my opinion, but as I said, I'll have to look at your links first. Gavia immer 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Followup: He moved the image here because it was deleted on Commons, which is allowed. However, he's also concerned about making certain that the logo is "of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization"; that means he's probably intending promotional content. However, I'm not convinced, yet, that this needs deletion right now. I may change my mind before the MfD closes, but for now I'm assuming good faith. Gavia immer 05:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Redirect[edit]

I redirected Physics of the Impossible to Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. Hopefully this is acceptable. Have you seen the new article yet?

I did the redirect because the title of the article did not match the title of the book, now it does. In addition, there were no citations or references anyplace in the article, and therefore did not meet the notability requirements. So, I re-wrote the intro - with references. One more thing, the reference section for this article had been removed and I restored it.

Please feel free to contact me at my talk page if necessary. I am concerned about the speedy deletion when linking to the article from Google search "Physics of the Impossible wiki". Ti-30X (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was reviewing this article. I will work on the notability requirements and references. The introduction might be better suited to be in the body of the article (somehow).
Anyway - I came across a few articles that you might want to look at:
  • History of science and technology this is not about the history of science and technology. It is more like a list and I think it should say so somewhere. I hate to be crtitical but, it looks more like a PR page for a list of colleges (at least in one section). Also, there are no citations in the article. Anyway, you are the administrator so I will let you decide.
  • Advances in Physics this page is just taking up space. When you look at this page you will see what I mean. LOL!
  • Technological change this page is seriously lacking citations
Have fun! I notified OrangeMike about this too Ti-30X (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the deletion of Advances in Physics, because it didn't establish notability. No comment on the other two; they both have rough edges, but seem fixable. Gavia immer 04:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Material from Physics of the Impossible[edit]

I'm sorry but this is inappropriate removal of researched material. This material was researched from reliable sources and is pertinent to the book. The material that was reverted was exactly what this book is about. And the illustrations added enhance the value of this contribution to Wikipedia.

I do not see how this is off topic, at all. It's all related to the book with cited sources. I have quoted wikipedia reliable sources. Politely, I ask - where are the guidelines for off - topic?

  • Duke University researchers are reliable sources.
  • New York Times interviews are reliable sources
  • Any university research is a reliable source
  • I just found the same information in two other reliable published sources online

Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Ti-30X (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Ti-30X. Since this is a discussion about the article Physics of the Impossible, please keep the discussion on that talk page, where it's already taking place (at Talk:Physics of the Impossible#Invisibility). I have already commented there. In general, please keep discussions in one place; breaking them up into multiple conversations can make it difficult to follow. To repeat what I've already said there, though, I agree with Orangemike that the material you added was off-topic for the article where you added the material. That it is researched is beside the point; any editor can and should remove material not directly on the subject of the article it is added to. Please direct your further comments to the discussion I have linked, rather than posting them here. Gavia immer 04:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A further note: Please don't use <p> tags to format your comments, as they can cause a formatting issue with comments left in reply to your original posting. Instead, simply add a blank line where you want the paragraph break to appear, as I did between my comments here, and the wiki software will add paragraph breaks automatically. Gavia immer 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd Physics of the Impossible[edit]

I have Afd-nominated Physics of the Impossible. You are welcome to comment here. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. Rigaudon (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation: From the Ashes[edit]

  • Your removing of the plot, i know that it was a copyright violation, which is why i tried my best to make it look more different. What should i do? Ryanbstevens (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion[edit]

Thanks for notifying me of the posting concerning me at WP:AN/I. Much appreciated, ERK talk 05:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You were perfectly right about me. Talk:Hiragana#Table and wording Thanks and regards 79.192.239.79 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cachphrases[edit]

Will you take a peek at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Yeees, the redirect is up for deletion as well as a few phonetic versions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been to decide whether I even have an opinion on the matter, honestly. I'll probably post something this evening. Gavia immer 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

New one added: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15#Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere.27s_Johnny.21

Okay, that's decided me :p Gavia immer 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Experts are scum[edit]

Experts are a an underclass, a pusillanimous scum who are despised. They are pariahs. Please do not stop them forming an association. Workers once did it. Please respect those who are trying to build content, and do not spit at them and treat them as excrescence. Peter Damian (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gage image files, please supply qualifying facts[edit]

Please see my message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phineas_Gage re need for facts qualifying use of PD tags. (This is just a ping to you -- let's keep the discussion at Gage Talk.) EEng (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

August 3[edit]

I have reverted your change to the dashes in August 3. We try to keep the formatting of all of the date pages the same and making a change like that to a single date page causes inconsistencies in the pages. If consensus exists to make such a change, it should be applied to all of the date articles at once. The use of &ndash; instead of – is preferred because it is easier to be duplicated in new entries. Often editors will use the - instead of the – without knowing the difference. Since – is proper for these pages, it is better to leave them as &ndash;. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My "change" to the dashes was to restore the way they were presented in the article before. I don't really care, though - I'm well aware of the trouble with dash characters, and I disagree that the entity references are more editor-friendly, but it's not anything worth fighting over. Gavia immer 01:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I stole your source... :)[edit]

Thanks. I am not a master of google, I fear. I added both the one I found and yours to the WWI survivor article. I hope that these will satisfy the "I am a historian" editor quoting the blog entry.- sinneed (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the other source as well. The Sun is, as you say, somewhat of a tabloid - they wouldn't get this wrong, but it's nice to have two rebuttals. Likewise, thanks for being two seconds faster on the reverts than I seem to be capable of :) . We shall see if 69.204.128.199/M1917a1 is satisfiedby this, but if not, I'm going to request semiprotection. So long as I have your attention, this hasn't spread to Claude Choules yet, but please watchlist that article also if you haven't already. Gavia immer 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I will preemptively put the 2 sources there to head off confusion.- sinneed (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Definitely an excellent idea. Gavia immer 04:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Also added a comment at the article top... this had actually already been placed in his article, along with a {{recent death}}.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On a COMPLETELY unrelated subject, I have a very early draft of an essay User talk:Sinneed/WP-WP editor COI, on which I am seeking comment from a few folk I meet. No problem if you have no interest, and thanks in advance for any comment or suggestion (even "ew that stinketh")- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

That does, indeed, look like an early draft - but as to your basic point, I have certainly backed down on issues where I believed I was on the right side of things, when I simply didn't want to be involved in the sort of permanent trench warfare that would have resulted from pressing the issue. This is more or less a consequence of Sayre's Law and its cousin Parkinson's Law of Triviality (the so-called "color of the bikeshed" problem), both of which I would suggest addressing in your essay. The basic problem itself certainly does need to be stated plainly somewhere, which it currently is not, so an essay on the subject would be a good thing to have. Gavia immer 05:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Since I have spent a total of about 2 hours on it, it better be a very early draft. :) At this point it is more a collection of thoughts. Excellent suggestions. I will now shamelessly steal those as well. ;)- sinneed (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)[edit]

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tooker Gomberg[edit]

Where is the reference? Nightscream (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the one I added in my recent edit to Tooker Gomberg. Gomberg himself seems to be marginally notable at best but he is notable. Likewise, a great deal of the writing on his suicide has POV problems, but the fact that he committed suicide is verifiable. Bear in mind that although the article previously had an {{unreferenced}} tag, it also had some references; all I did was add a better one. Gavia immer 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Let me know if there are any more that need doing. Deb (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Gavia immer 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

On Suicides vs Possible Suicides[edit]

Hi Gavia, I appreciate your talk and understanding. Thank you very much. Koplimek. Koplimek (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Gavia immer 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform in the United States[edit]

This article is hopelessly POV. I agree with some of the POV but in Wikipedia, we are an encyclopedia, not an op-ed or brainwashing website.

I have discussed on that talk page one bad POV section. I could talk about the POV that I like but that would be attacking one's self.

A large part of the article is "see how the USA is so bad compared to Cuba and these other countries." Another bad thing is that the article supports Mrs. Pelosi's plan and ignores the many other ideas, including Democratic Party ideas.

I think it would be better for experienced people to debate the articles problems. I don't want to get into a fight. Finland 203 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the whole collection of articles on this subject is lousy. Simply put, most English Wikipedia editors are Americans, the subject is so prominent that any American editor has an opinion, and they have probably personalized it - that is, the question of whether the US government should provide all, some, or none of the healthcare its citizens receive is likely to be important to American editors' self-worth, which skews every edit they make.

Having said that, after Healthcare rationing in the United States was kept ("no consensus") at AfD, I gave up on trying to make any difference at all to the systematic problem we have on this subject. That is, I do not care to get involved (sorry!). I hope that you do stay involved; non-American voices are the best hope we have of producing decent coverage of the subject, since it does not involve your self-identity. If you want to find people willing to improve the articles in question, experienced non-American editors are the best possible recruits for the task.

Sorry I can't be of more help. Gavia immer 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of List of suicides in fiction[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of suicides in fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable list primarily consisting of OR and unsourced personal interpretations, fails guidelines for list being wholly indiscriminate

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of suicides in fiction[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated List of suicides in fiction, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Whale Killer[edit]

I have restored Whale Killer and closed the WP:DRV discussion here, after reliable sources were provided to support the redirect. I don't see a need for a wider discussion and I am not going to nominate it at RfD. In fact, if I were alerted to such a nomination, I would express an opinion against it, given that there are sources to support it.  Frank  |  talk  21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - both for withdrawing deletion and for notifying me personally. Gavia immer 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. I like to believe we're all after the same thing - a better encyclopedia - even if the path isn't always the most direct one possible.  Frank  |  talk  22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian[edit]

Care to elaborate on why Libertarian spelled with a lower-case 'l' is "meaningful"? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is between "small l" libertarian, meaning someone who identifies with libertarian principles, versus "Big L" Libertarian, meaning someone who identifies with the Libertarian Party. Compare "republican" (a believer in government by selected representatives) versus Republican (associated with the Republican Party. The distinction is meaningful, and I'm not aware of Beck explicitly identifying with the Libertarian Party, only with libertarian principles; that's why I reverted the capitalization. Gavia immer 00:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan Ladd[edit]

Just FYI: the gay cruising thing posted on the Ladd page is by the banned HarveyCarter sockpuppet, who cruises various pages putting in gay falsehoods. You can recognize him by his ISP beginning with 92. His edits can be deleted without explanation. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the doofus in question. I've got most of his favored targets watchlisted from the last go-round. And yes, I agree that it's fine to delete that stuff without explanation, so long as everyone knows what's going on - and plenty of people seem to know what's going on. Thanks for the note, though; it can't hurt to keep everyone on the same page. Gavia immer 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cody Judy[edit]

Thanks, that hatbox was giving me problems. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Huge text dumps like that practically always cause some formatting issue, so I was more or less expecting it. Gavia immer 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Template Fix[edit]

Thanks for the quick fix to the De Leonism template! It's always nice when things can be resolved easily! Frmatt (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for posting about it, by the way; it was affecting more than just your one template, so your post helped prevent a lot of trouble. As a rule, template vandalism only seems mysterious - if "you can't see where the vandalism is", it's sure to be in some transcluded template. Still, meta-templates like that really are supposed to be preemptively protected - one of the few cases where that's true - in order to prevent this kind of thing.

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website[edit]

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)