User talk:Jerzy

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

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501 - - (Generated (using "subst:") from 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) revision of user-Jerzy-talk generating template User:Jerzy/Fresh Talk Page, based on 3 January 2009 revision of User talk:Jerzy plus dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases, minor typo fixes, and a new link.)
<small>{{Attempting_wikibreak|[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]| in late June|I}}</small>
Now Back
--Jerzyt 09:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
Search user languages

Rough Overview of this Page

  1. Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)
    1. About Communicating Here
    2. Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
    3. Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives
    4. Detailed Table of Contents of whole page
  2. Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)[edit]

Communicating here[edit]

Leaving me a message[edit]

The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:

  1. You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
  2. Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
  3. Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
  4. As the last line, type
    --~~~~
  5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
  6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
  7. Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

Leaving followup messages[edit]

If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading

[edit]
  1. Click on that "[edit]" link.
  2. Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
  3. Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
  4. As the new last line, type
    --~~~~
  5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
  6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
  7. In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
  8. Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

Guide to the Rest of This Page[edit]

The remaining material consists of

  • A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
  • Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved
    (These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)
  • A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
  • A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English[edit]

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives[edit]

"Phases" of my Talk Page[edit]

The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

  • Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
  • The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
  • The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.[1]
  • The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).[1]
  • The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.[1]
    • Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
      I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
  • The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
  • The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
  • The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
  • The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
  • The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
  • As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
    • Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
    • Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.
      If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.

Notes re history irregularities.

  1. ^ a b c Phases 6-8 accumulated to excessive length as an oversize page, and were separated into these phases using edit-history splits.

Mixed-topic Archives[edit]

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Note that the Mixed-topic Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Topical Archives[edit]

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

Note that the Topical Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

TABLE of CONTENTS[edit]

Contents

Access to Most Recent Entries of ToC[edit]

(If the page gets large, it's easier to scroll back up into the ToC from here than to scroll down thru it from its top.)

Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him[edit]

  • I think the discussions that are still not reflected here will progress no further.
    --Jerzyt 05:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiply-named section American warning"> American"> American warning">[edit]

Former Titles of the Section that This Section Concerns:

Talk page work
Talk page work > American warning

This section still awaits testing as the target for the following lks to titles that were formerly on this talk page:

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning and
User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work .3E American warning.
[[User talk:Jerzy#American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#> American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]
User talk:Jerzy#> American warning
Details, and the removed material from that section and its successor, are now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.

Notices:
I hereby give due notice that i place the following reasonable constructions on the apparently widely accepted statement that i have seen on at least one project-space page, to the effect that msgs removed by a user from their own talk page may be presumed to have been read by them:

  1. Archiving a talk page, with a link to the archive, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements.
  2. Removing the text of a discussion on a talk page for stated good cause, stating that cause, stating that it is to be considered as "included, by reference, as part of" the page, and providing a lk to it on another WP page, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements (nor for that matter is it equivalent to "archiving", FWIW).

In light of each of those constructions, and the statement that follows this paragraph, i note that (altho i at least skimmed large sections of the former text before my statement to the effect that i did not intend to give attention to further additions to it), i do not warrant myself as having detailed knowledge of what i read, nor sufficient knowledge to place what later portions i have since noticed into any meaningful context. I thus declare any inference that i am informed about the material in question to be abusive and unfounded.
I have removed from this talk page the text of the section most recently titled "Talk page work >American warning", because its length approximated 26.5 Kb, rendering impractical normal use of the talk page without neglecting the long-standing request to avoid letting pages approach or exceed 32Kb in length. It is, however to be considered as included, by reference, as part of this talk page. For perhaps a few days, it can be accessed on my archive at User talk:Jerzy/Phase 03#Talk page work .3E American warning, and i will alter this section accordingly, when that material moves from that archive page to its own page.
--Jerzyt 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

I think this deserves an award for most information crammed into an edit summary. So, here's the worlds smallest barnstar: ·  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks; i think there was room for a little more info if it had mattered, but i seem to recall there was no more than a character or two left. Fortunly bran cnstruz abrs wel!
    --Jerzyt 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Formal[edit]

re Talk:Formal

Hello. I've tried to start discussions on the Talk pages of all dabs tagged for clean-up. I'm afraid I can't really contribute to the issues at SR - I'm not great with the technical issues, but your points made sense - and so i thought I'd let you know that discussions have been started about other pages you tagged, including the one linked above. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, i think that'll be a valuable move.
    I suspect you of being overcautious about giving your opinions about what Dab'g issues, in places where the best we can probably hope for is for someone apply the own creativity in away that others don't disagree with enuf to matter. But then, i know that i often let that inhibit my work as well, and of course you know the most about when to stick your neck out a little more.
    BTW, i note you tagged the Dab Blackleg, which i found very satisfying to work on. Much more so than i would imagine that ugly Formal one to be!
    Also BTW, you might be interested to take a look at the edit i just made on the lead section of Talk:Formal; you can preview what happens when you change the parameter from "no" to "yes". As to {{TOCright}}, IMO un-commenting it is useful, if the hdgs get bulky, until the number of non-lead sections gets beyond 3: IMO ToCs smaller than 3 or 4 are too small to be useful (except for their ends to serve as the targets for lks), but large enuf to be distracting and use up vertical space unless kicked over to the right.
    --Jerzyt 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I bore your advice in mind about being overcautious and got through a few more. I really hate it on the few occasions I get angry messages from other editors and so I worry a bit too much about that. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on dabs[edit]

re User talk:Boleyn/Archive 2#Disambig Q

Hello. I recently got an enquiry from an editor because I prodded a page which listed people who just had the same given name and middle name. They pointed out that they couldn't find anything on MOS:DAB to back up my point that this was unencylopedic and shouldn't be there. You can see my most recent correspondance on this topic if you go to User talk:Boleyn/Archive 2 and the section 'Disambig Q' where I've quoted responses from you and Slackermom on this issue in the past. I don't know if MOS:DAB has changed or if it was never clear on there. What do you think.? Should MOS:DAB be changed? (Personally, I think it should, be I'd never edit that page myself) Boleyn2 (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange heading[edit]

Hiya. You made this change, which left an odd section header. I wasn't sure what you were trying to do, so I've left it for you to finish off. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I thot i was sure what abt i was trying to do, but thanks for the heads-up! I you want to grasp it, tell me either what already get, or what you don't; i'd be glad to clarify.
    --Jerzyt 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. The further change you made to the heading - adding a second '{', some minutes before your above comment - has corrected the problem. No need for further clarification. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Testament Records disambig page[edit]

re Testament Records

You made several edits, some of which I understand. But you give no explanation for your changes to the explanatory text and removal of links that were there. I thought the original versions were better: easier to understand and more useful, so I am planning to change them back. If you would like to discuss it, please respond to this. Thanks.--Robert.Allen (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe, rather than assuming "Dab-CU" serves to explain, i should resume routinely lk'g such edits to both MoSDab and Dab. Experience editing WP does not prepare one for editing (much less creating) Dab pages, which are not articles and thus not pgs intended to be treated as instances of many (& probably most) WP guidelines and policies. I suggest you study those pgs first (since you'll need to in the long run anyway), but i would be glad to comment on specific issues specified by you, either before or after your doing so.
    --Jerzyt 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the links, I should have seen them before I guess, but somehow I missed them. I still think the explanatory text is a bit confusing, at least it was initially to me: it seemed like a dictionary entry saying they were British and American terms. Also, since there are only two items, I'm not sure a section heading "Record labels:" is an improvement. I skipped over it entirely when I first saw the new version of the page. I may make some small changes back. If they aren't acceptable, then please revert them.--Robert.Allen (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't feel bad abt missing those guidelines; if i seemed to imply "you should have known better", i misspoke. (In fact, i had thot to myself "How do i add a single link that encompasses both links?", and have a couple of thots.) IMO, editors who go around trying anticipate and read all the guidelines they're going to need are wasting their energy.
        I think the most important thing is to resist reading a Dab page. Unless you can master the knack of imagining what someone does, who gets to the page bcz of either looking for, e.g., Testament Records, or following a lk from an article, the tendency is to sabotage by "making it read better" what is hopefully optimized as a navigational aid. If the user looks at the two entries and immediately clicks on one, the page is perfect for them, even if they don't understand what they've seen. For users to have to read "record label" in both entries, when we have no articles on anything but record labels as a candidtates for the title "Testament Records", is a waste of their time. Until there are entries that don't fit under the single heading, not noticing it is a plus (and the lack of other headings is probably the reason you overlooked it). The only purpose of the heading at present is to have a read-once globally applicable place that the rare user who gets there, not looking for a record label (or not realizing that that's the nature of the thing the article referred to), can refer to for reassurance. (And perhaps guidance: knowing they are labels increases the helpfulness of knowing one article pertains to matters British and one American: e.g., British and American cars and records (as opposed to songs) are much less available to the UK or US respectively, than are the literary works of the respective countries -- thus when the rare user who didn't grasp that the reference in a WP article or outside page was about a label, the national or genre info is suddenly cast into a new light. (Even tho most users would be wasting their time by reading those extra words, and certainly by reading them twice, once in each entry.)
        --Jerzyt 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure whether I agree or not. Acutally, I'm not totally sure I understand what you are saying. The extra explanation comes at the end of each entry after the links to the actual pages, so the user may not even need to go that far. In any case, I like it the way it is now. Can we leave it that way? --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to say the rest in the context of observing that your "classical"-music interest should prove to make you substantially valuable to WP, and i hope to see your work continue.) (I particularly took pleasure at seeing both Feen & Varnay among your contribs!) That said ...
      Well, those are not "small changes", as you earlier said you were about to make. (They are everything you had there when i started, except what is explicitly ruled out by the guidelines.) And i can't imagine that you both understand and accept what seems to me the obvious and fundamental principle, repeatedly reflected implicitly in the guidelines, that nothing belongs in a Dab that does not contribute to disambiguation.
      I'm merely tagging it for cleanup, bcz i don't think i have anything left to say, and it's not worth it to me to do otherwise. IMO you've had your BOLD, so please don't change the tag back, but if a colleague with substantial Dab-cleanup experience sees no further CU needed and de-CUs, i'll be satisfied. Hope to see you around the 'Pedia.
      --Jerzyt 03:26 & 03:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I consider the relevance of the above discussion to this page to probably be over. It may be relevant at Talk:Testament Records#Too many words?, where i am placing a copy of it, but beyond what i've said in the box, i hope not to participate further.
    --Jerzyt 03:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This seems like a very acceptable compromise, I appreciate your flexibility. And the talk page for the disambiguation page does seem like the best place to put our discussion. Any more would probably be a waste of time for both of us, since we seem to have "dug in", but I can say I think I have learned a lot of new things from it and appreciate your different point of view. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks.
        --Jerzyt 07:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comcast name[edit]

I believe you will appreciate this edit; or, for a more detailed explanation, there is this subversive website's description. -- Thekohser 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Nice job, indeed appreciated. My eye was caught by the italics on the word "from", which i was sure was an error. Knowing now that it was made by Angela (who is unlikely to have italicized the whole 6 words unless she believed they were a single name!), i take it to be not a mark-up error, but that rather a (perhaps hasty) mis-parsing by her of the ambiguously worded preceding version. I in turn took that word "from" to be about the relationship between the two italicized phrases, rather than two business entities, with "...cast" coming from letters of the words "CAble SysTems". (And moved quickly along to losing track of the fact that that would leave "Com..." unaccounted for!)
    Yes, i see now that it was the company that would in 1969 become Comcast [Corporation] that was founded in 1963, as your wording and refs each make clear, and i fully endorse your edit -- including the CoI violation that someone who claims to be you describes, since this is clearly a situation where IAR applies: what i assume is your status of having a standing presumption of a conflict of interest seems irrelevant since it is so hard to imagine actual conflict of interests in the specific edit. Even a WP editor can see your info is objectively correct, now that you have done the fine service of sweeping away 6 years of confusion. Well, two transient confusions spanning 6 years, with misinforming effects that continued for 6 years (and could have easily continued another 6).
    You said on the "subversive" site that WP will suck "for business matters" barring its "welcom[ing] businesses to assist ...
    I am far more of a worker bee than Angela, and thus concern myself much more with tactical than strategic policy. Nevertheless, i'll comment that you seem to intimate that CoI is a major alienating factor for you. Even where IAR does not so clearly dominate as this time, i would expect that businesses' frank reps could be pretty effective by presenting their respective firms' PoVs on talk pages, even where actual CoIs seem likely -- as long as they grasp and respect the concerns behind the CoI policy, and occasionally have the patience to let the mills of WP grind as slowly as they often must (whether in grinding fine or coarse).
    In any case, thank you for not leaving us wallowing in squalor in this instance.
    --Jerzyt 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American politicians Robert Smith[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:American politicians Robert Smith has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
—Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 22 October 2009.

WP:MOSDAB#Specific_entry_types[edit]

Re WP:MOSDAB#Specific_entry_types

That you very much for your valuable contribution. Every once in a while, such fundamental things can get habitually overlooked but your keen eye has made a positive reflection on us all. Kudos! :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Really! I initially whether you were being sarcastic. IMO my correction of the misconception about the nature of comet tails was very minor, and worthwhile mostly bcz it might be distracting to others: a irritant better removed sooner than later. The corresponding one at Tail (disambiguation) is almost equally insignificant, and worthwhile fixing only bcz i work so cheap and bcz so little that happens here really depends -- long enuf to matter -- on an individual, that whatever else i might otherwise have been doing could wait.
    I'm responding bcz when i refreshed my memory at MoSDab's edit history, i noticed that you've traded reversions over your arguably analogous edit in the same section, where you prefer "UK" over "England" where both are accurate, bcz "England is not a UN member state".
    Like my edit, yours was of insignificant value, because
    1. neither had significant likelihood of enhancing Dab'n or the writing of Dabs
    2. the omission of either had only a remote chance of contributing to the respective widely held confusions we addressed, by continuing their repetition in either place
    3. users who consider the material on Dab pages or in examples used on guidelines pages as authoritative information are probably misguided beyond our ability to help.
The England/UK one had two added liabilities: you reasserted it by reverting an apparently reasonable colleague who had objected, and your reasoning was so unsound as to be obviously poorly thought thru -- what made you so confident that UN membership is a relevant criterion? Even if it were, do you want us to describe places in Greenland as being "in Denmark"? To give the impression that places on Taiwan are under the control of the PRC, or that places in Kosovo are relevantly "in Serbia"? That Troy was a Turkish city? That places in Israel, Palestine, and Western Sahara do not exist? What about the multi-national communities of Antarctica -- especially if they lie where pro-forma territorial claims overlap? Are you one of the editors who thinks "Washingon, D.C." needs to be followed by "United States"?
I'm sure you want to aid the project, and perhaps this note is overkill, but i hope it is forceful enough to help dissuade you from an edit war, and to help improve your perspective on our work.
--Jerzyt 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if it matters to you but I was not trying to be sarcastic. I still genuinely think you deserve a pat on the back. Now though I stand speechless. :|--Thecurran (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Excuse me for being vague, and also if i left the impression either that i failed to realize you hadn't been sarcastic or that whether you had was unimportant to me. I thot your interest in the parallel case fully established that you intended no irony. And my point is not about your kind words; it is mostly about the 2nd edit and my concern abt whether an edit war might be in the offing.
    On reflection, i realize i omitted the follow-on to my complaints about your UN argument: i wanted to say that rejecting your argument is not enuf reason to find fault with your edits to the page; i should have continued by saying that a lot of effort has gone into that guideline page, and that tinkering with debatable parts of it -- what are really matters of individual preference rather than objectively bad content -- by going in and editing without trying out your approach on the corresponding talk page, has two bad effects:
  1. a tendency to encourage every editor (there are probably at any given between 5 and 6 thousand who will make at least a hundred edits in the next month) who has a new idea for how Dab'n should be done or how that should be stated, or suspects that an established practice deserves to be explicitly stated
  2. creating unnecessary chatter in the edit history of the page, with a corresponding increase in the likelihood that those who watch for changes in it will be distracted and muff their review of vandalism or mistakes, which deserve quick repair before a vandal uses them as an excuse for disrupting articles, or a good-intentioned user makes a mess based on assuming that what they find in the guidelines has been reviewed as reflecting consensus
I'd rather you'd
_ looked for a guideline saying that otherwise ambiguous places should be specified (at least on Dab pages) according to UN-membership names (and i'm confident -- bcz i'd have recalled hearing that, and bcz of the contrary arguments i made above -- that you won't find that), or
_ have thot it thru better.
We do say, however, say "edit BOLDly", so given that both of those failed, i hesitate to criticize your executing there first of your edits there (being unsure, as i am, whether at least presumption of need for consensus for changes is stated at the top of MoS pages, as a perhaps weaker version of what i recall on policy pages).
But i think you were being more than bold in the second one, counter-reverting our colleague who disagreed. And that is why addressed you on the matter. I would have hoped that you would drop the matter without the second edit, or open a discussion at MOSDAB to make your case why the longstanding wording should be changed. In such a discussion, i would expect you'd find that what IMO was implicit in the edit summary for the revision you reverted, would be said there by as many different editors as it took to convince you, namely:
both the old wording and your own would be acceptable there, and any difference between them is too small to change from status quo ante.
I am concerned by your pleading speechlessness, bcz i'm probably at fault for producing that, and i'm not sure what to do about it. And i assume that i've failed re the principle "Don't BITE the newcomers". I hope you'll be better disposed now at least to say what will help you feel at home here. Thanks -- for at least the patience i infer if you've read this far.
--Jerzyt 07:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not failed any policy. I failed to realize what the consequences of my actions on the page would have been. I must try to remember to talk first before editing WP policy-type pages. When I started out, I noticed that people rarely respond to talk proposing small changes in articlespace, so I would wait unnecessarily for weeks at a time. I got more emBOLDened and abandoned my earlier practice even though it would have been more appropriate in this space. Thank you very much for responding and clarifying things. Your advice has been very helpful. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Old LoPbN pages[edit]

Hi there. I was browsing through Wikipedia's ancient history and stumbled upon the traces of the old List of people by name index (LoPbN), which it seems you were heavily involved with. While the list is long since gone, I notice you still have many user subpages related to it: see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. As the list seems unlikely ever to return, do you think there's any point in still keeping those pages? If not, you could tag them for deletion using {{db-user}}.

If you do want to keep the pages as a historical archive, feel free - it's your userspace, you can do what you want with it. I just thought I'd bring this to your attention as you might have forgotten about them. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside of your userspace, I also found: Wikipedia:List of people by name, Wikipedia:LoPbN Meta-structure, Wikipedia:LoPbN index-template generation and Template:ToC for LoPbN direct links. Again, it's up to you what you do with these, whether you want to delete them or keep them for historical record. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO the retention of both groups is preferable.
    --Jerzyt 06:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

November[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to New York Giants (soccer), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mohrflies (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The reversion has been counter-reverted by an third party. The tagging party has clearly confused my even-handed action in a contentious dispute with vandalism.
--Jerzyt 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WPT:MoSDab[edit]

re Rdr WPT:MoSDab:

Howdy - I notice you have recently created the above article as a 'redirect' from the main Wikipedia namespace (the one containing the encyclopaedia itself) to another namespace (one used by editors to discuss the inner workings of the encyclopaedia). Such redirects are normall a bad idea - see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects for some discussion of this. For now, I have removed the redirect. - TB (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I created it bcz i had already committed it to an edit summary and don't consider it appropriate to alter the edit history to fix the red link. You've broken a link intended for those seeking to understand the edit i was summarizing, over a trivial bit of clutter. I can understand how that might happen, as a "what links here" on the Rdr's name won't make the use visible, but i am undeleting. If you want to go to the trouble of fixing both the trivial problem you fixed and the larger one that entailed, please be my guest.
    --Jerzyt 15:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem with you undeleting. In my initial check, I couldn't find any reason for it being there - nothing it its edit history, page text, what links here or talk page to justify its existence - and was hoping you'd be able to point me in the right direction. I can now see the link in the edit history of [Homicide (disambiguation)]] (although I had to use the toolserver to discover this) but can see no way of fixing it other than hunting down an Overseer, sorry. I'll go ahead and RfD the page for now. = TB (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Huh! I regard it as a natural, tho stupid, mistake, but i didn't realize i'd done it before. (I think you'd have found today's ref to it, quicker, by looking at my last few contribs entries.) I haven't thot it thru carefully, and you've gone the extra mile with me already, and i've reached a point where the task within which the Rdr & our discussion were a minor distraction feels done. Lemme take a crack at the admin-only fix i had vaguely imagined, and we can discuss it, tho maybe in tens of hours not within the hour, OK?
        --Jerzyt 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, the Homicide Dab one is for the WP namespace, and i constantly do that, correctly. In any case, i fixed the problem that made me want to keep it, and feel pretty confident we've broken me of the habit. If there's ever a next time, i expect i'd catch it in preview. Thanks for catching it, and your indulgence.
        --Jerzyt 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You're a star! Thanks. - TB (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Giants (soccer)[edit]

I have done my best to fix the cut and paste moving at New York Giants (soccer) and the relationships article. Please do not move it back. It became clear in the AFD that the original title is the preferred one.--chaser (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. You sound unsure the job is finished, so i'll look it over in the next few days, and -- in an excess of caution -- discuss it with you before trying to get any loose portion of the full history & content back together at that page.
    --Jerzyt 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. The history merge I did was half-assed on the talk page, but the article is the important part.--chaser (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, now i follow you; i agree that merging the talk history would be gilding the lily. I've just updated New York Giants (disambiguation) to reflect the return of the AfD'd article to that title, and we'll see whether the Dab part is also settled.
    My remaining concern is with the stub for the 1890s soccer team, whose overwriting with a Rdr to the article is IMO improper. I expect to raise that, and any further controversy over the Dab, at MoSDab -- since the issues in those cases are effectiveness of Dab'n, rather than the name or scope of the AfD'd article.
    --Jerzyt 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Von Geldern[edit]

re: Von Geldern

Hello, Jerzy, I was wondering if you could have alook at this page? I added disambig-cleanup just so what was developing into an edit war between me and anon user could be averted, although it isn't really a disambig page. However, anon feels that I am vandalising the page. I would be grateful for a third opinion. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing it, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Greenberg (disambiguation)[edit]

re Joseph Greenberg (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know I've nominated this for deletion; please challenge this if you think it's useful. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It's IMO a righteous deletion. Thanks for the notice, especially since it is hopefully the last chapter of something, and i guess fittingly low-key in that role. What i speak of is perhaps best documented at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joseph Greenberg (economist) ... although i'm pretty sure i also had some discussion with User:Angela, around the same time, also relating to the economist. (It was probably my first successful del nom -- i think CSD was a later invention -- if not my first del nom altogether; when i saw yr notice, i remembered making a somehow related nom, but falsely reconstructed it as a failed nom of the Dab.)
    --Jerzyt 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Saoirse (Fenian)[edit]

re: Saoirse (Fenian)
Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saoirse (Fenian), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Saoirse. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've responded to these before. May i suggest:
    1. Explain to your bot that copying from a WP-copying site to WP is usually not a copyvio, and/or
    2. Just put me on a white list, and/or
    3. Don't expect further responses, since my current intention is, after notifying you of this response, to respond only by adding
    Sigh!
after your bot-msg.
Best wishes,
--Jerzyt 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What you are seeing is the pretty much unavoidable side effect of creating a page which contains much of the contents of another page that used to be visible through search engines: because it currently isn't the bot is unable to find it now and picks up one of the umpteen mirrors instead, it pops its notice up (which is the Right Thing — even if annoying when a split/disambig has been done right — because it so very often was not).

In practice, just axe the template without hesitations if this happen to you and you know you credited the original article. — Coren (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Tnx. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that it's driven by RC rather than just prowling, and somehow that feels different. In any case, it suggests that slowing down the process of splitting may help the bot: aren't you implying that if the old version of the page being split hangs out long enuf for the bot to see them coexist, the false positives will be avoided? If so, can you estimate how long is long enuf, as a function of edits per minute?
    --Jerzyt 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Jerzy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 15 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 689 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Mark Naftalin - Find sources: "Mark Naftalin" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Ghazi Salah al-Addin - Find sources: "Ghazi Salah al-Addin" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. Geoffrey Ward - Find sources: "Geoffrey Ward" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  4. Christopher Chaplin - Find sources: "Christopher Chaplin" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  5. Jo Parkerson - Find sources: "Jo Parkerson" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  6. Barbara Carlson - Find sources: "Barbara Carlson" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  7. David Gunn (actor) - Find sources: "David Gunn (actor)" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  8. Zoran Knežević (politician) - Find sources: "Zoran Knežević (politician)" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  9. L. R. Ford, Jr. - Find sources: "L. R. Ford, Jr." – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  10. Walter Forbes - Find sources: "Walter Forbes" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lore Sjoberg[edit]

OK, I know you made this comment allllll the way back in 2007, but I feel I should respond. You typed:

FAQK

Half an hour of research leaves me still scratching my head. His (supposed) claim that the added K is for "Kevin", if it was he who said it, supports my speculation that he

1. knows that using it is catchy, and that it's mainly a means of self-promotion, and/or

2. likes the subliminal force of "FAQK you!"

I doubt my thots above exceed original research, but maybe i've missed the body of previous work on this important question. Can anyone write a 'graph for the article? --Jerzy•t 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'K' standing for 'Kevin' is a reference to the Derek Smart debacle. Sjöberg's FAQ actually is pretty similar to the now famous Derek Smart FAQ. Johnnyt471 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jack Greenberg (lawyer)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jack Greenberg (lawyer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Greenberg (lawyer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

John Kennedy[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I was going to lead you back to my talk page but you have fragmented it so badly from your last few edits I can't make sense out of all the layers so I just pasted it here. If you have determined that I do not care or that I am stonewalling you have grossly misread my statement. I was trying to be nice about saying that I think that YOU were in error in YOUR determination that Civil War was more meaningful than Medal of Honor recipient. If you feel like following me around and reviewing my edits feel free but if that is the case then you clearly don't have enough to do and I do enough edits to keep you very very busy. I recommend focusing your efforts on something more meaningful like say doing some editing or creating some articles. If you are in need of some to work on here is a link to some medal of Honor recipient articles that need to be created and here are some, and some more that you could work on. I have even taken the time to add the articles assessment so you can pick and choose the level of effort you want to do. By the way, the more time I spend with your wikidrama the less time I spend doing real improvements to the projec. Your condescending tone and leaping to conclusions is ridiculous. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Watershed (k.d. lang album)[edit]

re Watershed (k.d. lang album)

Hi. A couple of years ago, you made a move that I believe should be reversed. Would you consider just undoing it? The artist has used this case and lack of space between the initials for about 25 years and most of the usages here follow that and I believe we should do it consistently. I'll take it to RM if you like or will drop it if you can convince me otherwise. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, Jack. My initial impulse (which had delayed my response) was to send a exhaustively nuanced note about all-lower-case names, but the bottom line is that with a work that is permanently a work in progress, consistency is trumped by doing it right, to whatever extent currently feasible, toward the long-term goal of doing it right (and of course consistently within any individual's mentions and probably among people).
    I will digress into (italicized) nuance to some extent -- in fact, more than i expected [shrug].
    Of course we have to say in bios, e.g. "She styles herself as 'k.d. lang', and at one time refused interviews to journalists who would not promise to do so, or whose publications had not honored such promises." -- or whatever the substance is, behind the language "K.D. Lang or, as she used to insist kd lang" at "Live Updates From Opening Ceremony" in NYT).
    I think the issue will at least take years to settle, and i don't expect to take a very active role in its resolution, but i do have a pretty clear and stable position on it. While i am not a language prescriptivist (but a sympathizer of Steven Pinker -- you'll notice that i hold the upcasing of the 1st-person-singular pronoun to be a convention whose value evaporated with the scriptoria), the upcasing of proper names (at least of persons) is, like the delineation of sentences with a capital and a period, a crucial functional measure that, in nearly all formal writing (including, in WP, titles and prose content) is not subject to variation according to the personal choices people make about their names. (However, this is reasonable, bcz of imbedding a list in the prose:
The performers will include the following: Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez, kd lang, and Melanie.
Can you see the crucial difference in the flow, when instead the only adjacent structure is syntactical?)
I also think it is important to counter your reverence for "most of the usages here". I've paid much less attention to Lang than i did to an early phase re Bell Hooks; while that bio seems to have since settled down to a version i largely approve of, she then had apparently fanatical advocates who insisted on keeping the lower-case name at the start of multiple sentences, rather than letting them be recast to preserve their exact meaning while moving the name to a later position, and on misrepresenting the titles of works that refer to her by downcasing her name in citing those titles. (BTW, i haven't investigated whether the current absence from her bio of those titles, whose publishers or authors upcased her name, reflects selective suppression of counterexamples to WP's relative credulity.) Predominant WP usage is a meaningless indicator to the extent that it reflects the PoV-warrior-hood that (parallel to the R. D. Laing [coincidence!] admirers who regarded all psychiatry as oppression) apparently assume all grammar and rules of style and punctuation are oppression. Lang-mentioning WP articles are likely to disproportionately reflect fan[atic] PoV, especially in light of her bio requiring a 4-'graph Activism section.
However, i do not expect take part in any RM deliberation.
--Jerzyt 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy. Thanks for the detailed response. My request was fairly casual as I had happened upon one of the Lang articles (cap'd it for clarity;), noticed some inconsistencies in how things were being done, and gave a few nudges in the right (or wrong) direction. I did move one of the other albums to a lowercase parenthetical and the zealots will probably appreciate that. If you knew more of what I do here, you'd see that I've a dim view of fan[atic] PoV; it's a major problem on this project that warrants constant vigilance. I'm not going to pursue a RM and am open to nudges in the other direction. I'll marinate on the whole issue and may be back for help sorting the move I made and mebbe some others. I did not realize that there are other people doing this casing-trick, and, in Lang's case, she seems to have mellowed her stridency a bit.
fyi, the scriptorium has reincarnated quite nearby. I've read one of Pinker's books (Blank Slate) and found it quite interesting. I'm pleased to have met you and will go looking further at your interesting links. You'll have more trouble, however, convincing me to use 'i' a whole lot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  • 'Sa pleasure, Jack (tho i won't get on the same trans-ocean flight with you [wink]). At this point, BTW, the i thing is pretty much a quirk -- an intellectual fancy that became a habit. Glad Pinker came up; i've been trying to remind myself to catch up on his work (& Dennet's & Dawkins's).
    Moves can drive you crazy, so plz speak up when appropriate. (I'm guessing you're already C&P savvy, and know to ask for admin help when needed.)
    --Jerzyt 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm boring on long-haul flights; too much estazolam (and if that doesn't work, cognac; 24h flights are grim). I do go through spates of lowercase-everything. a habit picked-up coding. i am quite aware of case as a lot of things are case-sensitive. i expect you've seen that i've been here nearly as long as you have; i cheated, however, this is a sock account (no block; i have my yellow ticket of leave). i've read most of dawkins, too. welcome to my watchlist… which means i'll be back. cheers, Jack Merridew 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, i was obtuse: i wasn't talking abt the flight, but the encounter with your alter-ego after the crash!
      --Jerzyt 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
      mybad. i'll let you in on a sekret; the username doesn't really refer to me. i'm really ralph. you notice this? poke it with a stick a few times to get the idea. cheers, Jack Merridew 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (who's real name is david)
      • Well, i got it when Jack's warpaint accompanied my first edit of your page. But you're David in meatspace, Jack in cyberspace, and actually identify with Ralph? OK, you could do a lot worse.
        --Jerzyt 05:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Metal Gear move message[edit]

Previously Elsewhere on Wikipedia:
This discussion began at User talk:KiasuKiasiMan#"Metal Gear (series)" vs. "Metal Gear" with:

While some of the content of the immediately preceding talk secn Metal Gear move is a little more pertinent than the edit-summary on the unilateral action that User:Jonny2x4 took 4 hours later, in light of OWN, you acted reasonably, and Jonny2x4 did not in either his msg above to you or his own move. I hope you will note my response to the situation at Talk:Metal Gear (series)#Reversal of move, and consider participating in the discussion in that sec'n. Thanks for your contributions.
--Jerzyt 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Third-party colleagues would otherwise be confused by our succeeding discussion, not knowing that Jerzy used "E-mail this user" from the WP-page Toolbox to write KiasuKiasiMan under the subject line "Wikipedia e-mail re your possible discouragement", as follows:

Sun, February 21, 2010 6:53:16 [re-expressed by Jerzy as UTC]
From: Jerzy [Email addressed suppressed on WP pg by Jerzy]
To: [KiasuKiasiMan tho not reflected on my copy]]
I may be unduly cautious in thinking there may have been a break in your pattern of Wikipedia editing. If you

*have* been logged on and viewing en:Wikipedia pages

since 02-19 (Fri.) 18:09:16, UTC (Uh, 36 hours ago, as i write this, and thus Sat., 02:09 SG time, i think -- can my cell phone be right?),

but *not* since 02-21 (Sun.) 05:19:30, UTC (90 minutes ago; Sun., 13:19 SG?),

then i want you to know you have a new msg from me, since the last message you should have seen.

In any case, i hope to see you edit again before long! Thanks for your contributions.

Jerzy

--Jerzyt 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I received your message on the Metal Gear move. I was not logged in as I used the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page page to log in. As my IP (which is shared by the ISP) had been temporarily blocked by Wikipedia. I'm just leaving this message as a gentle note and thanks for your concern also I have still been editing pages recently haha. :) KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I infer from the quickness of your unblocking that you were not responsible for whatever brought on the block, and that your "haha" expresses pleasure at the quick resolution, rather than at having evaded a block that was directed at you (which would be a serious matter).
      So welcome back.
      --Jerzyt 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, the shared I.P. address due to the ISP has led to a lot of people receiving messages that do not belong to them and thanks.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"(mostly aggressively alpha'd spam) " new term for me[edit]

Hi Jerzy. I've not read that term before. I think I can guess it's meaning, but could you expand? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • New for me, too; i invented it on the spot. I observed an unusually large number of Cats, and all but one (which purports to be system generated) had a blank field after the "pipe" (vertical stroke) character, with the effect that the page's title appeared set apart at the top of the listing of member pages, on the corresponding Category's Category-namespace page. I concluded that the large number of Cats and the odd use of the parameter intended for alphabetizing the entries were both intended to increase the visibility of the AfD'd page in question beyond what could reasonably be expected, with the motive of either demonstrating the SOE-providing author's saavy or being viewed by more potential SOE clients.
    And that's a form of spamming via WP.
    Thanks for your interest; i'm going to try to remember to watch the AfD process, and i may weigh in with that as evidence if spam-intentions are cited as a ground for del'n. (I haven't decided whether there's a well applicable CSD, tho i expect there is.)
    --Jerzyt 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
WOW! That's brilliant. I'll be on the lookout. Dlohcierekim 05:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh. What does SOE stand for? Also, I saw your note on the AFD. Given the aggressiveness, with what seemed an element of desperation, on the part of the creator to get the article up and keep it up, I have to wonder how far afield you were. (The thing was deleted four times before. 175 deleted edits.) The creator seems by his username to represent a company involved with "Optimized Searching." At least one version of this was a copy of http://www.optimizedsearching.com. That company's web page has at the bottom, "Optimized Search is proudly powered by Kam Technology." It does not seem an overly unreasonable stretch to believe that the creator had the skill to do exactly as you proposed. WP:AGF is a fundamental principal, and one should strive to be courteous even when the ability to assume good faith has been strained. But the assumption of good faith cannot survive in circumstances where there "is specific evidence of malice." Is there such evidence here? maybe not. So we may assume good faith of this user, and allow that he had a conflict of interest that clouded his judgment so that he did exactly as you supposed but without any intent to harm Wikipedia in the least. He simply did not understand that his actions were highly objectionable or perhaps even why. He acted in good faith, but to further personal or outside interests. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Er... SOE is Special Operations Executive, the model for the OSS (see The Good Shepherd (film)). Eventually i noticed my own error, and annotated to SEO.
    --Jerzyt 06:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As to the AfD issues, i'm not trying to arrive at a position either on good faith or on deletion, but i had erred in construing the evidence, at least on this talk page where you (who was already active, IIRC, on the AfD) would see it, and i felt obliged to point out my error there.
    --Jerzyt 06:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Subway station naming conventions[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Subway station naming conventions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acps110 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Giant Armadillo[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Giant Armadillo, 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/Giant Armadillo. 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.
E2eamon (talk) 00:46 & :52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • As a general measure, i suggest using strikethru rather than removal of text as the means of retracting your own messages. Strikethru reduces confusion between such innocent removals and vandalism, by maintaining a record that more closely parallels the page's edit history. Thanks in any case.
    --Jerzyt 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page[edit]

(My normal practice is to delete nothing except vandalism from this talk page without archiving it. What is being placed in this secn despite my implicit request to keep the discussion where it started is a surprising new case. That content & my replies are at User talk:Geni#"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page.)
--Jerzyt 00:30 & 00:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette (building)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Aubette (building), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Aubette. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette de Meulan[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aubette de Meulan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aubette. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette de Magny[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Aubette de Magny, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Aubette. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette (Aube)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Aubette (Aube), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Aubette. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

White hat (film)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of White hat (film), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: White hat. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

RE: "Accoutrements (and thus in turn Accoutrement) should soon be speedied; it appears that if anyone cares, it would be you.
--Jerzyt 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"

Actually, I don't care in the least. It's a rather trivial matter. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CSBot[edit]

I see you're the Dab King, so I'll just tell the bot you're one of the Good Guys and it'll shut up about you from now on.  :-) — Coren (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I do Dab like crazy, and it offers substantial occasions for refactoring.
    If i were a Good Guy, i'd probably snarl less [blush], especially at those who set up Good Things by facing design challenges that would drive me up the wall. The least i can do is note that i've been if anything overzealous about merging histories of merged pages, but only fairly recently gotten diligent about documenting refactorings in edit summaries, as your bot so wisely counsels.
    Thanks for your work!
    --Jerzyt 18:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and question[edit]

My counter-response is with my original comment at User talk:Eckenrrp#Saint Francis Cross Country.Jerzyt 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for making my article "Saint Francis University cross country" better and I have a question. Could you some how make it accessable from the Saint Francis University page? I'm not sure where this would be appropriate on that page.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talkcontribs) 00:12, 13 April 2010

Category sorting[edit]

Just a reminder that the DEFAULTSORT markup uses a colon, not a pipe, e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:140 th meridian}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|140 th meridian}}Paul A (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Duh, thanks!
    --Jerzyt 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deln trk list entry[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Deln trk list entry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mailer - "not good journalism"[edit]

Jerzy, I've responded to your correct deletion of my "not good journalism" citation here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafio (talkcontribs) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Draga variants[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. For the moment I have nothing to add at those pages. In my oppinion the pages Draga (surname) and Draga (given name) could be merged into a single "Draga (name)" but that's just me. Ark25 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mocha (singer)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Mocha (singer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bluemask (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

SIA?[edit]

Hi. In this edit you added {{SIA}} to page Odd Fellows. I had a look at Template:SIA, but I'm still confused. Can you briefly summarise the value of adding that template? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    I consider the tag descriptive bcz the page is not a typical prose-heavy article, but primarily a list that is supplemented with small amounts of prose. I seem to recall that the tmpl makes an SIA sound a little more like a Dab-pg than the criterion that i just stated, and it is possible i am mistaken in this assertion: insisting on such a difference is probably counterproductive.
    I consider the tag valuable in this specific case bcz the page is clearly not presently a Dab page, and retention of the portions that keep it from meeting the standards of WP:MoSDab probably will best serve the project. I did not just now review the history to refesh my memory, but experience suggests that i probably would not have editted it ever (as i probably did, prior to the edit you cite) if it had not by that previous point in time been tagged improperly as a Dab pg. Even if it has not previously been Dab-tagged, i have seen so many, many examples of pages even less Dab-like than it, that some user decided needed {{Disambig}}, that IMO that prospect would be likely in the absence of the {{SIA}} tag. I hope the tag will have the valuable effect of forestalling addition of a Dab tag, which could lead to all the (IMO) desirable prose being removed as part of a Dab cleanup, and in practice lost, being hidden in the depths of the edit history.
    I signed on just now with the specific intention of posting a Wiki-Break template, and intend to avoid most stringently the discussion pages. Please forgive me if you soon seek further response, but i succeed in my intention!
--Jerzyt 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it all makes sense now, and I now understand and agree with what you've done. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I hope you enjoyed your break. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Break[edit]


--Jerzyt 02:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah: He's ba-ack!
--Jerzyt 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your forgery accusation[edit]

I've copied the following content to the colleague's talk page, complied with the request, and expressed regret.
--Jerzyt 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You recently posted on my talk page a level 2 warning claiming that I had forged Template:PRODWarning in order to put an extended middle-finger graphic on a user's talk page. As you'll be able to see by this edit, what you described was not the case; I did not alter the template posting, but rather someone else had vandalized the template itself, and I (unknowingly - I was working through Twinkle and never saw the user's page result) had posted the warning during the period that the vandalism remained in place.

I applaud your well-intended efforts to police such inappropriate postings. In this case, I would appreciate your verifying the information that I have just given you and posting a comment in the section you added to my talk page, retracting the accusation. I am an active editor in good standing and would prefer not to leave that accusation standing baldly there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Russell Smith (prisoner activist)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Russell Smith (prisoner activist), 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/Russell Smith (prisoner activist). 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. Fences&Windows 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jo Parkerson[edit]

Re Jo Parkerson:

Hello, Jerzy. I wanted to tell you that this article has tags on it, including as unreferenced, and may soon be nominated for deletion. You created it a long time ago, but if you're able to add references, it should be alright. Thanks for your help with this, Markiewp (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

   Interesting walk down Memory Lane. I may analyze further the bizarre edit that it led me back to!
   I don't remove orphan tags until there are three links, myself, but i ditched the Blitzer 'graph; don't know if you're interested in reviewing that call.
--Jerzyt 11:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on it, Markiewp (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Three-point turn/standard swap[edit]

Thanks for the talkback there. The thing is with these refs (three-point-turn used as a metaphor for standard swap) that they are kinda the ones that I kind know I have read somewhere, where in context it quite appears it was meant as a usual term, i.e. is stated as "the usual three-point turn" or somesuch where it appears that the term is common use already: i.e. the best kind of etymology. Right now I can't think of exactly where, so I will sleep on it a few days, that usually helps. Fortunately now all my books are at home, so when I remember where I will be able to find quite quickly. (I have a kinda photographic memory for that, but need a bit of context as a trigger.)

Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

re from my talk[edit]

excuse me sir, I feel as If I dont deserve the incivility warning after someone lies about my actions after two adminstrators told him that it was not the case. I was calling a spade a spade. (Reply on my talk or here which ever you prefer.)Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering there.
--Jerzyt 03:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame. Since you had some involvement with the Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

lol i swear this is not personal Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CycloneSIA[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:CycloneSIA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

re: Copyright vio at Ron Eldard[edit]

Re article Ron Eldard:
The text in the following box appeared as User talk:Yllosubmarine#Copyright problem: Ron Eldard and was removed by that talk page's owner with a reversion summarized
Undid revision 387057009 by Jerzy (talk) no copyright violation
depriving the succeeding discussion of its context.

Copyright problem: Ron Eldard
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ron Eldard, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://williamfichtner.org/seven/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=63, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Ron Eldard saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jerzyt 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The text you've tagged as a copyright violation was added four years ago, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to template me at this point. Further, seeing as how the direct quote was correctly attributed and cited -- albeit not to the most reliable website on Earth -- I don't see how you can claim it is a copyright violation. Simply remove the quote if you don't think adds anything to the article, and don't template the regulars. María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   You've certainly misunderstood my intention. Your citation of DTTR suggests you've "taken [my msg to you] as rude by being impersonal", and if that is so, i regret it. So let me tell you my actual intention: The template in the article is not addressed to you, but to the need that copyright violations be clearly labeled (and, when judged appropriate by our copy-vio specialists -- who BTW do not include me -- removed not just from the text but from the edit history). I would not have made the considerable effort needed to determine your identity as the adding editor if {{copyvio}} did not instruct "Place {{no thanks}} on the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material"; i assume {{no thanks}} adequately shares the tone of an editor doing a colleague the courtesy of informing them that deletion of their work is likely after applying a {{Db}} or {{Prod}} tag to it. Even if you find that tone has been neglected by the template's authors, i urge you to treat my use of it that way.
--Jerzyt 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
   Your choice of removing my msg from your talk page by reversion will have to speak for itself, as it is more important that i make a reasonable attempt to convince you that your accompanying judgment "no copyright violation" in this instance is utter folly.
  1. You appear to imagine that COPYVIO's purpose is to eliminate plagiarism from WP. In fact, plagiarism and violation of an author's copyright protections can each occur without the other, and direct quotation, attribution, and acknowledgment of copyright are incapable, in any combination, of ruling out a violation of copyright. And diligent removal of copyvios is vital to the project.
  2. IANALB i am sure failure of a copyright holder to enforce their rights does not absolve the violator of liability (and in fact i'm pretty sure that every republication of the infringing material -- i.e., every time a server transmits the page -- is a new violation).
  3. If you are suggesting that the late arrival of the {{copyvio}} template makes the reality of the violation implausible, you should consider that the year without an evaluation, and the three years evaluated as "Start" class, are evidence of the inadequacy of the attention it has received. We are speaking of a neglected article whose copy-vio could have gone on indefinitely.
I urge you against further comments on any page's copyvio or non-copyvio status, pending adequate study of copyright-related issues.
--Jerzyt 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Material placed on User:Jerzy & User talk:Jerzy by IPs, nominally on behalf of User:The Rogue Leader [edit]

(Concerns Jerzy (talk · contribs) & The Rogue Leader (talk · contribs))

The former sections "Not Fair" and "So this is how U treat me?" have been moved to User talk:The Rogue Leader#Material placed on User:Jerzy & User talk:Jerzy by IPs, nominally on behalf of User:The Rogue Leader.
--Jerzyt 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot[edit]

I just noticed that you moved it to Judeo-Christian views of Lot. While I'm not that concerned over what the article is named I think that a discussion should have been first. The primary reason for having a discussion is that there are a possible 16 other articles with the same titling concern. These are

  1. Islamic view of Adam & Adam,
  2. Islamic view of Noah &Noah,
  3. Islamic view of Abraham & Abraham,
  4. Islamic view of Ishmael & Ishmael,
  5. Islamic view of Isaac & Isaac,
  6. Islamic view of Jacob & Jacob,
  7. Islamic view of Joseph & Joseph (son of Jacob),
  8. Islamic view of Job & Job (Biblical figure),
  9. Islamic view of Moses & Moses,
  10. Islamic view of Aaron & Aaron,
  11. Islamic view of David & David,
  12. Islamic view of Solomon & Solomon,
  13. Islamic view of Elijah & Elijah,
  14. Islamic view of Jonah Jonah,
  15. Islamic view of Zechariah Zechariah (priest),
  16. Jesus in Islam Jesus.

There are 5 other prophets from the Qur'an and the Bible but the articles are differently named,

  1. Yahya ibn Zakariyya & John the Baptist,
  2. Shoaib & Jethro (Bible),
  3. Al-Yasa & Elisha,
  4. Dhul-Kifl & Ezekiel,
  5. Hud (prophet) & Eber,
  6. Idris (prophet) & Enoch (ancestor of Noah).

As an aside the identification between Hud/Eber anbd Idris/Enoch is uncertain.
--Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

   I trust you'll not be offended by my reformatting you for clarity. (And perhaps you said "5" and meant "6".)
   I don't know whether you find it relevant, but the whole picture includes my creation of a new page Lot (Sodom) with the edit summary ‎"Needed overview of common core elements; Still a stub, i expect".
   I assumed that the rename (not a move per se) would be non-controversial, since i found there had been no pertinent discussion of implications of the core NPoV policy at the time of the original naming, and since NPoV is foundational in WP policy and pretty unambiguous. After about 3 weeks, no one has objected to the change (altho you've implicitly questioned the process), so i was probably correct that it's non-controversial and we just differ as to what level of caution should have been applied.
   The asymmetry in the names of other Abrahamic superheroes' articles is not IMO an issue bcz they form a set only in the views of various WikiProjects relating to religious figures; the Lot articles, for instance, are equally parts of sets of articles that are special concerns to projects concerned with sexuality, mobs, geological catastrophes, and tales of supernatural intervention in human affairs; some of them would be better accommodated by names that don't parallel the other Abrahamic-lore titles.
   On the other hand, it is my opinion that the same arguments apply to most or all of the articles you listed, and i would support your carrying out the corresponding work on those you are interested in. You seem to carry admin status, but should there be any technical issues around renames and attribution-maintenance that stand in your way, i probably can be helpful.
--Jerzyt 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem with the formatting. I suspect that, given nobody else has commented on the name change, any perceived problem is mostly my imagination. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Julpisanty on hold[edit]

I have to tell you this seems like a very poorly justified block. You indefinitely blocked a user six days after their one and only edit, without even attempting to discuss the matter with them. I was sorely tempted to just unblock before consulting you. I am hoping you can provide a more compelling or detailed reason than the one recorded in the block log, which appears to be a highly speculative and very much assuming bad faith on this user's part. New users often do not know how to use page histories and if we assume good faith, this user simply removed some obvious vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you. I welcome both your feedback and whatever independent action your judgment dictates.
--Jerzyt 07:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I was hoping you would tell me there was more to the story that was not obvious from the block log. Since there apparently was not I must tell you that this was a disgraceful, completely unjustifiable block. I hope in retrospect you can see that you jumped to completely unwarranted conclusions and ignored several of the most basic policies we should all keep in mind when blocking, namely WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:BLOCK. I sincerely hope you do not make a regular practice of using your admin tools in such a haphazard and irresponsible fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Browsing through your logs I see you do not block users very often, but that you made a similarly unjustifiable block on User:Demcaps last year that was also overturned for essentially the same reason. And in that case you simply tagged them as a blocked user without using one of the standard block notices or otherwise informing them of how to appeal the block. As an administrator you are supposed to be aware of and abide by our blocking policy. One of the things it says there is "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a block that may be controversial, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." Either you ignored this advice, or even worse you had no doubt that these two outrageous blocks were justified by the one edit a piece these accounts made. It seems you lack either the policy knowledge or the judgement to determine when to block and when not to. Only you know which issue caused you to make these bad blocks. If it was your own judgement then I don't know that that is a problem that can be fixed and you probably should just recuse yourself from using the block button and rely on other admins whose judgement in this area is more sound. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:20-cen[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:20-cen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vasco Horta e Costa (politician)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Vasco Horta e Costa (politician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Three point turn/Standard swap[edit]

That was a good move to create Standard swap.

I think "Three point turn" is just one of thosejargon phrases I use all the time as a software engineer of now about twenty five years but is very hard to source. My feeling is it is somewhere in Knuth, but I also though somewhere in Brookes, and probably wrong on both counts it is just very hard to source it even though used every day. Perhaps I invented it myself as shorthand for it, uin which case it may be in a copy of ACCU magazine, but most likely not. Will try and source it some time.

Very good to create a separate article for it, at least it is a start eh.

Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portals view: Technology[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Portals view: Technology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Portals view: Technology[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foresight (management)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Foresight (management) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient sources on which to base a full article

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Elonka 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 02:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Penetrant vs. penetrating item[edit]

Alter: Penetrant ist der bessere Terminus Technikus in diesem Fall. Ich habe aber vergebens versiucht das zurückzubewegen. Kannst Du mir helfen das zu reparieren? MfG, --Achim (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is my translation of Achim's German-language msg above:
?? [Alter confuses me; "old person" or perhaps "age" would be Alte, and IIRC, Älter (or älter, other than at the start of a sentence) would be "older".] "Penetrant" is the better terminus technicus [IMO, a Germanized spelling of a Latin term] in this case. I have tried [I assume versiucht is a typo for versucht.] in vain [I'm vague abt the meaning of vergebens, but it fits and sounds a bit familiar.] to put it back. [[D]as zurückzubewegen is not what i'd have chosen for "to restore the old version of that", but then i'm not a native speaker.] Can you help me to repair it? [I draw a blank on MfG. (Or would it have been mfG in the middle of a sentence?) It's likely that f stands for an adjective or preposition and G for a noun; meine... or manche freundliche Grüße e.g. would be "my..." or "many friendly greetings".]
IMO talk:Penetrating item is the appropriate place to work this out.
--Jerzyt 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Obama Administration Miranda-warning legislation[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Obama Administration Miranda-warning legislation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The executive cannot introduce legislation. In any case, source is primary and lack of attention from independent, reliable secondary sources means that this topic is not notable. See also WP:CRYSTAL.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Abductive (reasoning) 23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jaanwar[edit]

Request that Jaanwar (1983 film) be redirected as Jaanwar as its more popular than other two films with same name Jaanwar. currently it shows that you had moved the page jaanwar 1999 as Jaanwar.Paglakahinka (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

   I've started a broader & perhaps more populous discussion at Talk:Jaanwar#Is there a primary topic for the WP title "Jaanwar" ? where your further thots would be valuable.
----Jerzyt 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

response[edit]

oho what happened? i did not see your message. it seems you are angry or hurt from your message. i really did not intend to... be clear in what you say. i did not understand what am i supposed to do.

what you had asked me to do?Paglakahinka (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Response on your talk page.
--Jerzyt 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Wanted to see what you thought of my comment on the discussion page re: the dubious topic on an oft cited reason for three cent coins going out of production being "confusion" of vending machines. I really want to clean this page up to address your concern. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Sammybenny (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for your attention to the matter. I should manage to refresh my memory & respond, somewhere between 2 and 48 hours hence; i'll then note doing so on yr tk pg, but let's keep our substantive discussion here, in one place for clarity. Tnx again.
--Jerzyt 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
   Substantive response at Talk:Three-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)#Dubious.
--Jerzyt 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shahsi Kapoor[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shashi_Kapoor_filmography -This contains full list of 170 films of Shashi Kapoor as ACTOR. But that needs to be put in format in wiki page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashi_Kapoor_filmography. I want 6 columns in Shashi Kapoor Filmography page

Year Film Role Actress Director Producer Notes

Can you put all the names of the films and year in that format? Rest of the detials in other 4 columns i will fill up.Paglakahinka (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it...[edit]

I note you've moved your new list from "South Maluku" to just "Maluku". I don't understand what you are trying to do. But I also note that List of Islands of South Moluccas actually still exist with my last two edits to that list as the only edits - i.e., it seems I am the creator not you. What's going on? --Merbabu (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, that was an odd sort of edit conflict. Feel free to tag List of islands in the South Moluccas for speedy deletion.
    I can tell you don't understand what i am trying to do. Please stop causing ed confs by trying to undo it, and listen to what i've been saying on talk pages.
--Jerzyt 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
   Before i give in to incoherency, i should clarify that what i did to List of Islands of South Moluccas was to follow up, in view of your apparent lack of interest in doing so, on my earlier suggestion that it could be renamed and broadened since you did not like that title. You apparently had started editing, but before you saved, I renamed it, and in light of it being so new (but perhaps unwisely) specified moving w/o creation of a Rdr since it had been linked to for such a short time. Instead of you getting an edit-conflict handler when you saved it, your save was thus treated as a creation of an article with a name that was not in use, even tho you'd started from my revision (which was no longer at that title).
   I'm adding more on my talk page, twd our continuing collaboration. Thanks.
--Jerzyt 09:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
   Oh, this --Jerzyt 10:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)is my talk page.
   What will help me is to know whether your objections to the See also entry on the Dab page reflect in any degree my inattention to terminology about the Banda Sea islands we've been discussing: my assumption was that South(ern)/south(ern) Molucca(s)/Mulaka(s) (Islands) are interchangeable in the context of disambiguating them: anyone using any of those variations may need Dab help, and which one they chose doesn't depend on whether they have used a correct or confused term. Have you been arguing against that?
   For my part, what's crucial here is that, whether they are using one of terms correctly or not, they might be using said term for the part of the province that has stayed under the same name, without intending to refer to the province; that it's a natural term (which we don't have to endorse, and don't, by using it as a Dab entry, especially below "See also") and even if they're stupid for using it, the Dab has to help them find what they're looking for. (I think that will still make sense to me after sleeping.) I'm less interested, for now, in whether you agree than i whether you can either agree or disagree: do you get the question? Later, must go.
--Jerzyt 10:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary dab

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User1 plus[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:User1 plus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ucucha (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WPT:V/First Sentence[edit]

Just curious why you re-factored my comment on the straw poll at V/First Sentence? I was under the impression that comments came after the !votes in their own separate section, however, I'd have no problem including it as a # !vote if it's a big deal. Personally I thought the datestamp in my sig was evidence enough of when I posted it. Cheers! Crazynas t 04:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

   I also considered just striking it through, thus, since the section has a clear purpose, offering an opportunity to be heard for those who consider the topic not worthy of their detailed attention: your remark amounts an uncollegial, in fact insulting, refusal to let them be heard on the terms of "our minds are made up, and we'd rather keep at our work than trot out again the reasoning that has been persuasive to our proven colleagues for ten years, to satisfy people who appear not to grasp the nature of the task"; you imply not only that your supposed insights about the terms they've chosen to endorse make those terms absurd, but that they need you to explain the meaning of what they've already concluded they agree with. That position on their part should require no response. (And BTW it's also a shame that some chose to half endorse something that was intended for those who wanted to say "no" without qualification, and presumably get back to work editing; I may go back and move them to a subsection for those who sorta want to be confused with those the 1st graph specified.) In any case, one thing i've learned in my 8 years here is that some do have the patience to recruit those who seem bent on disruption -- so i limited my attention to the more acute problems you created.
   (BTW, i have no idea what you mean by !vote, and i don't want to know, tho our polls are not votes: they're opportunities to contribute to determining whether a consensus to establish new policy is likely to be feasible.)
   I construed your remarks as relevant to the 'graph that began the section, and reckoned adjacent positioning as being less disruptive. I urge you to consider reducing the copy of your comment at the bottom of the section to at most an annotation about the material being moved.
   But if you really think it will work better at the end of a section than next to what was explicitly relevant (or better imitate some structure you feel you've been prescribed) far be it from me to dictate you do it my way. Hidden in wiki-comment markup i left some mechanism -- visible only while editing -- for reducing confusion on the part of editors. What i do insist that there be some mechanism, at least for avoiding blocks of sigs in response to the stated purpose of the section being interrupted by your remark,which is the almost inevitable consequence of your formatting: people would sign below your comment, and start a separate list & sub-count of people who intend to agree with Jclemens but can easily be construed as agreeing with your complaints about that colleague's wording.
   Altho the basic point is not the fact that you had no business adding fundamentally contrary marks to such a section without starting a subsection like "Critique of the preceding position", a good solution is for one of us to retrofit it into that structure (i being a candidate only if you consent). I did not consider doing that unilaterally bcz you might reasonably construe that as removing your remarks to further from what they addressed and thereby making them easier to miss, i.e. muffling you; both the logic of the structure and making your criticism almost as visible as what you criticized seemed likely to give you the least occasion for offense.
   (The real basic point is that the way you transformed it was doomed, before long, to causing disruption and misunderstanding, which is why i tried to intervene in what i hoped would be a non-disruptive way.)
--Jerzyt 07:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your insightful reply to my query, thank you also for trying to keep what you perceived to be a formatting problem that would eventually lead to confusion at bay. Upon further thought and in light of what you said here, I realized that my comment might have been a bit more pointy than I intended, I have reverted your re factoring and struck the comment ATM as an interim solution.
Regarding the comment itself, I feel that the entire subsection (no compromise or change needed) is itself somewhat pointy on a page dedicated to change. The attitude that 'we are right' and 'nothing can be done to change our mind' seems to say you can do what you want here on the sub-page but the 'cabal' will maintain the status-quo regardless. This is also one of the few polls I have encountered thus far that appears to implicitly prohibit Disagree responses.
I realize that this is a topic that people have gone round and round again, although the entire idea of a wiki encyclopedia makes me think (and has for years) of a bunch of mice running on their wheels. I realize that there may be frustration at what some view as a doomed proposal, however that doesn't mean that change can't happen.
Regarding your above reply, I'm curious what you meant by ...that some do have the patience to recruit those who seem bent on disruption -- so i limited my attention to the more acute problems you created. I was never recruited, I found this entire quagmire on the village pump (I think). I don't think that the reasoning in it's current form has been like that for ten years. When I first arrived at WP (2005) "Verifiability, not truth" had yet to make it on the policy page. A !vote is a 'not vote' (see !), I refer to any numbered ':#' poll as a !vote as opposed to ':*' which I consider to be a discussion (see also WP:RFA vs. WP:AFD). I am somewhat a cynic regarding 'voting' vs. trying to reach consensus since I feel their is a critical mass wherein true consensus building becomes impossible and evaluating based on the !vote is the only way (see RFA again). I do appreciate that you were trying to help, thank you for pointing out that my comment as currently formatted would lead to problems. Cheers!
Crazynas t 17:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
   Please don't bother explaining exactly what form of recklessness on your part resulted in your deleting my sig, as i don't intend to throw good time after bad.
--Jerzyt 02:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 ? Crazynas t 02:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please glance at Hanlon's razor, then take a look at [1] considering that your sig did not have it's own ':#' and followed directly after a comment you made about my comment, I thought you were just signing to attribute the fact that you refactored MY comment, so my apologies about reverting that. It wasn't recklessness, I was simply trying to correct (without unnecessarily confusing other editors) a problem you brought to my attention. Crazynas t 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User2 plus[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:User2 plus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RM-bot minor fault[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at HardBoiledEggs's talk page.
Message added 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RM bot - multiple move notices[edit]

Just a quick update - I've restructured the notice text so that the destination is a bit more obvious, but for now I've gone with "Article name - Requested move". I've tested this on User talk:HardBoiledEggs/0. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Jerzy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your contributed article, List of scientific end-scenarios[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of scientific end-scenarios. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - [[:]]. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at [[:]] - you might like to discuss new information at [[Talk:|the article's talk page]].

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See also Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera). --Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Sinanthropus (genus)[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Sinanthropus (genus), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. LinkTiger (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dump job[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dump job has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a a misplaced dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is an entry for
Look up dump job in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

in Wiktionary, so this page should be deleted.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Braincricket (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Larson[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Larson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greenmaven (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

   I wrote at User talk:Kermanshahi#Disambiguation:

   Thanks for your interest in WP and your efforts.
   Please study Dab and MoSDab. I assume you care about whether you are editing constructively, and that implies that you have no idea what a Dab page is. You added a few acceptable entries to Islah‎‎ in your next-to-last edit to it, and they are appreciated; however, most of your recent editing to it will be reverted, and it's a shame to see your energy being wasted in this fashion. Thanks again.
--Jerzyt 22:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

eliciting the follow reply here:

I have no idea what I am supposed to have done wrong on the Islah (disambiguation) article, as far as I know it's just like any other disambiguation article on wiki. And looking at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, I don't think there is anything wrong the article, either. Kermanshahi (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

--Jerzyt 07:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking this time.
1.   If you haven't gotten to "MoSDab" yet, it's not that surprising that you'd experience some puzzlement. "Dab" is more about the general principles involved, and "MoSDab" more about specific practices that we've found further those principles. For instance, i grant you that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Dictionary definitions doesn't by itself actually rule out the one dictdef involved here, but Dab alone is not definitive, and MoSDab is much more specific at the section "Linking to Wiktionary".
2.   On the other hand, Dab itself does say at WP:MoSDab#Individual entries, 4th bullet point after the first example box,
  • Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.
which was part of the most visible fixes i made when my summary included "DabCU done", and was what i assumed it would be obvious that i meant when, after your next edit, my summary referred to "forbidden extra links".
3.   Clearly i saved without remembering to add a ref justifying the pruning of your descriptions, in that same edit, and closed the summary w/ "[removing] (IMO) excess description per [...]" and omitted to indicate that the same section applied in that respect as well: the second point you will find after the second example box reads
  • The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.
and if you had gotten to "MoSDab", you should have noticed the clear analogy to the second example-box's struck thru bad-example line reading ""Dark Star" (song), a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead", where rather than just undoing the excess links, 6 or 8 words were entirely discarded: removing such "[(in my opinion)] excess words" is what is meant by "description associated with a link [being] kept to a minimum".
4.   It appears to me one of your recent contribs to the page was constructive in adding 3 relevant links to the page (and the need for -- so to speak -- pruning them is no problem, and part of our "many eyes" collaborative-editing process). That is one of the reasons i want you as a colleague.
5.   I don't know whether you superficially consulted the first page i cited, before saying "... I don't think there is anything wrong the article, either" (and didn't bother to acknowledge skipping the second), or studied them both and failed to grasp their relevance. I don't regard recklessness in editing on the Web as requiring bad faith, so i don't hesitate from saying that falling in the range that those two extremes span appears reckless to me. And along with constructive work you've also been (regardless of your presumed good intent) editing on this Dab unconstructively. Please step back, take a hard look, and figure out whether and how you can keep your work on the page we are discussing constructive.
   Thank you for your patient attention to my regretfully frank words,
--Jerzyt 07:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Jerzy, I understand what you are saying, what I don't understand is how my edits conflicted with that. See I created that page, and almost all the links there were added by me. It seems from your edits that the explenations I provied for the terms were too long? Was that the problem? And there are not supposed to be any links in them except to the article itself. Because that's not what I've seen in other disambiguation pages, but than again, they may be wrong.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
   Thanks, Kermanshahi, that's helpful. Yes, the key idea is that Dab pages are fundamentally different from articles, including both the aspects you cite, which rest on the need to separate the functions of providing information on a circumscribed topic (altho the links to other articles are an important secondary aspect) and that of rapid navigation to the focused topic that the user was hoping to find an article on.
   I'm not sure what you were getting at in saying "See I created that page, and almost all the links there were added by me." Say more about that if you like, but in case you're not aware of WP:Own, do note that the licenses we grant, every time we click "Save page", give away our content to everyone in the world, with the exception that each contributor is promised that the page history will document the fact that the new material they added came from them. You and i are each entitled to have our IDs appear at the Islah edit-history page, but it is WP policies and guidelines that control what can or can't be changed or discarded, not any rights you or i get for having contributed.
   I noticed several days ago that you've been blocked, which lessened my sense of urgency (tho not my long-term interest in dealing with the matter more thoroughly). I'll save this for now, without trying to recapture the thread of my thots on the Islah matter let alone proceed to the point of being sure i'd responded to everything i can at this point. When (and if) you return to editing, i hope you'll consider our discussion merely delayed.
   Thanks again for your attention.
--Jerzyt 01:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation mis-categorized[edit]

Jerzy, received your msg about my categorization error -- I understand completely, and appreciate your help. thanks! --Lockley (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Toensing (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bird dog (person) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bird dog (person) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird dog (person) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CTJF83 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of War Democrats (2000s) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War Democrats (2000s) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Democrats (2000s) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Revising and expanding the "Quaker Universalist Fellowship" article[edit]

Friend,

I'm Mike. I'm a long-time convinced Friend (Quaker), and I recently joined the steering committee for the Quaker Universalist Fellowship (QUF). Colleagues on the committee have been trying to correct and expand the Quaker Universalist Fellowship article. Unfortunately, they didn't know about the Conflict of Interest rule. I was advised about COI when I queried User:SwisterTwister, who had removed most our edits because of that rule.

Now I am trying to find someone from outside QUF who would be willing to help us revise and update the article without violating COI. I'm contacting you simply because your edit to the article is the earliest one I can find.

I have left messages on the article's talk page Talk:Quaker Universalist Fellowship and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), asking for collaborative help to edit this article, but it doesn't really look like anyone has been substantively involved with either the article or WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) for several years.

Can you give me some suggestions on how to proceed?

We would like the article to be more thorough and informative for readers, and we are stymied by the COI rule.

Thanks much, Crippled Wolf (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ransom F. Shoup II for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ransom F. Shoup II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransom F. Shoup II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Jerzy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"In analysis,...."[edit]

Hello.

Please notice my recent edit to Decoupling (analysis). If you say "In algebra,..." or "In geometry,..." or "In number theory,...", the lay reader will know that mathematics is what it's about. If you say "In category theory,..." or "In topology,...", they usually won't. And "analysis" is what Freudian psychiatrists do, and sometimes what chemists do, and sometimes any of many different other things. It doesn't at all get across the idea that mathematics is what it's about. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

   Good, prol'ly an improvement, and hard to conceive any problem; tnx. (If you have the interest, you might look at Decoupling (disambiguation) -- which was what drew my attention to it -- with a similar eye.)
--Jerzyt 03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of molecular formula disambiguation[edit]

Greetings! Based on your participation in creating the category, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Prequel[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Prequel relating to the definition of the word "prequel". You were the last person to revise the actual definition on the page, in 2009, so maybe you could weigh in. Barsoomian (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited James Fenton (farmer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forth River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence[edit]

I think you are generally an excellent editor, but I have reverted your move with respect to Coincidence, since the meanings other than the general meaning are so limited. Obviously, I was very displeased that you made a move that created dozens of disambiguation links without immediately fixing those links. I have initiated a discussion of the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Coincidence. Frankly, I think we should have some measure in place requiring the disambiguation project to approve such moves in advance, as they are often contentious. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The following is a copy of what i posted at your talkpage.
--Jerzyt 02:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
   Re Coincidence and User talk:Jerzy#Coincidence and talk:Coincidence#Split and Dab.
   I'm pretty worn out, but i think i should respond here as well, before going off-line.
   Please recall that NPA is about communications relating to the project's content vs. relating to editors themselves, and that the relationship of the content of an edit to guidelines on content is what bears on whether the content should be reverted: those decisions are about the content itself, not credit deserved or offense given. Your mention of whether "common courtesy" was observed in my decision process is a personal attack (tho i doubt an intentional one) (whether you are accurate or not in saying it was missing) bcz your being right in that claim would not help justify your reversion of the edit.
   You may also want to recall "what a tangled web we weave" even by inadvertent imprecision about others' acts: when for whatever reason you indicate my action was an (unimplemented) proposal, at best you've complicated our colleagues' comprehension of the matter, by putting me in the position of having not only to explicitly contradict you, but even to mention otherwise irrelevant details that your account implicitly contradicted.
   (There's more that could be said about when an editor should proceed, and the hierarchy of WP behavior standards, but what we've had to say is IMO already kinda too much, at least for now.)
   Thanks for your attention to this attention-starved article.
--Jerzyt 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for going off the handle. I wish to be clear that what I meant by "common courtesy" did not involve your decision process, but the fact that the page move left a large numer of links pointing to a disambig page, which unfortunately was at the top of this list for the day; we have tried to instill in editors a sense of responsibility for fixing such links when disambiguation pages are created, but I flatter myself too much to think that this admonition has been effectively communicated to anyone outside of the disambiguation project. Again, I apologize for my rudeness, and I do think you are one of Wikipedia's finer contributors. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
   Thanks for clarification, which supports my impression that this is no disaster. I recognize your sig as that of a steady and committed editor, and in particular, heavily a Dab contributor. A lot of my attention also goes to Dabs, but frankly i'm near the Bartleby end of the scale, and probably hobble my effectiveness here by not being more social. It is thus ignorance, and not simple rudeness, that leaves me unable to properly compliment you back.
   My first recollection of Dab editing was converting Battery from primary to "equal" Dab'n (where i note it has either stayed, or eventually relanded), and i'd have stopped editing Dabs if i had continued to take the "code of honor" as seriously as i initially tried to. My Battery-bypassing sessions didn't decrease in length fast enuf that new growth seemed likely to overtake me, but my ambition was humbled. (IIRC, the residue were completed by a colleague in a single session.) That set the stage for acknowledging a hierarchy of obligation: criminal law, civil law, Arbitration Board decision, WP policy, WP guideline, then "code of honor that you've taken an oath to uphold". (Let's see, i know there's at least one more step...[wink])
   In the current instance, i temporarily left the mere-coincidence page still sucking, and hope more facile colleagues will tackle the primary/equal decision, and de-suck it, promptly enuf that i can quickly slouch on into a bypassing-the-double-Rdrs-i-caused mode. But i'm pretty committed to leaving my honor a ways down my urgency hierarchy.
--Jerzyt 02:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom and Jerry (announcers) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom and Jerry (announcers) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry (announcers) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Casing changes[edit]

I have not been able to locate any current Wikipedia MOS guideline on the matter, but every current style guide with which I am familiar encourages the silent change of case in quotations where grammatically called for, except for (a) as you note, in legal contexts and (b) when the source is a historical document in which many words other than proper nouns are capitalized. Obviously, neither exception applies to reviews of House.—DCGeist (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beth Nugent[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Beth Nugent has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. j⚛e deckertalk 03:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Local Management Interface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DEC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Cadi (Swiss region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prev ltr and Template:Next ltr[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Prev ltr and Template:Next ltr have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6)[edit]

While I recognize your point about the way that particular episode is worded, I don't see how bombarding it with unreferenced/dubious tags is going to improve it. If you're not going to change itself, the best thing to do is open a discussion on it on the talk page - and maybe use tag if it's really needed, but otherwise the talk page is best. Also, keep in mind that plot summaries for episodes that have already aired do not need to be sourced, technically.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejohnsan (talkcontribs) 08:38, 8 September 2012‎

   I'm sorry you didn't mention you were removing my inuse tag, bcz your impatience (i.e., just over an hour from my placing it, and 16 minutes after an edit to the page that you could not reasonably think was what i had spent the hour on) didn't present me any occasion to tell you that the edit in progress would neither remove everything you objected to, nor be limited to the kind of changes you'd objected to. I can see that your ignoring the tag does not have to be construed as bad faith, so i hope you will accept my suggestion that leaving you the very small task of restoring your <10-char edit imposes a much smaller burden on you, than my harmonizing my hour's additions with your effortless rollback would on me.
   I already have thots about the significance of the "technical" dispensation from refs that you refer to, and its practical significance, but i read much more efficiently than i write, so that even you, i think, will be saved effort if take a look at the prior discussion of the notion. I assume there is some formal record of a consensus; could you share its address with me?
--Jerzyt 10:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
First off, I did not use the rollback feature on your edit. I used Twinkle, which is not the same thing.
Secondly, I did not intentionally remove the inuse tag as I didn't know you had placed it there in the first place. But I am going to point out that you are not using the tag appropriately, since you have not made any major edits to the article. And no, bombarding it with maintenance tags doesn't count.
Third, I don't think you understand my point about the citation needed tags, so let me ask you this: Where exactly are you going to find a reference for a plot summary? The episode itself counts as a source. If there is something wrong with the way it is worded, then fix it yourself or continue your discussion on the talk page. (In fact, if I weren't distracted with this discussion, I could focus on the article talk page). Is there any reason you can't trim the plot summary down to basic, noncontroversial details? Davejohnsan (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. I indeed erred in saying "rollback" (since i think we agree it means "revert" in the narrow sense), when i intended "revert" in the broad sense. It may be a habit i've picked from colleagues, since on reflection i realize i seldom describe anyone but myself as "reverting" and i suspect that is a (personal or community) mechanism for avoiding seeming to hint that a colleague's intention is reversion war.
    I certainly did not intend to imply you had used rollback rather than Twinkle, since all i know about Twinkle is that it is or includes some kind of front end for WP editing -- and nothing about the differences that are apparently significant in your mind.
  2. I don't think i implied anything about your intention, and discussed the matter only bcz i felt obliged to inform you that i had reverted two of your good-faith edits; perhaps i should be even more paranoid about giving offense.
    I don't often use {{inuse}}, and i'm not sure i'd previously even noted the section option. In retrospect, using the option was a dumb move: in so overwhelmingly large a largest section, it sacrifices visibility in return for a very small saving in editability of other sections. (I'm sure the availability of Twinkle reflects some consensus process, but it's too bad no one thot to include, as a feature, an interlock against unknowingly editing an inuse section!)
    I do find it uncharitable in any case to dispute a colleague's good-faith judgment about what is a major edit, and i will for now forgo addressing the meaning of "major" in this context.
    I made no mention of your first use of the verb "bombard", and perhaps i erred in that, since you repeat it. I can't see how anyone could use it without intending to imply or insinuate both destructive intent and indiscriminate application, for neither of which opinions you have offered any reason. In the absence of such reasons, IMO, it also violates AGF.
  3. OK, stop worrying about whether "[i] understand [your] point about the citation needed tags". In a discussion of policy, "technically" should mean "strictly interpreted", so i unconsciously assumed that when you said "technically" you meant that, rather than something closer to (forgive me the connotations) the guardhouse lawyer sense of "i've found a technicality that implies the rules don't mean what they sound like they do". And i formally admit that an (arguably technical) point you've mentioned, and i've avoided addressing, is applicable and needs inclusion (tho IMO it is not definitive). I've given up and done some research (that IMO was your just burden, but that's water over the dam), and i'll post a careful and well documented argument, along with some perhaps workable approaches, on the article's talk page in the next few days.
    I find your link to BOLD, piped by "fix it yourself", cryptic, since searching for that phrase on the page produced no hit. I'm not certain i've read every word of it before, but since its thrust is permissive (if perhaps with imperative second thots) and you seem to be suggesting i'm required to fix it or get lost, you'll have to make your point more explicit. I may not really have made the point since this started, but the templates' documentation makes it clear that their purpose is to call attention to a problem, so that the attention-caller can go on to other tasks. If we expected the tagging editor to fix the problem, we'd have no use for the template, get it?
    WP content usually starts with stubs, and often grows as established editors (or those pushed into their first edit by what they know and is missing or wrong in the article) add to it, even to the point when splitting the article becomes expeditious. Many TV series have pages like the one we're discussing, but with each episode's entry linking to a separate article. The best outcome is for an entry to grow to a point where it embarrasses its neighbors, and then have its content move to a new (episode) page and replaced on the season page by something useful only for telling users unsure about the title that they haven't yet found the episode they want, or reassuring them that they've indeed succeeded. (Rule of thumb: don't discard accurate content.) In contrast, limiting content on an ep, to even what is now at the "Conscience" entry, means, e.g. concealing (what is apparently the case) the fact that this episode starts (contrary to the natural conclusion from the summary) not only after the birthday party is over, and after the murder, but i think after the scapegoat (first mentioned in what i've been treating as the second of 3 or 4 'graphs) has been positively ID'd in a line up. (IMO that's prolly a good choice on a season page, at least when the ep page exists -- but not on an ep page.) For someone, say in academia, who is analyzing a director or critic, and knows that someone else has referred simply to "the purple-paper scene in Blowup", "the scene with the tiger" in Apocalypse Now (or, in its extended version, "the scene crossing the footbridge"), having even one full sentence on a scene, and some sense of the preceding and following scenes, can save hours trying to fast-forward to the scene, or help clarify which films or eps are likely to be most worth watching from start to finish.
--Jerzyt 06:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be an over-analytical person. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's very frustrating at the moment, since I'm not in the mood to respond to everything you've nitpicked. Again, my issue here is that you are so wasting so much effort flooding the plot summary with maintenance tags (Only read the "Too many tags" section, please) when you could spend it improving it in the first place (hence WP:BOLD). If there are as many issues with the summary as you say there are, then it's way past the point where placing a tag next to every problematic sentence is an advisable option. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, one thing that keeps bugging me: There is no point in using the citation needed template, since every plot summary is attributed to the episode. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
   OK, perhaps this is too analytical for you, but "over-analytical" is like "overtagging" in that "over" means "too much". So you are injecting, into our discussion of WP, complaints about a personal characteristic of mine that doesn't suit you. That sounds a lot like a personal attack, and if you think it sounds that way, you may want to apologize, for the sake of the influence our public discussion has on civility among our colleagues. That's your business, bcz i'm here neither to have my ego stroked nor to police civility, and i think i'm able to do my work even with colleagues who throw in such distractions.
   You took the trouble of numbering 3 points important to you. You said (1) i had misdescribed your actions, so i admitted my error (tho its significance to you is lost on me) and provided some information i thot more substantial and thus likely to ease your apparent umbrage than "I assure you i meant no offense." You made (2) a two-edged comment about the {{inuse}} inuse tag, hinting i'd libeled you as to your intent, but seeming to insinuate you'd have been justified had you had that intent, and in doing so repeated a previous incivility. Apparently i said too little about that: while i care not whether you apologize to me, IMO you owe the rest of your colleagues an apology, or at least a non-apology, for violating civility guidelines. You (3) repeated yourself about the core matter, about which let me recount our discussion to date:
At 08:38, 8 September 2012‎, you said in part:
Also, keep in mind that plot summaries for episodes that have already aired do not need to be sourced, technically.

At 10:34, 8 September 2012, i replied in part:

I already have thots about the significance of the "technical" dispensation from refs that you refer to, and its practical significance, but i read much more efficiently than i write, so that even you, i think, will be saved effort if take a look at the prior discussion of the notion. I assume there is some formal record of a consensus; could you share its address with me?

At 00:13, 9 September 2012, perhaps you failed to read that, or to understand it was in reply to the portion of your 08:38 reproduced just above it, bcz you responded in part:

Third, I don't think you understand my point about the citation needed tags, so let me ask you this: Where exactly are you going to find a reference for a plot summary? The episode itself counts as a source....

At 06:49, 9 September 2012 i said reply

OK, stop worrying about whether "[i] understand [your] point about the citation needed tags". In a discussion of policy, "technically" should mean "strictly interpreted", so i unconsciously assumed that when you said "technically" you meant that, rather than something closer to (forgive me the connotations) the guardhouse lawyer sense of "i've found a technicality that implies the rules don't mean what they sound like they do". And i formally admit that an (arguably technical) point you've mentioned, and i've avoided addressing, is applicable and needs inclusion (tho IMO it is not definitive). I've given up and done some research (that IMO was your just burden, but that's water over the dam), and i'll post a careful and well documented argument, along with some perhaps workable approaches, on the article's talk page in the next few days.

At 05:24, 12 September 2012 you refused to respond to that point but said

Also, one thing that keeps bugging me: There is no point in using the citation needed template, since every plot summary is attributed to the episode.
   I hope the yellow box above will clarify for you my view that the question you keep insisting on an answer to requires a careful and definitive answer, which i'd probably have prepared for you by now or in the next 24, had you not written me your latest as and when you did. You've delayed it.
  If you haven't both read and understood the yellow box above, be sure to read and understand red one below:

   Contrary to your apparent understanding,

"[i do] understand [your] point about the citation needed tags"

and i thot it was clear that i think that (1) it is wrong and (2) trying to give you a simple reason for that without the appropriate research and explication would be counterproductive.

Much as you perhaps would like to believe it, it is not the case that understanding your assertion is sufficient to make me agree with it. Stop repeating the same assertion and the same question, and wait for my reply instead of trying to force to give you the reply you want.
   I reserve my right to ignore your messages as long as i see fit, and i shall be surprised if you should manage to write one that i will choose to answer before completing the definitive response that i foresaw near the beginning of this correspondence.
--Jerzyt 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
   You've made me aware now of two project pages (tagged as essays) that you like, but i am not going to devote effort to responding to them just now, since i am busy doing your homework for you (in an area where you seem to be far more interested than i am) by consulting, citing, and quoting policy and guideline pages, which (in contrast to essays) reflect strong consensus and are binding. And the core of my effort has all along been to respond definitively to precisely that "one thing that keeps bugging" you.
   Do i need to say that the reason i'm disagreeing with you is not some kind of failure to listen? I believe i understand what you're saying, i think what you keep saying in slightly different ways is wrong, always for the same reason, and telling you that does not convince you, so please be patient while put together what i have found, in a way that should be clear to you, and that i believe will help you understand what responsible editors do about this matter.
--Jerzyt 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm really getting tired of dragging out this discussion. The reason I started this discussion in the first place was in hopes that we could reach an agreement on a simpler plot summary. Are we going to do that, or would you rather continue a discussion that ultimately will not lead anywhere? Davejohnsan (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
   Neither.
--Jerzyt 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Then what exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Davejohnsan (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Kleindienst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Carrie[edit]

I enjoyed your edit summary at Carrie, which made me smile. Seems you originally tagged the page for cleanup back in February. On that basis I have removed the cleanup tag. (: France3470 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

   Hope you didn't think i was trying to be clever, since you were the one clever enuf to examine the edit history! Now you've made me smile. I think my caution was about not remembering actually seeing anyone else even fix a Dab-entry-subordinated-to-Dab entry instance -- so what did they find tagworthy?
   That aside, your mention of February reminded me that i looked at DabCu-tagged-since-Feb entries bcz the Dec ones didn't lite my fire, and Jan either was already empty or i had just emptied it. Perhaps an editor who exhibits 1 just noticeable difference more compulsiveness than my 90th- or 99th-%-tile compulsiveness would have at least glanced at the Feb edit summaries -- since i had, minutes before, implicitly known that that one must have been tagged precisely in Feb.
   Keep on smiling, colleague!
--Jerzyt 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have a view either way about whether or not items should be subordinated, but I suppose on the whole I tend to retain it if it's already in place. I must have looked at most of the items in the cleanup category a dozen times. (Some just seem impossible to budge!) I've most certainly forgotten which ones I tagged. I should have another gander at the list, to see if I can't knock a few off. It would be so nice to see the list below 100, but it might take some time and some serious slogging. Thanks for your lovely reply, France3470 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Back-story (production)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Back-story (production) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No good sources, not much content in this article, dated material, nothing to merge elsewhere

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Gervasius[edit]

Hi Jerzy, that sounds like a good plan! Thanks! I have no objections. Polylerus (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Shoreline (band) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shoreline (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoreline (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates in biographical articles[edit]

Please don't remove birth & death dates from the lead sentence of biographical articles as you did several times to Ada Lovelace. They are required by our Manual of Style. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dab?[edit]

Further to your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry/ToDo#Joseph_Fort_Newton#Neither , I assume "Rdr" means redirect, but what's a "Dab"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talkcontribs) 19:29, 26 December 2012‎

   My friend, thank you for taking an interest in this matter, and for the presumably sensible contribs by you that have motivated the communications you've received on your talk page. I think, on one hand, WP:BITE does not intend to single out colleagues such as you as as "newcomers", and on the other that you should not in any case consider yourself "bitten" by the following observation:
   At point 1 of WT:WikiProject Freemasonry/ToDo#Neither, i said in part, "I converted Anti-Masonic from a Rdr to Anti-Masonry into a Dab ...". IMO a reasonable sense of proportion should have lead you to examine that page, which would show you just below that page title the text
A disambiguation page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which is not a sentence but should invite you to infer a sentence beginning "This page is ...". You might also, or instead, have taken note of the text between horizontal rules on that page "Anti-Masonic", just above the its Category box, which begins
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.
and in turn should have led you to explore the page that that link points to.
   In each case, you'd have reached one of a pair of project pages (ones addressed primarily to editors) about disambiguation; each of these is associated and firmly links with a project-discussion page. Of the four, each but HELP:Disambiguation features either a box near the top that notes the existence of a page with "Disambiguation" as its base title and can be reached via a Rdr whose name includes "DAB". The two talk pages each index, in their tables of contents, a discussion whose title includes the use of "Dab" or "dab" as an abbreviation for "disambiguation".
   Finally, if your faith in colleagues' rational grasp of the needs for anticipating needs like the one you were experiencing were lower than your faith in your knowledge of non-WP-specific abbreviations, you'd be well advised to use automated reference materials: type "dab" or "DAB" into a search-box; here are two useful ones: A B
   As i say, please don't feel bitten: my tirade just above is not intended to alienate you, but to provide a memorable lesson on the value that informed self-reliance can have, especially in WP work. Occasionally i just ignore a request appearing on my talk page, but i figured the effort to respond in a way likely to stick in your memory was worthwhile.
   Calm Seas; Prosperous Voyage.
--Jerzyt 04:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your good faith response to my question. I should point out, however, that you could have simply written "redirects" and "disambiguation pages" in the original comment, making this entire conversation unnecessary.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
   Yeah. Now we're getting to the point where lack of shared assumptions becomes evident. I speculate that you assume either
  1. that i prioritize
    minimizing the effort that low-experience editors must invest to become fluent readers of our talk pages above
    maximizing the efficiency of talk-page communication among fluent editors, or
  2. that i use a tool that automatically expands, say, "^Ndab" to "disambiguation page and "^Vdab" to "disambiguate".
But neither of those is true.
   Linus's Law probably only works when the project is relaxed enuf to let contributors set their own priorities. Comparison of this search with another one that you'll be able to construct for yourself suggests that about 80% of talk contributions re Dabs may come from those who fulfill one or both of those assumptions, but a substantial minority come from those who do not. I'm not certain that a wider expectation like yours would inhibit my contributions; still, i've not, in nearly 10 years as an admin, previously seen anyone suggest that any value of the orientation you advocate is worthy of discussion, let alone the (however carefully padded) noodge you've just offered to me. So thanks for speaking up, but i'm interested only bcz i assume my failure to respond would be even more confusing for you.
--Jerzyt 07:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Whatever.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 21:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacob (given name)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jacob (given name) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This name is too frequently encountered for a list to be viable in Wikipedia. The disambiguation page lists people known by this name alone, and that should be sufficient.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note about repairing the nomination, but did not understand it. I have moved the page to List of people named Jacob for clarity. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted, tnx.
--Jerzyt 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people named Jacob for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people named Jacob is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ToC for LoPbN direct links[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:ToC for LoPbN direct links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Orion Nebula[edit]

Greetings,

Following your post on my talk page, first I want to thank you for the compliment on my edit to the Orion Nebula talk page. I did not see it as so groundbreaking, if I might say so.

However, I have to say that I do not understand exactly what you want from me. I read the link you gave me about "anchor other than an explicit section title," but I have to say I do not get it. What do you want to do exactly? The way I see it, you want to edit the Orion Nebula page by adding a paragraph saying that we count time past as if neglecting distances, and that is fine with me. The paragraph you have written on my talk page is good… except for the "citation needed" parts of course! ;-)

While I am indeed a member of a few WikiProjects, I do not participate actively in any of them, and I even have stopped looking at the updates since… hmm… too long ago to mention! Maybe someone else would be better than me for sparking interest there (or anywhere else for that matter). I simply have too many things to do in my (rare) free time: I translate texts to French for the University of Arizona site on the HiRISE experiment on Mars; I do some translations for Southern Stars (makers of SkySafari etc.); I do the graphic design for a seasonal newsletter for the Fédération des astronomes amateurs du Québec (Québec amateur astronomers federation); I also am Secretary of the board of that federation; and finally, I am "The Guy in Charge" for a free French-language PDF magazine about astronomy, called Astronomie-Québec [2]. Sorry, but no more time for Wikipedia! :-(

I wish you find the help you look for, and remain available for advise if needed.

Best regards,

CielProfond (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paulo Freire (astronomer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathon Wendell[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jonathon Wendell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 01:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Edwards brothers, Fisher, and Hogben[edit]

Re The Edwards brothers, Fisher, and Hogben

Hi,

Do you mind me prodding this? I can't see that there is anything here that can't be covered in A.W.F. Edwards and John H. Edwards respectively, and I can't really find sources covering both of them. So just a structure thing, mostly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

   I oppose any such deletion. (Tho i try to maintain equanimity about colleagues' tagging!)
   The article cites a presumablyRS: The Independent, and one RS suffices in the absence of controversy abt what is true. (We indeed count sources in one form of popularity contest, but that is to determine whether a different topic has a stronger claim on a title, not whether a name for a topic should be eliminated.)
   In fact, where (as here) the Web has been copying a title with a meaningful title for many months, you should be asking how to reuse that title as a RDR or soft redirect if you don't think a given collection of facts should be kept together.
   I'd be glad to try to discuss whatever specifics of "structure" (perhaps your sense of the term is which chunks of info will productively be adjacent, or close within a tree structure?) you are concerned about.
--Jerzyt 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


Well I'm not sure it's going to survive AFD. With regards to structure, a redirect to where though, A.W.F. Edwards? John H. Edwards? Their father Harold C. Edwards? I'm not sure a very WP:OBSCURE article is going to be linked from eslewhere on the web, and as I've said all of the content should really be written in both A.W.F. Edwards and John H. Edwards and possibly Harold C. Edwards as well. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
   OK, i accidentally threw dust in your eyes by mentioning soft redirects -- a term i now see i've been misusing once every few years, bcz i never checked out my guess about its meaning! And you're right that conversion to an internal Rdr to a substantial article is no help.
   I agree that the (sparse) content (or plausible expansions) can be accommodated elsewhere (in the four bios, with some duplication); the issue i was raising was not that, but that the title has by now been duplicated in many places: while i dunno why Google served up /The_Scientific_Papers_of_Francis_Crick_A_Footnote_on_Custodial_History "The Scientific Papers of Francis Crick A Footnote on Custodial History" on the first page, i'd risk real money that hundreds if not thousands of the hits i got from searching Google for "Edwards brothers, Fisher, and Hogben" in fact derive from WP. Many of the copies will mention WP, and even on seeing one that violates our copyleft rights by neglecting to, many users will conjecture (based on various peculiarities) that WP does have an article (and perhaps in a corrected, improved, illustrated, and/or footnoted version); we can avoid disappointing those who come from such users' sites and request that page title, and we prefer to.
   Putting a Dab at the trivial article's title would be silly at best and confusing at worst, but neither i nor (IMO) the MoS would be offended by a SIA, with content like this:
Among British zoologists of the twentieth century, two brothers named Edwards were each a noted protege of Fisher or of Hogben.

The proteges:

The mentors:

   I built up the message at the bottom of that box by stripping markup out of the {{SIA}} template, to avoid SIA boilerplate that doesn't apply very well. (If implemented, this approach would call for working out what Category the page belongs in; i haven't bothered with that yet.) If you like this approach of downgrading the page from pretensions to the substantiality of typical articles, i'll see it thru; if we don't come the a mutually satisfactory approach, i ask that you delay AfD long enuf that i can implement the improvements your arguments suggest to me, lest colleague's time be wasted in a premature deln process.
--Jerzyt 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mary Madeline for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Madeline is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Madeline until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pg-ovw2[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Pg-ovw2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pg-ovw[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Pg-ovw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radio shows based on Nero Wolfe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Izumo[edit]

You wrote    Thank you for trying to improve the Dab page Izumo. I am reverting your edits without discussing your summary comments individually, bcz you repeatedly changed entries with a blue link to add additional blue links in violation of the first few paragraphs of MOS:DABENTRY, and a number of your comments suggest that in general you were editing under the mistaken notion that a Dab is just a boring multitopic article.
   As WP:DAB and MOS:DAB make clear in great detail, a Dab is not an article at all, but merely a navigational device with the sole purpose of minimizing the frustration of users who have arrived at a page that is not an article on their topic of interest, because their reasonable hope about the title of the article covering that topic is either

  1. primarily a title for another topic's article (e.g. typing "Hitler" in seeking the film of that name), or
  2. a title for which there is no single article that would be on the desired topic, more than say 45% of the time that users try that title (as with "Izumo").

WP articles give information on their respective topics (and usually the more the better, to such an extent that we'll subdivide the topic into several articles when the amount of info at one page becomes ungainly). A dab "enriched" with any unnecessary information is like a red hexagonal sign reading "If you are in a vehicle, you are legally, morally, and for your own safety hereby required to bring your vehicle to a halt before any part of it reaches the intersection close beyond this sign, and.... If you are not in a vehicle ...."
   I will not at all be surprised if, after due attention to the official guidelines i've mentioned, you have some good ideas for improving this Dab, but for the moment you are too far off for me to efficiently separate such wheat from the chaff. If you find difficulty seeing how the guidelines apply to Izumo or other Dabs, WT:MOSDAB is a good place to get feedback from old hands. If you have a specific "why not do X with Izumo" question, don't rule our asking me at my user-talk page. (And i'll also watch your talk page for a week or so in case you respond to my message immediately following in this same section; it's usually good to keep a 2-way discussion in one place.)
   Thanks for reading this long comment, and thank you for showing interest in WP editing.
--Jerzyt 07:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My response

I will likely revert some of your edits - your mass deletion of all the material I added (after you removed it without explanation) is rather excessive, at least in my opinion. As for your comments about how you think DAB pages are supposed to look, I will simply point out that similar DAB pages, such as Akagi, Church, System, Dreadnought for example, contain far more detail than what you deem to be acceptable (and have been in this configuration for quite some time). If you are correct in your view, than numerous DAB pages in Wikipedia will require a serious overhaul. For the time being, however, I am willing to meet you part of the way - I will agree to remove some of the material I added (the long list of locations is probably unnecessary and I will avoid adding additional links). Hopefully, we can come to a compromise.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC))
   The Dab guidelines mean what they say, and the fact most Dab pages are neglected (American and Indian having gotten so much more discussion than typical Dabs should clarify for you how un-sexy the average Dab is) should simply clarify for you why so much effort has been invested in establishing policies, guidelines, and essays instead of giving any respect to "it's done this way all over the place. WP is an encyclopedia, not a soccer fan-club.
   I'm glad of your mentioning a "long list of locations [that you assume are] probably unnecessary"; my blanket reversion was not a rejection of everything you did, but as i tried to say, a matter of the presumably low wheat-to-chaff ratio. You did so much that it was clearly non-compliant that i didn't look for added entries, and i will make a point of finding them, and comment on what makes you good additions different from any bad ones. Your latest revisions command my first attention, but i'll certainly get around to looking at those four counter-examples you mention; barring any expression of boredom or annoyance from you, i'll probably comment to you on anything i do on them.
   I note your sense that my removing "all the material [you] added ... without explanation" was extreme. I'll mention that the first thing i did after "fixing" a section i noticed was not in the format i thot i'd applied, and then noticing that there'd been an intermediate edit, was to say "Oh, no, did i leave all my talk-page entries, explaining removals & preserving their entries for possible future entries, in an edit window and never save them to the talk page?" I went straight there, and found i'd saved two edits of talk before saving the Dab page, but that you'd edited the article extensively without responding to the pre-existing talk either before or after. (I certainly did not explain everything i did in the detail that i addressed the entry-removals, nor include "see talk page" in my summary, but IMO AGF requires construing "cleanup" as "cleaned up in accord with established standards" (rather than "cleaned up bcz WP:IDL"). (I didn't add "see talk page", i think, bcz what was there was less explanation than it was preservation of potentially Dab-useful info.) I suggest to you that you are seeking gentler handling for your standards-blind and consultation-free efforts than you are even now according to my compliant & collaboration-attentive contrib.
   There are indeed times when compromise is constructive in our editing work: when reaching agreement turns out to be impracticable. Your impatience to edit this page on a quid pro quo basis could be a sign that consensus will indeed be hard to reach. But your latest round of changes are a basis for further exploring a common understanding of what benefits the project. I'm proceeding with my efforts to see how the page can be improved -- as i already remarked, entries i ignored but now understand you had added, are likely to be beneficial to users (and proposing omission of material that i ignored among a sea of apparent bathwater does not fall under that heading.
   My next step (greatly aided by what sounds like your contribution of complying with the one-blue-link-per-entry standard) will be studying your (and DAJF's) new revision.
  Thanks.
--Jerzyt 02:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize I may have come off as being overly-defensive. I was just surprised by your approach to the DAB pages (again, because a lot of Wikipedia's DAB pages contain details exceeding what you have suggested is appropriate and nobody seems to mind).  (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC))
   Well, truth to tell, it takes a certain oddness to pay Dabs as much attention as they deserve, but we gnomes have thot about it pretty hard over the years, and a lot of work (little of it from me) has gone into the Dab-guidelines pages. And it's a little like watching a skyscraper go up, girder by girder, with very few observers paying attention to the fact that the girders can't go up without the rivets.
   The need for "See also" sections like the one you eliminated is discussed at WP:PTM. Implicitly, such Dab sections prioritize the jobs that a Dab can do: First priority is users who want to get to an article for which "Izumo" (in the case at hand) might have been the title (if it isn't or weren't being used as the title for a different topic's title or the Dab); they are first priority bcz we can serve them with almost no intervening distractions, by listing all such titles before any others.
   Lower priority - i.e., listing under "See also" - goes to articles whose topics can be efficiently specified by phrases that include the Dab page's title, but would not ever have that title (even if no topic had an article that for which the Dab page's title made a good name). Examples include Izumo-taisha (which presumably would never be called "Izumo" except in discussions limited to a choice among shrines), and Izumo-class helicopter destroyer (which presumably would never be called "Izumo" -- rather than "Izumo class" -- except in discussions limited to naval-ship classes). It does no harm to list these under "See also" at the bottom of the Izumo Dab, bcz no one looking for an article for which Izumo could be a good article title will waste time looking at them until they've already looked at and ruled out the earlier titles (and become desperate); it may do some good to include them for the benefit of those who know their topic is called something involving "Izumo", and are down to their last resort in searching for a relevant article.
   Altho "Izumo" is similarly ill-suited to be a title for an article on the work Kunisaki Izumo no Jijō, closer examination makes it, IMO, reasonable for a piped-link entry to one section of that article: Kunisaki Izumo no Jijō#Main characters begins with info specific to Izuko. The principle of least astonishment IMO calls for the link to alert the user about which page and section the link points to: Izumo Kunisaki, title character of comic Kunisaki Izumo no Jijō, tho i'm not sure there's any guideline specific to these situations. I had the article-link under See also, but IMO such a piped secn lk to the character belongs above that final section.
--Jerzyt 07:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale"[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a random intersection, equivalent to People in Grimsby with blue eyes". It;s amusing, informative, even interesting, but totally non notable. This is WP:TRIVIA and has a place in a miscellany, not an encyclopaedia.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

   I've just ended my effort that began with my ProDing of what was then Dale, Virginia (which i regarded as misuse of Dabs to benefit braindead users) and the creator's de-ProD. I renamed to Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" and changed course from moving on to AfD, when i realized that Smith, John is being tolerated as a Rdr. If i get notified that someone takes up an AfD banner for any of the pages we've mentioned, i'll support deletion of each of them.
--Jerzyt 21:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
   On second thot, and just for the record, i think your argument is sound when applied true articles but very weak for SIAs, which much like Dabs are meant almost entirely as navigational mechanisms and don't exist to provide "real" information. Both Dabs and SIAs should IMO look a lot like a miscellany. Just for the record.
--Jerzyt 21:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If you feel there is merit in this article and are sufficiently bold, why not take it to AfD yourself as a contested PROD? I have not recognised this page as a Disambiguation page, hence my PROD and reason. An alternative is to make it unmistakably a disambiguation page. So far the title is against it. The PROD process will give you thinking time. Nothing is urgent. I see it very much as a random intersection, and will take a lot of convincing otherwise. Fiddle Faddle 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm
I was originally going to create Dale, Virginia as an {{r from incorrect name}} to Dale City, Virginia, but I discovered that alot of other Virginia cites had the word "Dale" as part of their name and could conceivably be mistakenly refereed to as "Dale", so I want with a disambig instead of a redirect. Jerzey objected to the disambig, so we used WP:BRD to come up with a compromise, the current Dale, Virginia and Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale". I would not object to making both Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" and Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" unmistakably disambiguation pages (under a "Dale, [state name]" title), ether that or the current state is fine with me, but I'd imagine Jerzey would object for the same reason he objected to my original "Dale, Virginia" disambig. I don't really understand Jerzey's objection. I'm not as familiar with disambigs as I am with redirects, but if Jerzey is arguing that we shouldn't have disambig equivalents of {{r from incorrect name}}, {{r from incorrect name}} are a well-established form of redirect, and considered useful to the reader. I don't see why a disambig would be different.
As for the Smith, John redirect, such redirects are more then tolerated, they are encouraged. It is true that naming conventions call for "[first name] [last name]" titles, not "[last name], [first name]" titles. That is precisely why it is a redirect (a {{R from modification}} in this case), it can not possibly be an article title. "Smith, John" is not an accepted forum of "John Smith" as a Wikipedia article title, but is is accepted as a valid English language form of "John Smith", so it's a redirect. Our readers are not bound by our article naming conventions, they can and do search using other valid English language forms, or even some invalid ones such as {{r from incorrect name}}. This is a huge part of the reason we have redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I do not accept your rationale I have taken this to AfD. The community will decide formally now. This will either delete the article or bolt it firmly into place. Either outcome is acceptable. My opinion is that it requires deletion. Fiddle Faddle 06:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. You said "An alternative is to make it unmistakably a disambiguation page", and I agreed. Why would it require deletion, can't we just make it unmistakably a disambiguation page? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It does not appear to me to be unmistakably a disambiguation page. If t appears so to others then they may !vote to retain it. You may also edit it to avoid any confusion. For me it s still not an article for Wikipedia. We have no reason to agree, of course we don't. Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't yet. Jerzy and you disagree with the forum that the West Virgina and Virgina pages should be in, whereas I have no opinion. The way I saw it we were discussing what the forum should be. I hadn't changed the forum because we were still discussing it. I removed the PROD only because I thought the page should be kept in some forum, not necessarily the current one, and the PROD templeate says "You may remove this message if you [...] object to deletion for any reason". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It was perfectly understandable that you removed the PROD. I disagree, hence I have nominated it as a contested PROD. I am not disagreeing about the form the page should take. I disagree with its existence. The good thing about AfD is that others make a value judgment and they decide. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused about what you meant proposed making it unmistakably a disambiguation page, if you disagree with its existence. One of us is probably missing something that the other is trying to say, but maybe this isn't worth trying to figure out; this isn't just between the three of us anymore sense it's at AFD. I guess I'll vote at the AFD when I'm felling more awake. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As sleep clears you will see that you removed the PROD but had not altered the page in any substantive manner, referring here to your rationale. Odd;y there is no real rationale present for not deleting the page, just a discussion about the page. There is nothing confusing here unless you cling too strongly to the straw of disambiguation page look and feel. The more I look at it the more I see it as WP:TRVIA. Change my mind by editing the page or by arguing skillfully at AfD, the location where you will change other people's minds, too. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your special Talkback thing[edit]

Please look at the foot of this and see the amusement it caused. Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

   It's amusing too that you're the first to point it out to me, and that i had spent a while, again, before saving, trying to tease out where the problem lies. It's probably time to stop being so stubborn about whatever it was that i found lacking when i hacked it together, and shop the current selection of formally distributed variants.
   With a smile and a blush, i am
Jerzyt 04:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It ought to be something simple, like an unclosed div tag. But where? Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Organization (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The Organization", [[Communist_Party_of_Kampuchea#The_Angkar|Cambodian governing body ''Angkar'']]), led by Pol Pot

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francis L. Hawks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • works in the then-young science of [[Archaeology of the Americas|American archaeology]].)
  • not state someone's paraphrase of that as documented fact.}} published until 1842.<ref>[http://www.worldcat.org/title/new-york-review/oclc/6951098/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Heinz (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flip-side (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-Dabbing Kundalini[edit]

Hi Jerzy. I see that you're currently working on the various Kundalini pages. Some background on the term and its uses:

  • Kundalini energy is a yogic principle connected to the chakras and the central nadi (energy channel). It's a yogic theory of unlocking energy from the base of the spine and sending it upward toward the crown of the head and beyond. It is central to both physical and philosophical aspects of many forms of yoga.
  • Kundalini Yoga is a modern school of yoga that highlights the notion of kundalini energy. Hence the article previously titled "Kundalini" referred to kundalini energy.
  • It makes sense for the Dab page to just be the straight "Kundalini" and rename the energy page "Kundalini energy". Kundalini Yoga can remain where it is because it apecifies a partical style of yoga (cf: Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, Anusara Yoga, etc.) Morganfitzp (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

copied & answered at sender's talk.

Thaks Jerzy, looks great! Morganfitzp (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Good Morning!!! (Australian show), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages News reader and Live to air (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indenting of your comments[edit]

I'd like to respectfully request that you stop "manually" indenting ("&nbsp;&nbsp;") paragraphs in your talk page comments (I mean, outside of this talk page, of course). It makes the "flow" of the discussions harder to follow, since indenting is already used to distinguish different users' comments.
   Welcome to WP. But with all due respect, the substance of your request will be more worthy of a response when you show enuf knowledge and concern about what of makes WP talk effective that you sign and date your contribution to any section (other than the lead section) of any talk page.
--Jerzyt 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Need for Speed (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clandestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Home organization[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Home organization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence to suggest that this is notable as required for an encyclopedic topic.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kundalini article[edit]

Hi there, please refer to the talk page of the article previously known as kundalini. I have stated that your changes were unnecessary, unhelpful and had no consensus. Out of courtesy I ask that you revert them immediately. Please use the talk page for any further discussion. Freelion (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed no longer Kundalini, which is now a Dab. Talk:Kundalini Rdr's to Talk:Kundalini yoga, so that is probably the talk page in question. Let's see what the scoop is.
--Jerzyt 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the proper place for discussion is the original talk page for "Kundalini", which you have renamed "Kundalini energy". Please continue our discussion on its talk page where I have left a question for you. Freelion (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
   Actually, the proper place is the disambiguation page for "Kundalini", but now that i'm aware of what it was you were trying to say about where, and i've made a link to it, let's let expedience win out over propriety.
--Jerzyt 21:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Jerzy, please answer the questions waiting for you at talk:kundalini_energy Freelion (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC):
I think i'm between 5 and 15 minutes from the end of a days' work on that talk page.
--Jerzyt 03:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Come on Jerzy! Do the right thing, I know you want to. Save me the trouble of calling an administrator. Freelion (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
   Well, shame on us both!   Shame on me for pridefully thinking no one could slip the Fallacy of the undistributed middle past me! And shame on you for committing the fallacy in your mangling these two compatible but logically unrelated ideas: "K urges J to do what K thinks is right." and "K knows that J wants to do what J thinks is right." And shame on me for thus suspecting you of blatantly asserting something along the lines of your ability to read my mind ... when all you were really doing was mumbling. Or equivocating. Or both.
   Well, no harm done, in the end.
  1.    Be patient, and i'll take on the burden of the writing the G-tests that will objectively identify the primary topic of "Kundalini". I haven't before now bcz i was slow to pick up on the evidence of how stubborn you are.
  2.    CRD is a wonderful rule when the change in question is an edit: reversion of an edit is a trivial process. I'm not sure if i've ever read the guideline carefully enuf to be sure it acknowledges its assumption that the change is an edit. I assure you that the sequence move-and-refactor, un-refactor-move-back, and discuss is madness.
       Now, i want to acknowledge that there is at least informally (in the form of the templates for requesting moves) a guideline about discussing before moving/renaming (the distinction is seldom attended to; we only provide for one of them & which we do to simulate the other is only worth thinking about when you're actually doing it), which i IARed. You may feel a little better knowing why i ignored discuss-before-move.
       ... but i can't make sense of that for you for at least 12 hours.
--Jerzyt 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
For such a verbose reply, you stubbornly continue to avoid the point. How does the bold revert discuss cycle not apply to you? Freelion (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
   Your stubborn demand to understand immediately issues that you've clearly demonstrated, at the article's talk page, are over your head, makes this entire process chaotic. Now, a good rest or so later i see that your frenetic demands pushed me into saving an edit (the one i'm now adding remedial material to) that i can't see how to make sense of, after you distracted me. Your edit prevented my save at that page. I'm not sure I'll be able to reconfigure it into the page without a good rest. In case i decide to try saving to it before leaving the keyboard, watch for my in-use lock there before editing.
--Jerzyt 08:32, 10 & 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
   It's clear that you haven't seriously considered whether you have the slightest inkling of what the point is. "How does the bold revert discuss cycle not apply to" me? Because it doesn't say that anyone has to go back and revert their own move (let alone a good faith one), but rather that others are justified in reverting their content revisions. (At least their content revisions, and see i already made the point above, that that guideline shows no indication of consensus
(the discussion that led to BRD may show it, if you want to take the trouble to find and interpret discussions that may have been as cryptic as your unlinked reference to "the talk page of the article previously known as kundalini")
that restoration to status-quo-ante was intended to warrant counter-renames, whose impact is far beyond the usual situation where
anyone can do the reversion with essentially a keystroke, and
a clear record of both revisions is made, automatically and universally accessibly, in the history.)
As i've already said elsewhere, i may have erred in applying IAR to the practice of seeking consensus before a rename, but if so i did it in good faith. And the MOS exists to aid users of the 'pedia, not to force me to make you whole when i've been involved in your disappointments.
--Jerzyt 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Jerzy, I believe you are making things way more complicated than they need to be. It's really a very simple concept over at the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. First someone makes a bold change (as you have done), then if someone else has a problem with that change, they revert it. This puts the onus on the first person who made the change to start a discussion on the talk page and try and reach a consensus. In this case, since you have created a disambiguation page and renamed the article, it is not so simple for another editor to revert. It's a technical job which may take administrator status to complete. This is why I have begun the "requested technical move" on the Kundalini energy talk page. So Jerzy, what I am expecting you to understand is that you have made a change which is being challenged. Since I am not authorised to revert your change, I expect you, as an administrator, to do it yourself. Do you get my point? Freelion (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not here to meet your needs, nor to take your unsolicited advice. I'm prepared to offer you advice if you request it. At this point, i have communicated with you far more than i care too, and unless you would be interested in my advice to you, i ask you to stop leaving me messages here, and i am likely to choose to ignore what you say elsewhere. Happy editing.
--Jerzyt 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(Tin box)[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Tin box, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. . (Not strictly the case, but I have opened a merge discussion - it looks like you created the article by redirecting copy from Tin can - now it appears some editors want to send it back again. Please do comment on the merge discussion if you want. Thanks!) Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psycho cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psycho II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Psycho cycle[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Psycho cycle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary; redirect to Psycho (disambiguation), which has much of the same information.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Fortdj33 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Finkel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Finkel[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Michael Finkel has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of AfD Nomination of a page you created[edit]

Hello User:Jerzy this message is being posted to inform you that an article you created Mad Hatter Studios has been nominated for deletion as a non-notable company/organization and not meeting WP:COMPANY. You are welcome to contribute by voting FOR or AGAINST the AfD nomination or to put a comment but under no circumstances should you edit, change or remove the AfD tag from the article's page until such time as the nomination has been officially closed by a Wikipedia Administrator. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Decoupling (mathematical analysis)[edit]

I am dubious about this article. Can you shed any light on it, for example by way of verification in independent reliable sources? Deltahedron (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I marked it for speedy deletion. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Move reverted.[edit]

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Martian has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. bd2412 T 14:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced listcruft

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion[edit]

Katharine Cook Briggs listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Katharine Cook Briggs. Since you had some involvement with the Katharine Cook Briggs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. My Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The caps "I" in English[edit]

Haha, noticed that on your user page (I only got here because you have a notification for a redirect under discussion at WP:RFD).

It is a peculiarity that "I" is caps in English whereas in most other languages it is not. On the other hand, German which your user page says you speak quite well capses a lot more nouns than English has; English used to do so until about the late 18th century but German still caps every noun, and you could equally say that is peculiar.

What I think is the worst struggle for learners of English is the pronouns and apostrophes "it's" vs "its" etc (and for English people to), which if you look at them are completely illogical. The apostrophes were only introduced as printers' marks in the mid to late 19th century but a grammarian got hold of them and suddenly they became God. It is completely illogical to say "yours" but "Bert's", for example. Si Trew (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for those insightful comments. (And for your wonderful coinage into print of the perfectly logical usage, as a declined verb, of "capses"!) I adopted my odd habit quite intentionally but without any insight into the actual history of the upcasing, tho i eventually learned that any of the "exaltation of the self" which i imagined was at most an incidental effect, rather than the underlying cause of the illogical usage: i don't recall where i learned the truth, but it seems that handwritten lowercase "i" had a tendency to be mistaken for a stray mark on the page (especially, i assume, when the dot at its top was either not yet a standard usage or ink accidentally connected the intended dot to the main stroke), and occasionally at least to distract readers if not actually to leave them befuddled by what they read.
   On the other hand, i won't fully endorse your opinion that the noun/pronoun distinction is "completely illogical". Confusing, yes, and in fact confusing to the point of "too bad it worked out that way". But actually the underlying logic is sound, and IMO it's too bad society hasn't done a better job of encouraging awareness of the logic: I knew someone who had a dog named Him (but i don't recall if there'd been one named Her). Note how the casing resolves the ambiguity. (TMI: My father had a story i think of as "Sticky-Sticky-Stambo", a child whose full given name had about 20 or 30 syllables, and his brother named "No". He saved No's life by running to say "Dad, No fell into the well!", but later was drowned in the well himself bcz delivering the corresponding message took No too long for the alert to be timely. IMO the moral is that language evolves, other things being equal, to be efficient in use.)
   Anyway... we surely capitalize proper names bcz cultures advanced enuf for writing are complex enuf to expose some of their members to proper names that are novel to them as proper names but may coincide with ordinary nouns, and upcasing helps us distinguish proper names from the corresponding ordinary nouns (or corresponding misspellings of ordinary nouns). Pronouns are indistinguishable from nouns in terms of their grammatical roles, but differ from pronouns in being sharply limited in number and simultaneously far less limited in what they might refer to: in literate cultures, the number of ordinary nouns is too large for nearly anyone to know how large it is, while the number of proper nouns is unlimited and the number of them known to an individual is likely to increase every year, perhaps every day.
   Worse yet, spoken English uses the same aural sign (-s following some sounds, -z following others) on nouns and (some but not all pronouns), for three functions: plural (the cats; i know 3 Franks; (but they/them NOT e.g. hes or hims), possessive (the cat's, Frank's, its, but your NOT yous or you's), and contraction of "is" or "has" (the cat's in, Frank's out, she's been here a while but i'm [not Is nor I's] late).
   IMO we need to take account of spoken language being overwhelmingly a medium of immediate interaction between speakers and listeners; in contrast, written language is predominantly unidirectional, and, traditionally and still overwhelmingly, interactive only on a pretty long time scale. Tone of voice eliminates a lot of ambiguities, and interactions via "Huh?" or silent (or even subliminal) cues offer speakers great opportunity to detect and quickly remedy ambiguity. In contrast, written English uses apostrophes to reduce ambiguity. It would be easier to spell if we had two separate marks for elision and possession, but what we have settled on is,
in the absence of a possessive punctuation mark or a special s (lower-case only!) used only when indicating possessive case
neither an accident nor a usage contrary to simple logic.
   The logic is this: apostrophe (as distinct from "single"-quote) has two meanings:
  1. to indicate representation of a pronunciation corresponding to omission of one or more letters, no matter what part(s) of speech is/are involved
  2. only before or after terminal S, and only at the end of a noun, to indicate that the noun in question is (whether plural or singular) also possessive in its case.
What is implicit in that, and what confuses people and invites claims of illogic, is that each pronoun, whether nominative or possessive, and singular or plural, is a unit whose ancestral development probably had logic to it at each step, but that logic has no continuing relevance. The current situation is that each instance of person, number, gender, and case has its own word, which lacks the apostrophe that applies to the possessive of nouns. (It probably lacks it bcz every native speaker knows the personal pronouns -- if not their [lack of] punctuation -- without having been given any rule.)
   The idea that "it's" is "logical" flies in the face of the fact that the apostrophe-S spelling applies to virtually all if not all nouns, but could be applied to derive from a nominative pronoun only that one of the possessive pronouns:
I; my & mine
we; our & ours
thee; thy & thine
you; your & yours
he; his
she; her & hers
it; its
they; their & theirs
(Anyone who suspects that "our's", "her's", and "their's") are commended by the same rule should bear in mind that, say, bank's and Frank's are all-roles possessives derived from their nominative cases. The pronounal (pronominative?) predicate adjectives ours, hers, and theirs relate to the possessive case forms that directly modify nouns, not to the nominative case pronouns that would correspond to possessive nouns.)
--Jerzyt 03:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the apos being used for the possessive is
  1. Most people get it wrong ("greengrocers apostrophe" POTATOE'S 25p/lb etc)
  2. It is understandable when the possessives of pronouns dont have apos whereas possessives of normal nouns do
  3. It was first only used for the plural nouns to distinguish e.g. Jesus' love from seventeen Jesuses. It then just kinda became established not because people actually used it that way but because some prescriptive grammarian told them to and it kinda stuck.
I am one of those people who just would banish the apostrophe, other languages manage without it (at least as a case marker) perfectly well and in speech we don't use it or distinguish with it, so there is no need to in print.
As for the "capses", thanks for that I hadn't even noticed, but of course in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got some typos in here but I assume that you accept they are just that and not kinda stupidity on my part.
It would also be lovely to have a plural "you" as well, in the North-East of England one has "yous" and in Southern USA one has "y'all", and in Liverpool "yous", and that to me is a useful distinction but "not standard". One could also do with "one" to mean anybody rather than just the Queen (I know that is not quite true, but to use it in daily life sounds very arch,which it doesn't in French or Spanish or Hungarian, I don't know German) and these things have kinda been ripped away from us by the 19th Century prescriptive grammarians, so we have to say "you make your tea and you eat it" instead of "one makes his tea and he eats it" when one wants a general example rather a specific person, in speech that sounds very arch to say "one" but if one says "you" then the other person can think you are talking about them personally rather than people in general. The prescriptive grammarian H. W. Fowler in Modern English Usage probably put his foot in it there with his article "the false first-personal one" and made people scared ever to say "one". Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is useful or not, regarding the apos: I bank with Lloyds Bank and actually my branch is on Lloyd's Lane in the City of London. It's a short road from Fenchurch Street down towards the River and the Tower of London(Lloyds Register of Shipping is opposite the branch – the two Lloyds are only vaguely connected in history with Lloyds of London). Lloyds Bank took the apostrophe out of their name some time ago, well before their recent branding, about twenty years ago, but directly above the "Lloyds Bank" insignia the street sign says "Lloyd's Lane" has an apostrophe. I am not saying please rename the street. But I have mentioned this to a number of bank staff and they were entirely unaware of the discrepancy or the fact that Lloyds Bank had dropped their apostrophe some time ago. That is why I think they are redundant since in daily use most people don't notice that they exist or know where to put them. I do know where to put them but they are a nuisance nowadays really, especially with autocorrecting tablets and God knows what that are forever getting them wrong. They served their purpose but unfortunately are now moribund and should just be deleted. I think one UK newspaper, I forget which (The Guardian would seem the most likely) just decided to drop them for its house style.
(Maybe I just rob the bank and steal all their apostrophes.) Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way "Sticky-Sticky-Stambo" sounds like one of the Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling, I am not saying it is and I don't have any refernces here (Sambo?) but it seems suitably racist and funny for it to be Kipling. Not saying it is but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am wrong. There's an article here at Tikki_Tikki_Tembo. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Flanders and Swann also have a comic song about Tonga, that goes like this:
It's hard to say "oligalukanuchachichichi"
But in Tonga, that means, "No"
If i ever had the money
Is to Tonga I should go
For each lovely Tongan lady there
Will gladly make a date
And by the time she says "oligalukanuchachichichi"
It is usually too late.
But Donald Swann was an accomplished linguist and this was written purely for its comic value as a little insert, not as any offence to Tongans. I should not be surprised if some people now genuinely believe that "oligalukanuchachichichi" is the Tongan(?) for "No". It seems patent to me that common words tends to be the shortest because over the years/centuries/millenia people abbreviate or change them to make them easier to say rather than having to say it in a longhand fashion. That is why Scope got redirected from Scope (disambiguation) the other day, for example. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way sorry if I sound like I am patronising you with the links etc. I put them in cos it is an interesting discussion and I can imagine it might move to some linguistics page or be referred back to from there so I am putting in more links than I would do if we were just having a natter (well we are I hope but it is a very interesting one). I note in passing you abbreviate "because" to "bcz" whereas I abbreviate it to "cos", and that's another whole can of worms really - you are probably better because "cos" of course in that sixteenth century chap I forget his name Bill Shakes or something has always meant cousin although not necessarily literally (but literarily) so I think that is quite a good abbrevation and I might start using that if you don't mind. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Thanks for the cheeseburger, but I didn't see your reply, so I am deliberately opening a new section so you can point me at it. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

ping User:SimonTrew: Actually, I gave you the burger, but formatting problems on your talk page made it appear as though Jerzy sent it... NorthAmerica1000 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Strong (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Strong (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strong (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people with initials J. G. for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with initials J. G. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with initials J. G. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Musa Khan (defendant) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Musa Khan (defendant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Khan (defendant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SMS Talk 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Khan (defendant)[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)