Jump to content

User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Planet Nine

Hi! I saw today that JPL likes your Planet Nine image over CalTech! The Super-Earth that Came Home for Dinner October 4, 2017, nothing new, but a good summary, and hopefully some good winter observing coming up for P9's most likely sky patches. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Nice one. I'd never have suspected that that image would be used in so many publications, but it's even more surprising that NASA would choose to use it, considering that they had previously been using the Caltech/R. Hurt image which we basically copied! nagualdesign 23:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
..A few more links: 1 2 3 - Looks like I'll have to email The Sun and the Daily Mail to get proper credit, as they seem to think that Caltech and NASA own the copyright. [Update: Done.] nagualdesign 23:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen a number of copies over the last year+, mostly secondary media. Some usages also credit as NASA. I'll at least remove my name as author from the credits, and see if it disappears on future usages. File:Planet nine artistic plain.png Perhaps you'd like to put your real name as author, or contact information? I've had media sources request usage of various wikipedia images I've uploaded. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No need to remove your name, Tom. That image was a team effort. In future I'll definitely pay more attention to licensing and wotnot though. It's kind of annoying when people don't give credit where it's due. nagualdesign 04:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

After some coaxing The Sun added a proper attribution. I see that you've already removed your name from the image description page but I asked them to mention you anyway. I think that's fair. On the other hand, despite several emails back and forth, the Daily Mail don't seem to give a damn about copyright violation. (Linked and bolded for all to see.) They have told me, "We are looking into the concerns you have raised and will revert once our investigation is complete." I'll have to remember that excuse if I ever get caught breaking the law. "Sorry officer, I'll begin looking into the concerns you've raised and I'll be sure to stop just as soon as my investigation is complete!" nagualdesign 15:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting! At least you're making them spend time on it. I've never needed to communicate to a newspaper, but perhaps lucky because I'm "easy", and do have my name easily available. Thanks for including me, it is fun, I'll restore me! Probably I've mainly been directly contacted for book diagrams or photos for permission. I did challenge a grad student once for using some images on her website, but only because she had credit for lots of other people. And she was mortified and quickly added attribution. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe that they're doing anything. I even pointed them in the direction of two of their own previous articles (1 and 2) where the images were (almost) properly attributed, as well as providing links to the image file pages on Commons, but alas they're not the sort of journalists who are adept at investigation. Still, if I ever need to know what one of the Kardashians had for breakfast I'm sure they'll be on it like white on rice. nagualdesign 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, lots of evidence the DailyMail [1] and The Sun are crappy news sources with no integrity, and as long as people read them, they don't have to care. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Another article, The Atlantic, Is Planet Nine Even Real? Ramin Skibba Dec 8, 2017. I saw it because of a tweet from Konstantin Batygin [2], saying The short answer is 'yes'. Tom Ruen (talk)

We're world famous, Tom! You and me are living the dream! You know, the modern, shallow, narcissistic dream.
..Speaking of shameless self-promotion, do you mind if I add my name as co-author of File:Oumuamua orbit at perihelion.png? nagualdesign 06:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:D Please do!!! Tom Ruen (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I added you. One note, no harm in a highest resolution version since wikipedia resizes copies on use, even scaling larger, which is silly. Like [3] scales UP at least to 9000 pixels I tested. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The reason I reduced the image size was because the file size had become bloated (599 KB) due to the gradual fades along the orbital paths and the glow of the Sun. I know that Wikimedia doesn't mind storing large files (hence me uploading both the large and reduced versions) but some of the users who download it just to take a closer look might not appreciate it eating into their data allowance, and there's very little benefit viewing the larger version at 100% (unless you like looking at really thick lines and massive text!) - you actually have to zoom back out a bit to see it properly. The large version's still available for further editing or printing (almost 11" × 15" @ 300dpi).
We make a good team, you and I, Tom. You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down. I wonder if we'll see this one in the Daily Fail? (Yep, that's a bona fide redirect.) I look forward to our next collaboration. nagualdesign 08:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oumuamua image

Hi User:nagualdesign, I saw your new reddened darkened Oumuamua image made the news, credited "Wikipedia". [4]. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tomruen: Thank you for letting me know, and sorry for the late reply. I sent them an email the day you posted this. I also sent one to ITV about this article. Since neither of them responded to my emails or provided proper attribution I can only conclude that RT and ITV don't give a damn about copyright violation either. In future I might create a more prominent template to place in the Author section, stating exactly how I want to be attributed. nagualdesign 13:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Widr (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Policy

What policy was I breaking when you reverted my contribution? My use of demarcation, a word you obviously did not look up as well as you could have? The noun demarcation means frontier, boundary or dividing line.

People are not gonna think the Greeks have a underworld colony 6 kilomateres beneath the surface of the ocean, I would have thought "mythological" would have been implied. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You weren't breaking any policy. As stated in my edit summary, and as you have pointed out above, 'demarcation' means a boundary or dividing line (or the drawing of such a line). I looked it up. The Hadal zone is the region of ocean below ~6km. In this case, the demarcation would be the boundary between the abyysopelagic and the hadopelagic (at ~6km) but not either of the zones themselves.
As for what people reading the article might think, you'd be surprised at how people can take things the wrong way! If it were an article about Greek mythology the phrase probably wouldn't cause any problems, but in an article about the deep, dare I say mysterious ocean depths, the phrase "Greek underworld" might well be mistaken for something else entirely. Better to err on the side of caution when catering for a wide audience. There is a policy to support using layman's terms in article leads, though I can't remember the link.
And thank you for correcting laying → lying. Good call. nagualdesign 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em; line-height:1em;">[[User:nagualdesign|<font color="#000000">nagual</font>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<font color="#ABAB9D">design</font>]]</span>''' → nagualdesign

to

'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em; line-height:1em;">[[User:nagualdesign|<span style="color: #000000;">nagual</span>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<span style="color: #ABAB9D;">design</span>]]</span>''' → nagualdesign

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for making that incredibly easy. Regards, nagualdesign 19:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I've reconfigured my signature to compress the code (from 246 characters to 189):

<b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000000;">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D;">design</b>]]</b>

Please let me know if it causes any problems. No need to reply if it doesn't. Cheers. nagualdesign 04:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. If you want to save 3 more characters, change color:#000000; to color:#000;. If you want to save 3 more characters, remove the 2 final semicolons and the space after Trebuchet MS;. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done I actually managed to remove 3 semicolons, so that's shaved another 7 chars off, making my signature 26% smaller than it was 24 hours ago! Thanks again. nagualdesign 06:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Photofit of User:nagualdesign

You've been accused of sockpuppetry, lol. 32.218.39.102 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What for? And who by? nagualdesign 15:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Check the link above. Makes no sense to me. 32.218.39.102 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Ahh... Looking at the page history I see that it was User:Kintetsubuffalo. He's an odd fellow. Never mind. Are you 32.218.36.178 by any chance? Or if not, how did you find out about this? The first I heard was you telling me here. nagualdesign 16:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Dynamic IP. 32.218.39.102 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I see that your IP address here doesn't match my alleged sockpuppet account. What I meant is, looking at these contributions, is that your handiwork?
That IP address made an edit to Afroasiatic languages earlier that was similar to an edit I'd made, which Kintetsubuffalo reverted. I say similar, it was actually different, but it seems like Kintetsubuffalo didn't appreciate it. The edit I'd made was actually identical to the one User:Landroving Linguist had made previously, so I'm surprized that we weren't accused of being each other's sockpuppets! It's funny, I've never been accused of sockpuppetry before.
For a potted history of Kintetsubuffalo's recent antics see this, which was closely followed by this. I hasten to add that I hadn't actually reported him to anybody, and User:Ad Orientem is not my sockpuppet! nagualdesign 16:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure? Or maybe you are my sockpuppet...-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in for me there! I'm still not quite sure what hit me. Your friendly not-quite sockpuppet, Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. All we need now is for Lamb Chop to turn up for a full house! (Obviously I'm just talking to me, myself and I at this point.)
Thanks for admonishing Kintetsubuffalo, Ad Orientem. You saved me the trouble of having to report him.
Perhaps it's time to bring this to a close now as my feet are getting cold. nagualdesign 18:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Was this comment above ("He's an odd fellow meant as a joke that Kintetsubuffalo is in on? If not, please refrain from making such comments. Too close to a personal attack. Comment on edits, not editors, okay? Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a joke, no, but he certainly has some understanding of my opinions, and I think "odd fellow" is putting it mildly!
This isn't my first run-in with Kintetsubuffalo. He's one of the main reasons that I no longer frequent the Photography workshop, despite the fact that I'm a professional graphic designer with over 16 years of experience using Photoshop, as I can't be bothered with all the bullshit. I once tried politely asking him to stop requesting transparent PNG files and was met with a mix of stoney silence and outright rudeness. The matter eventually led to an RfC where I received wide support, but since nothing was ever officially codified he continued with his tendentious requests and I gave up trying to persuade him to stop.
As you can see on his talk page, Kintetsubuffalo thinks he's above Wikipedia's policies, but by the same token he likes to use those same policies to try and get his own way whenever necessary, which is alarmingly frequently. In other words he enjoys gaming the system. I say enjoys - he comes across as angry and bitter most of the time so I'm not sure how much enjoyment he actually gleans. I'm sure he'll love the fact that you've reacted to my comment above by reading me the riot act though.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to highlight some of his behaviour, and for what it's worth I promise to try not to mention what a complete assh*le I think he is from now on. Sincerely, nagualdesign 19:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Warning is in regard to this personal attack novella dedicated to one editor. You need to cool it. And probably either delete or strike the entire thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi. I respectfully disagree. Expressing differences with an editor who has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of civility, see the note at the top of their talk page for starters, is not a personal attack in the way that I, and I think the community more broadly, has understood the term. Referring to someone who just told you to "f--- off" as an "odd fellow" strikes me as pretty restrained. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@nagualdesign. A certain tolerance for venting is permitted on user talk pages, but I think that we have kinda reached that limit. I am not unsympathetic, and I think that there has been some provocation here, but unless you want to bring Kintetsubuffalo to ANI, I'd suggest that we all drop this particular stick and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that my 'novella' was not a personal attack, it was a truthful account of this user's past behaviour. The only part which stretched the bounds of WP:NPA was my use of the a-word in the final sentence, which I think I was entitled to having been admonished for saying "an odd fellow". I might also point out that this contravenes WP:HSOCK and the requirements of WP:SPI, but in all honesty I'm not really that bothered since it gave me a bit of a giggle, and we can all now consider the stick to be well and truly dropped. And thank you again, Ad Orientem, for being a voice of reason. nagualdesign 03:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

PNG rendering issue

I'm wondering if you might have some insight into an issue brought up on Commons. Seems like it might overlap with stuff you've investigated before. --A Fellow Editor (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, Kevin. (It is Kevin, isn't it?) I'll leave a message there. nagualdesign 23:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome. Indeed 'tis I. After a bit of a break I decided to respawn as A Fellow Editor. I'm open to conversational contractions ... 'Fellow Editor' or 'AFE' perhaps ... I suppose 'Fellow Ed' might work as well ... Which I can see eventually getting pared down to 'Ed' at some point ... Simply 'A Fellow' may have fun dialog potential ... "A Fellow said ..." ... etc. :  } --A Fellow Editor (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh please, don't mention "A Fellow"! As you can see above, that sort of foul language is bordering on unacceptable. Let's not go there again. All the best, nagualdesign 00:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kenneth Clark historian (cropped).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth Clark historian (cropped).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Traditionalist: I'm not sure if you noticed but the boilerplate text you posted above says, "If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed." However, you were the one that removed it and you didn't include an edit summary. Not that I'm complaining. I probably just cropped the image from File:Kenneth Clark historian.jpg following a request at the Photography Workshop, and it isn't a particularly good quality image anyway. I just thought it worth pointing out that if you are going to remove images and go to the trouble of notifying other editors (which I appreciate) perhaps it's also worth writing a brief edit summary. nagualdesign 00:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: I removed the old picture because I was the one who uploaded the replacement.--The Traditionalist (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
One in one out, eh? I suppose that's as good a reason as any. nagualdesign 00:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigs

I went snooping about in your sig markup :  } --A Fellow Editor-- 23:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. nagualdesign 00:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Had a good rummage about in your userpage title markup as well --A Fellow Editor-- 01:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought I felt something! nagualdesign 01:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
:  } --A Fellow Editor-- 01:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Might I suggest a little more colour to make it pop? Something like A Fellow Editor to go with your user page, perhaps? nagualdesign 01:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@A Fellow Editor: ...You've got me playing around with the layout of my own page now! Time for something new in time for the new year, maybe. I'll have to have a good think. nagualdesign 02:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome! I was literally thinking about styling it w/ some sort of brown theme as I drifted off to sleep for a bit! Both to coincide w/ my present userpage theme and to differentiate it more from yours (one of my last thoughts after the preceding string of short post-n-replys was along the lines of, "Jeebus, if I don't tweak that a bit folks are gonna' accuse us of being socks!" LULZ.
(hadta' drop the drop shadow; character limits) --A Fellow Editor 08:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Nagualdesign.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Yes, I don't mind doing that. I'll have a read through the tutorial at some point this week. I should point out that I'm far from infallible though, as a couple of my recent interactions demonstrate, but I'll do my best. Regards, nagualdesign 19:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Horizons

If generic runs of JPL Horizons are deemed unreliable, that might affect numerous Oort cloud comet articles where the orbit *MUST* be computed at epochs when the comet is outside the planetary region (say epoch 1950 and epoch 2050). But I guess Wikipedia might define unreliable as how many mouse clicks are required to re-produce the results, ie big tables vs a simple orbital period.

If one was to look at the JPL SBDB for ʻOumuamua, I assume it would pass WP:CALC to say the Earth approach distance was known with an accuracy of 15000km or ±7500km. "(MAX-MIN) * AU = 13306km." See the table in 2012 TC4. -- Kheider (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I don't see a problem with using Horizons as long as we're conscientious when doing so. I would have added my support already, but since this is a policy issue and I'm not 100% confident with regards to policy issues I thought I'd wait for other more experienced editors to say their bit first.
You make a good point here, one that might be better suited to make at the RfC (if you haven't already done so). nagualdesign 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nagualdesign. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A thought on thoughts

Hi, I've got some ideas on 'wikis-&-wiki-culture' that may be 'growing legs' ... Would you like to start some dialog 'off wiki'? I could use an experienced sounding-board to help 'alpha test' and critique 'em before going 'public beta'. I've got my email link enabled on my userpage, and/or we could work out connecting via Discord (or Facebook Messenger, or … ?) --–A Fellow Editor– 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You are in administrator incident

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: Heh, you may want to explore Template:FBDB :  } ––A Fellow Editor– 12:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah.. As in general life, identifying the humour-impaired is a useful social process. If you have to append obvious humour, or even subtle humour, with "I'm joking" you don't really see the benefit. When I speak to people, especially people I've never met before, I can be very dry. Anyone that doesn't comprehend an obvious joke in spite of the dry delivery, or worse still takes me for some sort of idiot, has let me know that he or she is a bit of a bellend, and I needn't waste any more time and energy on them. I guess it may be a British thing. nagualdesign 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
LULZ ... Oh my ... Personally, I took the template itself as an "obvious joke in spite of the dry delivery" ... LLA ... To provide some context, I initially came across it in "User talk:Eeng#It's time to liven things up..." ... The irony is killin' me, my eyes are leaking :  } ––A Fellow Editor– 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me

I edited your userpage. Sorry. I was about to start cleaning my monitor when I realized your userpage contained a dot that should not be there. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll burn in the fiery pits of Hell for this! That dot was a special code, carefully placed as part of a secret communiqué. The exact distance between that dot and the corner of certain devices encoded data vital to a particular organization that shall remain nameless. nagualdesign 00:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
..Oh, sorry. I just checked; The dot you removed was just a stray full stop. Forget everything you read here. Ta. nagualdesign 00:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked Cullen328 to delete a page. *backs away slowly* (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. My left foot was starting to get rather cold. nagualdesign 07:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You must be some kind of Collossus, with one foot on either side of the ocean. I think this was a decent solution. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Good thinking, Batman. nagualdesign 08:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking to BLP violating content at User talk:EEng

I used rollback on your recent edit at User talk:EEng. EEng's talk page has become too large for me to load completely so I was not able to use a more friendly reversion, and I'm also not able to save a null edit to the page to explain, as is the usual procedure. Apologies for that. Your edit added a link with a description that violates the biographies of living persons policy and required revision deletion. Please do not add unsourced allegations of criminal activity about a living person anywhere on this site. You may be blocked from editing if it happens again. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, get a grip, Ivan. The section I edited was regarding Peter Serafinowicz's Sassy Trump YouTube videos, to which I added a link to his latest video, the title of which is (link and description removed Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)). I did not add any unsourced allegations of criminal activity, nor did I link to BLP violating content. nagualdesign 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nagualdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20029 was submitted on Dec 12, 2017 16:50:07. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice for those who paid no notice to the noticeboard discussion

  • Trust me, N.D., getting blocked is the best thing that could have happened to you. It's like losing your virginity – yeah, there's no going back, but soon you realize it's not as big a deal as you thought. You always remember your first, of course. EEng 14:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I certainly got the chance to speak my mind about a few things, and I'll continue to do so, so maybe not the best thing (winning the lottery springs to mind) but certainly not a bad thing. I'll always remember you fondly. x nagualdesign 14:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record

I agreed with pretty much everything you said at AN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. nagualdesign 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

:)

That was fun. Now I'm going back to typofixing, which is relatively boring but a lot more constructive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm going to nip to the chippy for something to eat. I mean... Umm... Time for a sandwich, I think. See you around. nagualdesign 13:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nagualdesign: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Phineas Gage images

Unspecified source/license for File:PG-anim.gif

Thanks for uploading File:PG-anim.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done I hope that meets with your approval. nagualdesign 20:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Beautiful. EEng 21:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
One small problem; I added the notes to the file talk page on the English Wikipedia using the link you provided above, and not the file discussion page on the Commons. I don't know whether that's going to cause problems. I've linked to the talk page from the English description on Commons, so at least people will be able to find it easily. nagualdesign 21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for fixing that. nagualdesign 22:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


I've also added the following gallery to the Other versions section of each image description, rather than having a single link on each file, and swapped out the infobox image and head shot in the Phineas Gage article with the new versions. Phew! nagualdesign 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Original
    Original
  • Tone corrected
    Tone corrected
  • Enlarged
    Enlarged
  • Cropped
    Cropped
  • Head shot
    Head shot
I answered there, but basically I wanted to retain the larger resolution for the head shot. nagualdesign 02:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Since Yaḥyā will not listen I have closed this discussion. nagualdesign 21:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for your comment, that was a constructive feedback, I suck in language. Could you review my comment in Lee Smolin talkpage and see if it is readable? I tried to be as concise as possible to justify what I have removed. But since I have difficulty expressing myself, maybe for others it might be as a word salad. tks. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have shortened and reword it entirely to make it as clear as possible. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I quit with the discussion, there really is something inherently wrong. In any other situations this would be considered as systemic bias! Anyone can see why concepts such as natural selection would be rejected by physicists... under the fear of being stripped from what they consider their universe by other professionals. By doing it under some falsehood is ridiculous. How convenient to change their own rules... the same from which they have build the models they are using to discredit multi-disciplinary endeavors. They can keep their toys... Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
That you revert me in the namespace, I can understand, but that on top of that you remove the entire discussion (in talk) under shaky ground is a little bit excessive (particularly when the discussion just ended). I am giving you your right to exist here, I would expect as much from your part. I'm not here to make wikifriends, so I don't expect anyone to voice their supports on my conduct. So I wouldn't engage myself in further reverts, if someone else pups in the remove something which was accepted as common knowledge and under witch the constructions of Blackholes were developed. I apologize for the inconsistencies of those said experts... blame them, not me (I didn't write Black hole information paradox needer papers like this [5] to account for it). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh and, Merry Christmas and Happy new year, there is no hard feelings. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Yahya Talatin: Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and refrain from using talk pages as a forum for soapboxing. The edit you made to Talk:Fermi paradox about Simulation hypothesis was not constructive, meaning that it was not so much posted in the interest of building an encylopedia as it was about you expressing your own pet theory, or that of some fringe scientist that you've been reading about. Frankly, it's just nonsense.
After that edit was reverted by BatteryIncluded with the summary "WP:NOTFORUM" you moved to that editor's talk page, ostensibly to ask for clarification as to why your edit had been reverted (seemingly having ignored the edit summary), and continued soapboxing, making 19 edits in total and ignoring the replies you received before the section was removed by BatteryIncluded with the summary "Enough WP:SOAPBOX".
You then made an edit to Lee Smolin with the summary "see talk, reword it, but as is this is biased!" and began posting on that talk page. Again, you spent most of the time soapboxing rather than focussing on the two sentences you removed and explaining what you thought was biased. I restored and reworded the properly referenced material and attempted to discuss your concerns on the talk page, but instead of focussing on the content (the two sentences in question) you again posted an extended bout of soapboxing. In total you made 62 edits to that talk page, none of which was constructive. In the end you quit the discussion, which was probably for the best, and I removed the section using the summary "Removed per WP:NOTFORUM". I see that as I've been writing this post you have restored the discussion using the summary "I will revert this only once, but throwing a Wikipedia rule which interpretation solely stand on your judgment is meaningless!".
To this date you have made 1328 edits to Wikipedia, the vast majority of which have been on talk pages, with only 58 edits to articles, many of which have since been reverted. You made more edits to the Lee Smolin talk page alone than you have to articles. If you continue to use Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox to expound your own pseudoscientific theories, or to promote fringe scientific/New Age hypotheses that you've read about, you may be blocked from editing for being disruptive. I'm going to assume good faith for the time being, as I think you probably mean well, but I urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy using the links you have been repeatedly provided with. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Without wishing to insult you, you seem woefully unaware of how quantum physics works (as are most people) and so you aren't really in a position to question the content of such articles. Instead, you appear to have been reading books about quantum mysticism and now wish to add your new found knowledge to Wikipedia. Please take my advice and stick to editing articles you are more well-versed with or which do not require any expertise, and try to keep talk page discussions to a minimum, only using them to specifically discuss content.
I hope you take this message with the good will with which it's intended. All the best for Christmas and the New Year to you, too, Yaḥyā. nagualdesign 16:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I replaced everything, just gave the opinion from the concept of black hole in anthropology and social science. I hope this settles it. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. Posting your opinions on talk pages is contrary to Wikipedia policy (in particular, please read How to use article talk pages). I read what you wrote about "Answering from social science concept of Black Hole" but I will not be responding to it, as it has nothing whatever to do with the edit I made to the article. Anthropology is the study of humans within past and present societies, and social science broadly concerns human society, including economics, politics, geography, psychology, sociology, history, etc. Neither of those topics have any bearing on the physics of black holes, and anyone who thinks they do is spouting quantum woo. I can't force you to read and adhere to policies, but if you continue with the tendentious editing I will report you myself. Your behaviour is disruptive to the project. nagualdesign 18:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to forget this [6] (Economics) or Time_Reborn which is heavily using philosophical concepts (I'm not even involving biology)! Lee Smolin theory is heavily multi-disciplinary. Beside those aren't my opinions! I didn't create Social dynamics and what any commoner has just in front of him. And I will not even begin with the fact that all the equivalents in social science (even with the same terms) have outlived those from all those new theories in physics, which don't even have 5 years shelflife being invalidated either way (if we take into account later publications). Don't you think that adding information from other disciplines which knowledge has been proven to be more constant wouldn't be relevant? At least if a reader comes in in 10 years, he will still recognize something having remained stable in those articles.
but if you continue with the tendentious editing I will report you myself. Where when or how? I removed the entire discussion (for the sake of it), only once edited the article and didn't even touch it after!!! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Your mind seems to be wandering. I'm not talking about any of the stuff you've bought up, I'm only talking about the two sentences that you removed from the Lee Smolin article, which I restored and reworded, concerning Leonard Susskind's criticism of Smolin's hypothesis of cosmological natural selection. As you have been repeatedly told ad nauseum, Wikipedia is not a forum for soapboxing. If you don't understand what you are doing wrong then read the guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Your edits to article talk pages will not be tolerated. nagualdesign 20:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I have left a warning on your talk page. Please do not ignore it. nagualdesign 20:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
WTF! Please go find a physicist, and anyone would do! He will confirm what I am saying. Inner particles can't emit directly their position in the system (please check electrons) directly... because that would mean they're exposed to the unfriendly environment. They will exhaust within seconds!!! What you are seeing as information doesn't include that part, couldn't and will never! If I post on Wikipedia, the closest thing one could ever do is trace my IP... if it gets closer, the closest would be my house. There will still be information missing there! Don't you agree? If I leave my house, and someone else from the same house post here. The IP will still trace in the same region! If it acts exactly as I do on Wikipedia (social role)... there is still information missing there!!! In fact, no physicist will ever deny that! If Wikipedia regulate my account, those rules won't be affecting the inner rules or how I behave with my brother, as long as the end result for Wikipedia is the same. Those info's about the inner dynamics, Wikipedia can't obtain unless it trespass its own rules. But those are still information! And there is no physicist who could ever deny that. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I have tried, shortened the thing once more. Please now comment.
And how can you even emit a warning, when you are directly involved here. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the warning is twofold. First, it provides you with a message that your disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated, and it does so in a way that's more formal than this discussion (which itself constitutes a friendly warning). Second, it provides other contributors with the knowledge that you have received such a warning, so that if they also encounter your disruptive behaviour and seek to warn you they will see that you have already been warned, and the degree of warning will escalate. If that continues to happen you would eventually face sanctions, but it doesn't have to come to that if you simply abide by Wikipedia policies.
Anyone can warn anyone else on Wikipedia, if their behaviour warrants it. The fact that you continue to disregard policies that have been repeatedly brought to your attention is enough to warrant the warning. My only involvement is that I am the one who has tried to advise you, and have now warned you. Obviously I'm not involved in the soapboxing that is the subject of this warning.
Since you are even now continuing to soapbox ("WTF! Please go find a physicist...") I'm going to refer this matter to ANI. You're wasting my time. Each time I come here to do a bit of constructive editing I have instead had to deal with your behaviour. I've tried in earnest to help you but I have failed. Perhaps another editor or two will be able to talk some sense into you. nagualdesign 21:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Friend, what I am reporting is common knowledge, please go there in the article talkpage read that and comment! You will be spending community resources with useless reports. Just go there and see it for yourself. That can be verified from any college introductory physic book. The information they're talking about is only the part which can be detected... there is no denial that the other one exist. Please go there, read and see for yourself. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Since you are failing to get the point, I have referred the matter to ANI so that somebody else can deal with you. This discussion is over. For what it's worth, I'm sorry that I couldn't help you understand the error of your ways. No hard feelings, eh? nagualdesign 21:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Nagualdesign!!


Hi Nagualdesign, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi nagual

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. nagualdesign 15:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tried emailing you as an answer to what you have left as message, but seems that you don't have an email account set. Anyway, I posted it in my talkpage. I was about to delete everything in my talkpage, but since you and another user left a message, I didn't. So please delete everything once you read it. Thank you for the wishes. You too..., bye Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And for your information, my undergrad was a multidisciplinary BSc...(but what followed (grad studies) isn't hard science). It's a bias I was ready to accept... but I was not the only device in the system... you were part too. Just so you are more careful the next time relying on appearances... I might be an illiterate, but I found a way to make that as an advantage... Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Negual, I just wanted to apologize for not having checked the Black Hole information paradox page on Wikipedia prior to starting the fight. See the recent development section of the article [7]. Hawking 2016 theory seems to be exactly what I wrote in Lee Smolin talkpage. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeḥyā, you're still missing the point entirely. I was never arguing against you. In fact, I couldn't actually comprehend what it was you were trying to say, and I don't have an opinion on the matter. The only point I was making was that Wikipedia is NOT a forum, so expounding your pet theories on talk pages is not allowed. Talk pages are specifically for discussing article content. If your purpose was to disagree with Susskind then, again, you've missed the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It doesn't take sides or favour one scientist's theory over another.
The sentences that started all of this, which you claimed were "biased" and "factually incorrect", were about Susskind's evaluation of Smolin's hypothesis. What you don't seem to comprehend is that Susskind has indeed expressed the opinions that are presented in the article, and the article reported that fact from a neutral point of view. Whether Susskind is correct, or Smolin is, is another matter entirely.
I think what probably triggered you was the sentence, "the debate over this issue has been resolved". However, you completely missed the context, which was that the long-running debate between Susskind and Hawking was resolved. All of this is still very much within the realm of theoretical physics, so obviously nothing has actually been resolved in scientific terms, since nothing has been proven. I would have hoped that rewording the sentences in question would have allayed your concerns, but all you did was endlessly soapbox. And when you were told repeatedly to stop soapboxing you just reworded your monologue, trying to explain things in a way "that a 5-year-old would understand", while still soapboxing. Evidently you still don't understand the meaning of the word (see WP:SOAP).
I hope you enjoyed the videos I linked to on your talk page. I saw that in your reply you said, "what seems to have been missed, is those aren't my position." What you seem to have missed is that Susskind and Smolin are on opposite sides of that particular debate, and what you or I may think is completely irrelevant. Unless you plan on getting a PhD in theoretical physics, plus a few post-doctoral degrees, so that you can be on the same playing field as those giants then, like me, you're just a bystander watching from the sidelines. And while that's a fun thing to do, Wikipedia is NOT the place for cheering for your favourite.
Unless you are willing and able to read and understand WP:What Wikipedia is not I strongly suggest that you stay away from editing. Having said that, if you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia then I have no wish to discourage you, provided that you can demonstrate the required level of competence. Hopefully you'll learn something from all of this, and any future contributions won't be in vain. nagualdesign 00:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Before you reply to the above post please stop and think. First, I have no interest in discussing physics with you, so please do not start posting your ideas here or telling me about what you've read. And second, I do not wish to continue telling you about Wikipedia policies as I've had quite enough of that already. In fact, I'd like you to forget about the Lee Smolin talk page altogether.
What I'd like to draw your attention to is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. There you may find a mentor who can help you make better use of your time here, if you wish to stay, and you won't have to worry so much about what new thing will fall on your head. If you're interested in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia I strongly suggest you visit that page and seriously think about finding help. Perhaps you could explain to them what your native language is (what country you're from), and link to the discussion above as well as the ANI discussion using these links:
[[User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 4#Hi]]
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#User:Yahya Talatin]]
I hope that helps. nagualdesign 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe that this is even going on. :) I am starting to believe that you are just writing to have the last word. :) Sorry I not Giant, that made my day... you will understand that. :b Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Happy New Year, Nagualdesign!

Happy New Year!

Nagualdesign,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Time for pasta

Hello,

Here it is.

Since you have some free time right now, would you mind helping me clean a picture - namely this one? ->

It's called bigoli, but more importantly there's a grey line at the top (the ministudio's background, actually) that I can't just erase : I have no photoshopping skills whatsoever and if you look closely you will see there is a gradient. I have no idea how to fix this. Can you please help? I'm working on the List of pasta and this line simply looks weird in the table imho (the background also appears in the bucatini image, but as it is bigger it is much less problematic in terms of perspective). What do you think? Popo le Chien throw a bone 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'm running a bath at the moment, which I'm about to jump in, but I'll get onto that as soon as I'm done. nagualdesign 09:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No rush, but thanks all the same. Enjoy the splash! Popo le Chien throw a bone 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I watched 2 more episodes of Star Trek: Discovery while I was in the bath. My third attempt. I watched the first 3 episodes a couple of months ago and, as a life-long Trekkie, I found it nauseating. A few weeks ago I thought I'd give it another shot and watched episodes 4 and 5. It's kind of simultaneously laughable and intensely annoying. I'm not sure why I bothered to watch episodes 6 and 7 just now, as it's so abysmal in so many ways, but I'm going to blame Sebastian for driving me to it. Okay, I'll do that image shortly... nagualdesign 11:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds worse than anything I wished for you. But I'm accepting that blame. — Sebastian 12:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done nagualdesign 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Grmph... dammit you're back

For one nice day I was hoping I'll have the Help Desk queries to myself... Dammit... :D Welcome back Lourdes 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Ha! Lourdes, off-stage: "If it weren't for those pesky kids... grrrr!!!"  ;) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give you another couple of hours before I barge in. nagualdesign 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm almost tempted to watch a couple more episodes of Star Trek: Discovery now. Does this mean I'm a masochist? nagualdesign 02:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I've never even seen one episode of it, but since TNG and DS9 are all wrapped up, it's a safe bet that any future Star Treks will be torturous to an old fogey like me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It's actually a prequel, set sometime between TOS and ENT I think, but somehow they have holodecks, propulsion technology, androids and alien races that even Picard would find astonishing, alongside all of our present day pop culture. But the screaming anachronisms pale into insignificance compared to the acting and the storylines. Watching it is like wiping your haemorrhoids with sandpaper. Worse than the Star Wars Holiday Special even. No kidding. nagualdesign 03:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Offer

I offered in Sebastian page to not speak anymore but instead quote sources. Do you accept the offer? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nd, I suggest we both just ignore this guy from here out. The important thing is to hear what, if anything, SH has to say for himself. EEng 03:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah Nagual follow mommy. [8] :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs)
I rest my case. EEng 03:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, EEng. This nonsense amounts to vicarious deflection. nagualdesign 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Plus he called you a procurer. EEng 03:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If I choose to wear crushed purple velvet ain't nobody's bidness, you dig? nagualdesign 03:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Not so fast [9]. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nagualdesign/Archive_4&oldid=1088045300"