User talk:Pol098

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



I'll respond here to any comments, as is usual, to keep the entire dialogue in the same place. If I take a long time to respond, which I regrettably sometimes do, I'll say that I've responded on the Talk page of the author of comments signed by a named user (I have nothing against users with only IP addresses, but the address may no longer apply to the same person). I might have responded to some of the earlier comments on this page on the author's Talk page, leading to incomplete dialogues here. Pol098 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sections here are general, and may be updated from time to time (edited, not appended to).

Minor edits, edits to wording[edit]

This section is prompted by criticism of my calling an edit "minor"; see the section #Your choice of Grammar for detailed criticism.

Let me make a clear distinction: if I make what I consider a trivial change I mark it "m" (Wikipedia minor); if I make what I consider a minor change but think that some people might conceivably object to it, I do not flag it as Wikipedia minor, but put "minor", "relatively small", etc. in the edit summary. If I make changes which I consider to be mainly to wording, without adding or removing anything of substance, I put "wording" in the description. Beyond that I do not claim not to be changing the meaning; I often do, with no intention of subtlety. When making significant changes to wording only in controversial articles I sometimes say explicitly "Changes to wording with no intention to alter meaning". If you find examples where I have claimed a change is minor (in any of the above ways) and it isn't, please bring them to my attention. I'm not perfect and I'm sure you'll find them. Pol098 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes don't provide an edit summary for changes tagged as Minor, particularly if they are shortly after larger, summarised edits; the Minor tag says that they make no substantial change. I have also, not too frequently, hit Save before realising I haven't written a summary. Pol098 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia has many guidelines, some contradictory, which are not to be taken as rules. In case of doubt I use WP:BRD and WP:BOLD, sometimes WP:IAR.

Dated text[edit]

I try to make edits that do not have a "now" perspective, so that text does not become dated with the passage of time (per WP:DATED, WP:RELTIME). E.g., Willem-Alexander is the current in 2013 became king of the Netherlands. They mean basically the same today in 2013, but the first form will become outdated while the second is always true. An actual example of text which was not written this way and allowed to become dated: "The 2008 Trofeo Federale is currently an ongoing four-team tournament running from September 1 to September 16, 2008", the first sentence of an article in November 2013. Pol098 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


This page has been getting long, so I prune some stuff I consider boilerplate or routine every so often. I've tried to leave in anything that could be called criticism; that's valuable, the only way to learn. Anyone who really wants to see the old stuff check history; I don't archive the sort of stuff I delete, it's a waste of space. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Are you a native English speaker?--HD86 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Pol098 (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit summary[edit]

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistent units[edit]

Hello, Po1098. I'm sorry to give you more grief on the subject of units on measurement, but I am currently working on the HMS Hood (51) article (amongst others) and I would like to explain my reasons for not using consistent units. I believe that, in compiling an article from exising sources, primacy should be given to the units used in the source. For example, if a source tells me that a ship had a 12-inch armoured belt, I think it wrong to transcribe this as "this ship had a 305mm armoured belt": this is certainly not what the source says, and there is always the risk that it is not what is means either; the actual thickness of the belt might well have been, say, 302mm or 307mm. The practice of changing everything to metric, without comment, is especially risky when the figure quoted in the source is given to only one or two significant figures. Where I do agree with you is that, where not metric units are quoted, metric equivalents should always be given, even if the editor has to work them out for his or her self. Is there really a problem with saying in the same article "the Hood was armed with 15-inch (381mm) guns" and "the Bismarck was armed with 38cm guns"?

I am happy to discuss this further; I will add this page to my watchlist so that I will know if you or anyone else puts a post here. Alternatively, you can post to my user page. John Moore 309 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message John. As it's on your watchlist, I'll reply here and keep the correspondence in one place. My comment on units came at a time the article had things like 'the deck armour was 7" (178 mm) thick ... the whatever was protected by 210 mm armour plate ... the whatsit had a 12" belt'. In other words, inconsistent units for the same function, often without conversion into the other units. I changed this to make it consistent; someone then reverted, which is when I made an exasperated comment. So long as some thought is given to this point, the article is likely to read sanely. In your particular example, "the Hood was armed with 15-inch (381mm) guns" and (elsewhere in the article) "the Bismarck was armed with 38cm guns" you'd likely read "the Hood had 15" guns (with some blah figure in mm in parentheses)", then have to go back to compare it with 38 cm; the Bismarck should be 38 cm (15") or even 380 mm (15"), but not, I think, 380 mm (14 31/32") or (14.96"); (about 15") if you insist. If anyone is inhibited by my comment from making sensible changes, it wasn't my intention. (I use " here, but in or inches is fine).
Thanks for the courtesy of your message, and best wishes, Pol098 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I see that you prefer to give metric-to-imperial conversions as well as vice-versa. On reflection, I think this makes sense, particularly in a naval historical context, where so much of the English-language literature uses imperial measure. I agree also that levels of precision that are natural where measuring in millimetres look a little absurd when rendered in feet and inches; it seems better to quote an approximate equivalent, as you suggest. Thanks for responding so promptly.
John Moore 309 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leakage[edit]

Yes, I'm sorry that I added back the redundant introductory sentence on chemistry. My final decision is, combine everyday usage and chemistry into one single sentence in the introduction, and keep the chemistry section. Feel free editing! Deryck C. 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Exponentiation and Metric[edit]

You refer to the introductory tying the article on exponents to the metric system as pointless. I don't believe in reverts in general, so let me state my reasoning on hopes of achieving a conversion by thou heathen sinner <G>:

  • If you would be so kind as to consider that these articles are tied into others by links, you will quickly realize the numbers of articles dealing with measurements (which have a generally pragmatic utility to the lay reader) far outnumber the articles that are simply dry math. Since these articles tie into this topic by exactly that correspondence I addressed the tie in the intro as an appetizer of sorts for people linking in that manner. Burying the information way down in the body makes no sense... they are reading about measurements for their own purposes, and not interested in a sub-topic of math as a general topic... unless perhaps my little sentence wets their interest thus making your article experience much more traffic. Wouldn't that be a good outcome?
  • Now I cannot say that the quick and dirty post was worded perfectly, I was nested deep within six to seven related edits at the time, and there are others that will always fiddle with sentence structure... but I do object to arbitrary removal of material that is certainly not off point or topic. You extended that so as to misconstrue it to multiples of other integers, so why not just reword it to qualify it better to the set of 1 X 10^x form.
  • I think you should revert and revise if you like to incorporate the sentence under the principle of the most utility to the most people. If we aren't striving for that, why are we bothering to donate our time when the media is so perfect for such a cross-link of knowledge.

Moreover, WP:MOS wants introductions to articles to recap a sense of the article as a whole. This phrase did that, though obviously, the whole article needs such a recap so the whole is more reader friendly. That is a expansion that is worthy of your time, not chopping down the seedling of knowledge I planted. It is afte rall for the benefit of the housewife, child, or businessman that we write, not solely for the someones with a technical background like an engineer such as myself, or whatever field gainfully employs you. If you are writing for a technical audience alone, I submit you need a professional journal, not this venue. FrankB 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Looking over your evolution of [ metric system ] I am struck by the thought that your familiarity to the SI has blinded you to the need to properly introduce a topic and in particular to remember at the forefront of your mind the audience for whom you are supposed to be writing. Don't get me wrong, what you did is good writing– perhaps even great prose, but I think the prior introductory start was more appropriate and also more in line with the WP:MOS. I suggest you take a week away from the article (a good trick this aiding dispassionate reconsideration) and then comeback to compare the two styles of intro with an editors eyes rather than that of an author. You may find that others have reverted you in the iterim.

  • I find your explanation to be superior -- just misplaced so far at the top as it introduces the topic with not comprehensible historic phrases gradually building to the technical, but by squarely hitting the lay reader in the eye with yet another incomprehensible bit of technical jargon — the [SI]. Give it some thought and consider rearranging once again to give your fuller clearer explainations more at the end of the intro, not at the top.
  • In the future, please try to clearly indicate in the summary when you are making such a 'major reordering' and rewording. This change took some hunting in the history page to see where the revolution in the article occurred. Thanks from all of us tracking.

Best wishes, FrankB 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your post: Pol098 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure No Problem. I try to imagine myself as a 9-10 year old when evaluating the opening sentence or two. If the new arrangement meets that lack of experience, then my consciencious is clear, and so should yours be. I'd like something related to the naturalness of the metric system and the powers of ten, but I'm not going to revert anyone over such pettiness. Give it some thought, I'll leave it in your obviously caring hands. I added a post to one of those two talks, and did in fact, fail to get back to revert and re-revert to draw attention to the sudden change in the lead para, so you ought to look at that as there was more. Best wishes, FrankB 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

btw: If you're into good fiction, and familiar with SF/Alternative-history series 1632, I can use a hand over there 1632 series / talk: 1632 series and follow the links (3rd TOC entry) FrankB

    • I've seen your last, I'll check it out tomorrow (See This on responding to your prior prompt! Like above note, with grins.). I'm at 04:00 am and need beauty rest VERY BADLY! (Ask anyone)FrankB

If I can trouble you for a little feedback[edit]

I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we haven't touched base for a while. It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! But looks like you might- your contribs range near as widely as mine! <G>)

Best! FrankB 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To keep it brief and uncluttered ...[edit]

Xposed fm my talk FrankB
In response to your suggestions at the top of the page: I don't do a great deal of messaging on Wiki, so maybe what I've to say is either wrong or thoroughly known. To communicate with all the dialogue in one place, not in 2 or 3 (user A, user B, an article), without emailing or dropping messages "see my Talk page" etc., someone who communicates with me has told me to post in my own Talk page, which he has put in his watchlist, presumably for a few days. This seems a good idea for an active dialogue, and the page can be delisted after a few days. Pol098 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you are asking or saying, as the context seems to be with my requests on talk page posting in my Header Box. Let me address that, and you straighten me out if I missed the target!
  1. There is no set convention on wiki User Talk pages usage. Some of the longest experienced folks follow the convention that they will watch for a message, which I do myself -- once or twice a week, but if so, I'm generally looking at article and 'debates' changes first, then policy talks, and user page talks hardly ever. These in particular have too much 'traffic'.
  2. I have no idea how they can see something addressed to them, nor how I am supposed to know when they've made a counterpoint, save they must look at their watch list (and REFRESH it) an awful lot. I'm generally far too deep in chains of edits to be bothered.
  3. I do use it to monitor policy, proposal, and article talk pages etc. but only as a general alarm that some change has occured. I don't and can't possibly work WikiP everyday—the only people who seem to be able to do that are in acedemia, normally as a student.
  4. Since there is nearly always a significant delay, I can then go examine the relavant history page and determine whether more action is needed.
  5. Having said that, it does work well if and when you are both on line and working the same time as you are conversing. I've only had that experience a few times— and most of the time it's been with a guy that posts answers back to my talk, and expects my points on his. The only other time, was on my talks about two weeks back with BDAbrahamson, generated by my email to him.
  6. Given typical unpredictable delays with getting most answers, I find that method less than efficatious. Keeping the thread in one place is to be prefered, IMHO. I will frequently counter post as on this occasion so we can all refer to the same material.
  7. In the final analysis, the only really important thing is that you communicate if there is a need. I dislike the 'you posted to me, so I'll answer here school' mostly because it places the initiator into a position as a supplicant; It also requires him to keep tabs on the matter when there may be 200 edits before said party gets back to the matter, etcetera.
    1. I can see some merit in it from the standpoint of "If it's important enough to ask about, then you can see whether I've answered", but in general, it strikes me as arrogant.
  8. At least a courtesy post like: "I've responded in the thread on my talk" sets off the "You've got a message banner", and hardly takes much extra time.
  9. Thus I champion that as an elementary courtesy. By the same token, if I make a counterpoint on an article talk, or post an new section with something that another may have from the previous messages an adverse view on, I will usually go an post a note to see the talk as a courtesy.

Hope that helps, FrankB 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits at Scientology[edit]

You reverted an edit at Scientology in order to re-add a single line of text that you added. In the process of doing so, you also erased the edits of other people that were made since your edit. If you want to re-add your 2 lines, which I feel is innappropriate, then just reinsert them in the current page instead of reverting all the way back to your own version (which had a number of problems on it that were fixed). Before you do so, you might try to see what other people on the talk page think about that particular edit, since I for one would object because it sticks out like a sore thumb. The SP episode is linked at the bottom of the page, plus the information about the acceptability of linking is innappropriate in the article itself. If you want to add that material, then add it in the meta-data of the article or discuss it on the talk page. We shouldn't explain in the articles themselves why its okay to link to things on the web. Vivaldi (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

Hi, you reverted some of my edits because you know who the bombers were - how do you know? Where is the proof that it was those 4 famous guys? Or failing that, what court has found them guilty? (Note from pol098: unsigned message 21:22, 19 April 2006 Simontrumpet)

Thanks for your message.

> Hi, you reverted some of my edits because you know who the bombers were - how do you know?

It's been published.

> Where is the proof that it was those 4 famous guys?

In police hands, and mortuaries, I suppose. Infamous rather than famous I fear. Dead bodies, rucksacks with remains of explosives, bomb-making equipment found in homes which were found by going to addresses found on the bodies, a typical pre-suicide-bombing videotape recording, and so on.

> Or failing that, what court has found them guilty?

We're not failing that; but if we were, no court is ever going to find anyone guilty of perpetrating the bombings—they're dead (accomplices, maybe).

You didn't sign your message; I'll put this both on your talk page and mine.

Best wishes, Pol098 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Currently", "recently", "now", etc.[edit]

Hi, I just took a quick look at talk there, but I think you were basically on target that using [[As of|2006]], which displays as "As of 2006", is a good idea. The precise placement of it in this article might be tricky but you are right that "currently" and "recently" are not great terms for the encyclopedia. Kaisershatner 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (text changed slightly for clarity by pol098)

Chemical imbalance[edit]

I proposed that chemical imbalance theory be moved to chemical imbalance yesterday. If you look at the "What links here" [1] [2], you'll see that (currently) these pages are only referred to by pages relating to psychiatric issues. Chemical imbalance is not used on either diabetes or ketoacidosis, and as far as I'm aware Type I diabetes is usually referred to as an "deficiency", rather than an "imbalance". I'm not a great fan of chemical imbalance theory as it stands, but at the very least, I think referring to it as a theory gives it more weight than it is due. Anyway, you should make up your own mind on this matter. There is a vote at Talk:Chemical imbalance theory, and you may choose to Merge or Oppose, but I thought I'd let you know about this. --Limegreen 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is more about not losing the general term in favour of the specifically neuroscience usage.
From my perspective, you're entirely welcome to the term! The page as it originally existed, was pretty much a beat-up on psychiatry [3], and various people have been trying to inject a little science back into it. However, part of the problem is that I'm not sure 'chemical imbalance' is useful as a label/explanation. There is no usage of it in neuroscience, and the only time it creeps into the scientific literature is usually in the discussion of advertising.
And yes, I'd happily bet on a two-way interaction as well. Maybe the best way forward would be to make 'chemical imbalance' have a general definition with a large-ish section on its use in advertising and consumer literature in psychiatry. Essentially a merge, and try to pare it down a little as well. To preserve the edit history, it might be better to move the 'theory' page, and then resume editing from there?--Limegreen 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Concentration camp[edit]

Nice work! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush[edit]

Good work on your cleanup of this article. Someone should give you a barnstar soon, you've clearly been a good contributor. --Iriseyes 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your considerations, but "XYZ is [position]" is consistently used in every Wikipedia article about people holding a particular position at the moment (see incumbent and Lists of office-holders). Or is there a consensus to change that? - Mike Rosoft 10:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Mike Rosoft. I read this as saying "many Wikipedia articles are not written in a suitable way for a reference work, so let's keep this one incorrect too". It's certainly untrue that the present tense is used in every Wikipedia article about people: in cases where I have found this, I have changed it, without objections until now. If you can suggest an appropriate place for this discussion, please let me know: it is too general to go in the Bush article discussion. I have asked in and also in Have a look there to see why the present tense is inappropriate.

I have had a comment from my question at the village pump: the policy exists (it is just ignored):

"This is already a guideline, please see Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly".

Pol098 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pol, good intentions I'm sure, but please mind the WP:3RR. I know first hand that it is enforced. -- AuburnPilottalk 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a comment about this. George W. Bush will always be the 43rd President of the United States. His position will never change, even if he dies. Do we say that George Washington was the 1st President or is the 1st President? We would say "is", because no one else replaced him as the 1st President of the US. Likewise, George Bush will remain the 43rd President in history.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll answer here, and let you know it's here. To be quite direct, your argument is simply wrong:we say that GW was the first POTUS, etc. I will pick a few presidents at random and quote from their Wikipedia entries (why am I getting into this timewasting?)
Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American politician who was elected the 16th President of the United States (serving from 1861 to 1865), and was the first president from the Republican Party.
George Washington (February 22, 1732–December 14, 1799)... was later elected the first President of the United States.
James Earl Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) was the 39th President of the United States
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States
If you think these entries are all wrong, edit them to say "is". If you are right, nobody will complain.
Best wishes, Pol098 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, you've made your point. Nonetheless, we wouldn't want to say "George W. Bush was the 43rd President...", so a different wording on his article should be added.-Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The wording I had used, and which caused such consternation, was "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States" Pol098 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted in your favor. I must ask: Which guideline stresses the timing of articles?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear that. Not in my favor, please; in favor of Wikipedia. Pol098 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind that, I saw the guideline.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my talk page[edit]

That guy was getting back at me for warning him about putting the same message on Moeron's user page. Thanks for reverting it so quickly! --Iriseyes 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arnolfini Portrait[edit]

I would take a break now - I am going to revert some of your changes anyway. Have you read any of the references? It is difficult to play around with the wording & make improvements if not.

Yes carpets were usually on tables. Johnbod 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

wikilinks at Lens[edit]

Regarding this edit, please refer to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link..." Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that links on disambiguation pages should not be alphabetized. They are to be listed, where possible, in order of importance or in order of most common usages. You should really take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Disambiguation pages serve a special purpose, and have particular rules about how they are organized that differ from the rules for articles.--Srleffler 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Upside down pics in View camera[edit]

When using a view camera, images on the ground glass are reversed top-to-bottom and left-to-right. These "upside down" images are simply a representation of that. I'll add some verbage to indicate that. In the future, if you have a problem with something in an article, it's not really appropriate to add "somebody needs to fix this" type text to the article; that is better placed on the article's talk page. — Wwagner 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message re above. I take your point but totally disagree (all discussions I remember seeing used upright images; I've just checked my copy of Stoebel's View camera technique: all pictures are right way up). If you're trying to explain one phenomenon (lens coverage) why introduce another (inversion)? To make matters worse the text referred to a building when it was obviously (right way up) a tower. A brief explanation will indeed help.
I don't normally put comments in text other than the standard <<stub>> and <<fact>>, but I thought it was as relevant as <<stub>> to point out an error missed for years. It certainly worked and drew very rapid attention and the prompt correction of what, in my view, is an error: no harm done, and some good.I like your edits: the article is improved. Best wishes, Pol098 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it sounds like we're both heading in the same direction: improving the article. I wasn't so much concerned about the html comments - I add those to articles on occasion myself - but more by the actual text "Note: the following images are upside down until somebody corrects them". Making comments like these which are directed toward other editors is the kind of thing that really belongs on a talk page.
Even though it's been on my watchlist for quite a while, it's been some time since I've actually read the article. I hadn't realized that it needed quite as much work as it does. Yikes. — Wwagner 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mongrels" vs "Cross-breeds"[edit]

I rather thought the term "mongrels" in description of official Nazi racial classification of humans in "The Jew of Linz" captured the horror of it better than does your edit to "cross-breeds". "Cross-breeds" is also objectionable, of course, as might be "quadroon" or "octoroon" or "mulatto" etc in Western Hemisphere descriptions of offspring of black/white unions in the ante-bellum South. But "mongrel" brings home the fact that the Nazi classifications were normative rather than merely descriptive. "Cross-breeds" has an air of pseudo-scientific objectivity that "mongrels" lacks and therefore "mongrels" seems to me to be better, stressing that the Nazis were talking about human beings here. That such unions officially produced "mongrel" human beings was precisely the point of the Nazi classifications, almost of itself fitting with "extermination".) The nuance ought not to be edited away and so I think you might perhaps consider reverting to the original for this very reason. 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The article in question is actually "Ludwig Wittgenstein". I take your point, but don't quite agree; the horror of Nazism is perhaps better illustrated by its pseudoscientific nonsense; a mischling could be rendered in comprehensible English as a "mixedling" (like foundling), which isn't, as a word, emotionally loaded or an insult. The horror is in the treatment. It's like portraying everyone involved in mass murder as evil monsters: in point of fact a great many were grey bureaucrats doing their job, which is infinitely more terrifying (and doesn't make them innocent). So I prefer to leave it; but, of course, have no objection if you finally decide to change it back to "mongrel". Pol098 09:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I like the edit you made for reciprocity, but I can't agree with the assertion in your edit summary that "is sensed as" and "random" are just wrong. By all means change this, but keep it accurate. Light IS both waves and particles. I take the opposite view; to say that light IS a stream of photons, or propagates as photons, is just wrong; it propagates as waves, but has quantized and essentially random interaction with matter, which is what photons are about. I realize this is not the usual way to put it, but it's more correct than some of the alternative descriptions of the dualistic nature of light. Dicklyon 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll answer here & put a note on your Talk to keep the dialogue in one place. It's generally accepted that electromagnetic radiation shows particulate properties as well as wave properties; and particles show wave properties (e.g., interference). So light IS both a propagating wave and a stream of particles. How would you describe a "beam" of light comprising just a single photon? See the article on Wave–particle duality. As an example which I know in detail, calculations were made on absorption and emission by hydrogen at low electron temperatures using quantum-mechanical techniques (particles). I showed that the same numerical absorption and emission coefficients could be derived using classical techniques (waves). (The point was that the classical formula was much easier to evaluate numerically, though diabolical to derive; the numerical results were of use in work on low-temperature hydrogen clouds.) I cite this example simply because it's the closest I've come to this topic in real life, and it does deal with photons (and electrons).
If you want you could maybe say that light "behaves as" or "can be considered to be" a stream of photons, though I still prefer "is". I don't really understand why you say it's a random stream. It's obviously subject to fluctuations which are proportionately more significant at low intensity; is that what you mean?
Why I'm going to this length for a Wikipedia article on reciprocity I do not know. Pol098 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for fun? I'm actually deeply familiar with wave–particle duality, and helped Carver Mead when he was writing his book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism. So I realize my viewpoint is not totally mainstream, but it all works; similar to Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory and Cramer's Transactional interpretation. But even mainstream physicists will often push back on your IS, and that's all I was doing. I would call (and have called) the notion of a "beam" of light comprising a single photon a complete absurd concept; without an absorption event, there's no photon, and without a wave function there's no beam; the conversion of that wave function to a photon is probabilistic, and the resulting photon counts obey a Poisson distribution. That's why all these modern things about sending single photons is such utter nonsense. Dicklyon 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I don't know if you like my latest wording better. In the regimes I've been interested in photons are few and far between; widely-separated atoms sit around in various states and pick up the odd (radio-frequency) photon. I'm not familiar with Carter Mead's work - out of touch, I suppose. Pol098 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I said I like it better. I watch all pages I edit, so a reply here will be seen. I'd like to know more about your RF photon detection work. Check this book or here. Dicklyon 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references; I've kept a bookmark to the book extract. I haven't done any physics for a long time (last publication in the 1980s), and would have to re-study classical electromagnetism and other stuff to delve deep. My work wasn't on detection, but theoretical work in an astrophysical context and astrophysical journals, trying to derive knowledge about ionised hydrogen clouds from recombination line emission. Out there what we call clouds are what on earth would be exceedingly high vacuum; events per cubic kilometre are few, but the number of cubic kilometres rather large... I haven't thought about this, but we do have single-photon events there; does Carver Mead's formulation deal with this? Best wishes, Pol098 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he has a good continuous model of EM quantum transition events between electron systems at zero interval in spacetime; that's what's usually called a photon emission/propagation/absorption event. Dicklyon 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Single-lens reflex camera reference[edit]

In your revision of Single-lens reflex camera on 2007-08-28, you added a link to an Introduction to Large Format article, seemingly as a reference; I've converted this into a footnoted {{cite web}} template, but I can't be sure of the access date. I've tentatively taken the access date from the date of your edit, but could you verify whether that's the correct one, and change it if not? Thanks. ―Drake Wilson 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK by me. If you checked the page just now, shouldn't the most recent date better be used, as the latest date at which the link was known to work? Pol098 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can tell whether a link "works" in the sense of whether it points to something reasonable, but I can't tell whether it points to the same thing that it did before, really; only the person who originally viewed it can do that, unless there was already an access date of some kind, at which point you might be able to use archives of some sort. ―Drake Wilson 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment added much later, for reference: if I follow a link and find it supports the article it's cited in, I will cheerfully update the access date, and will continue to do so unless I find it to have done harm at some time, or there's considerable weight of opinion against it. Pol098 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sally Hemings[edit]

For info on biographical articles, see WP:MOSBIO, and specifically for the section I referred to see WP:MOSBIO#Subsequent uses of names. Happy editing! Ward3001 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I have reverted your recent edits as you can't simply come along and cut the article to pieces like that! It doesn't improve it. There's one improvement to restore, re the capital ships that were to participate. Please do that as you version does read better. Otherwise please leave it bigpad (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, "cut the article to pieces" are not the right words to have used and I'm sorry for putting it like that. Many of your changes undo words that are there as a careful compromise, based on "Talk" (q.v.) The Bismarck article is very popular and quite controversial, so it needs extreme care. Copy editing should bring poor articles up to speed, e.g. Mark J. Williams, which I improved the other day. The Bismarck article needs cosmetic changes only, like the one referred to above or the use of the semi-colon re picking up the three Hood survivors the next day. That said, from "Status" downwards could be tidied up, as I've never bothered much with that part. bigpad (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I would refer you to that article's Talk page if you feel I'm being unreasonable about this. If you remain dissatisfied, there is no problem with you copying my comments to you on the Bismarck talk page, although it might be useful only to use the two bits above I have italicised (as this is not a personal attack on you). And you're welcome to copy these points, simply as examples. A case in point re how your edit affects hard-earned consensus is the change you made to say that Bismarck had a substantial speed advantage over other BBs. And in the "History" section, using the past tense for the ship's displacement when it had not yet been built or launched does not make sense. You also undid many bits simply, it seems, for the point of doing so. For instance, at the end of "Breakout into the Atlantic" why change "their silhouettes being similar" and use a subordinate clause? All the best, bigpad (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

That info is already stated at Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. Plus they don't recruit people; they preach. Also that link you added is not appropriate.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Flat Earth tone[edit]

Hello. The issue I had with the tone of your "Validity and usefulness" is that it uses an inappropriate tone of voice - Wikipedia articles should not be written from the first-person "we", and stylistic phrases such as "indeed" and "obviously" are out of place. Have a look at WP:TONE if you haven't already. I thought I'd just flag it rather than rewrite it when you were obviously still working on it - I'll take another look tomorrow. Welcome to Wikipedia! --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

High Sulfur Fuel Oil[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article High Sulfur Fuel Oil, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for editing on the UK keyboard[edit]

Funnily enough it is highly relevant to a current discussion in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems people don't think much about keyboards.
BTW, I couldn't find your edit on the 42/43rd President.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It took me quite a time to stumble across the very useful UK Extended keyboard driver! The comment about 42/43 was moved to List of POTUS; I've just added it back into the main article in a rather clumsy way. Surprised you remembered.Pol098 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to do with a US keyboard writing Australian English which is essentially British.
So Cleveland is the one. That was a great bit of deduction :o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties in the Falklands War.[edit]

Thank you for editing the Falklands War article. The meaning was however distorted a bit because among the non-fatal casualties some died post-war. Your edition creates doubt if they died during the war. I don't want to disturb your nice grammar, so could you please insert something post-war. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. How about: "There were 1,188 Argentine and 777 British non-fatal casualties, some of whom died of their injuries after the war"? I've changed the article. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. The article before I edited it merely said "later", not "after the war"; are you sure that "after the war" is correct? It makes sense, as those who died some time after being injured, but during the war, would be counted as war dead.
The statistics I've seen list e.g. 777 British wounded in the war. I am convinced that if any wounded died during the war, they would have been tallied as dead. Your latest edition is splendid, thanks again. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


I believe what we're trying to say in WP:MOS is: don't spell out the numbers of days, unless referring to a holiday known by that name, and then it's capitalized because it's a proper noun. Also, some pages in WP are in American English and some aren't; WP:MoS is, so it's "spelled" not "spelt" on that page. Thanks for your edit, and please feel free to keep it up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes sense; for perfect clarity it should be explained in the text, but I suppose it's not that important. On reflection I'd agree that today is the twenty-first of May, not the Twenty-first. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rheumatoid arthritis[edit]

When I first removed your addition to rheumatoid arthritis I didn't make it clear in my edit summary that I would offer further explanation on the talkpage. Please address my arguments there first before adding the material back. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Will look, thanks. Pol098 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of articles on composers[edit]

Gregory Rose and Yannis Kyriakides: (added later, this section derives from a couple of "speedy deletion" notices): Gregory Rose and Yannis Kyriakides are contemporary composers of music who I thought (and still think) are as worthy of mention as many practitioners of popular music in Wikipedia. In particular some of their works have been played in well-attended concerts in London, and Kyriakides had several red links when I included him. Both these articles, which I had created, were warned for speedy deletion and deleted before I could respond - a matter of minutes. As they were deleted and nobody has written a new article, I suppose it's the consensus (or have other similar articles been summarily deleted too?). I simply register my opinion that they are at least as notable as many other people in music included in Wikipedia. Pol098 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Added later: an article on Yannis Kyriakides has been added, by someone else. Added yet later: an article on Gregory Rose (musician) has been added, by someone else.


I'm not sure why overrides is better than supercedes. After all, supercedes means he came after and replaces ‘Ali's authority, while "overrides" indicates contradiction. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally came to this because it was misspelt; it's supersedes. Supersedes conveys to me something becoming obsolete and outdated and being replaced by something newer and more up-to-date. I think it's used more for things than for people. I suppose it's very subjective; if you think supersedes is the better word, by all means reinstate it. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah. It's actually not technically incorrect, but your spelling is definitely preferrable. Cf. [4]. I thought supersede was better precisely because Hakim does, in fact, replace the earlier and outdated role of ‘Ali. His role to the Druze is superior - where Muhammad is replaced by ‘Ali's gnostic teachings to ghulat sects, so Hakim replaces him as the "esoteric of the esoteric". If you are neutral, I'll replace "supersedes" (correctly spelled). Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By all means, I have no strong opinion. Apologies for changing what does appear tp be the right word. Pol098 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to the appropriate talk page. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Defragging USB drives[edit]

I have re-reverted your edit to USB drives regarding fragmentation. I left an explanation of my reasoning of the talk page - please see my comments there before starting an edit war. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Knit picking over 'thereafter'[edit]

I don't understand your aversion to the word 'thereafter' which you seem to consistently change to 'afterwards.' I personally prefer 'thereafter,' especially since that's the way it was originally written in the Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships. In many the ship descriptions from that book, 'thereafter' is used quite frequently, and correctly. In the United States, the premier dictionary is the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and there, 'thereafter' is defined as: "after that". In my 1947 hardbound Merriam-Webster dictionary which I bought as a student, 'thereafter' is defined as: "after that; subsequently." So please, let the author's words stand as written.Uanir1 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a matter of usage; it sounds very wrong to me, but it's not worth arguing over. Encarta, for example, gives "after that time or from that time on", which is more enduring than simply "after that". Webster gives simply "after that", following your usage. It seems that we lose the distinction between two shades of meaning by making "thereafter" mean simply the same as "afterwards".

I don't see that there's any need to stick to an original text if it's questionable unless it's actually quoted, but again, why argue. A bit like "knit-picking", a spelling I haven't come across before, I suppose. Pol098 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Sopwith Camel[edit]

Most of these are great, clarifying meanings, improving style (at least marginally) and correcting typos. This article was a bit "boys own magazine" - and your edits have improved it considerably.

You will notice, however, that I have reverted (twice) your comments about the Vickers gun on the Camel being aircooled. This is basically because this was a feature of the "aviation" version of the weapon, rather than a peculiarity of the Camel as such. ALL Vickers guns (not to mention other machine guns) mounted in aircraft used air cooling, for obvious reasons.

If the Vickers gun had been normally water cooled on other aircraft then this would have been notable - otherwise it isn't, really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW I have edited the Vickers gun article!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, makes sense. It had just seemed a bit odd to me to use a water-cooled machinegun in an aircraft, until I checked. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Great job with cannon, much appreciated. :) I made a couple of slight changes to the wording, hope you're alright with them. Cheers, and thanks again. · AndonicO Engage. 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. No problems, best wishes Pol098 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

mumbai attacks[edit]

Thank you for bringing the info on the links to the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, I move it both to the "Attribution" section and the appropiate sub-article, as it was entirely relevant. It didn't, however, warrant its own section. Be aware the article is currently under "FAR" "GAR", and that sectioning and WP:SUMMARY have been discussed and a strong consensus reached. Happy editing!--Cerejota (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any particular opinion on where it belongs, it was just untidy so I cleaned it up a bit. Pol098 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Np.--Cerejota (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My use of the Rp template[edit]

Walt Whitman[edit]

May I ask why you chose to change the reference style in the Walt Whitman article? The article is at good article status so I'm always worried about compromising quality. It was approved using the prior reference style, which I've used on many of the articles I've worked on. Your edits removed most of the page numbers, sacrificing the verifiability of the article. Is there a reason why you don't want specificity in the footnotes? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over again, I see what you did. It's a very clunky format, in my opinion, and I'm not sure I think it's a good idea. Would you be offended if I restored the prior version? I've used that style on most of the featured and good articles I've written and it seems to be a well worn-in style. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest and request that we leave it for a while and ask for other opinions; we need to leave it at least for a while so others can form an opinion. The advantages of this format:
- compactness, with one entry per work;
- when reading text you can see immediately which references are to different pages of the same work, rather than different works; and after following up a reference you know whose work is referenced;
- in addition to these advantages, no information is lost compared to the previous format.
I'll leave it to you to consider the disadvantages.
"I've used that style... it seems to be a well worn-in style." I've often felt frustrated at having to use the style you mention, with lots of references to the same work, as there was nothing better. The Rp template seemed a great innovation to me. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Good call putting this up for discussion. We'll see what happens. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Not much, apparently! Pol098 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
See next section for somebody else who doesn't like the Rp template referencing system. Pol098 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Light Tank Mk VIII[edit]

Hey there! Cheers for the edits to the article - I've been meaning to give the prose a tidy up after I expanded the article, but you've saved me a lot of trouble! Skinny87 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

However, I can't say I like the reference system you're using, especially as the article is at GA status; would it be possible for you to change back the references? They're very clunky and not at all clear what they're referring to - the previous system is the one used by the majority of wikipedia articles and is much easier to read. I see you have another editor asking the same thing above - perhaps you could discuss this referencing system somewhere to see what others think of it? But I'd still appreciate if you reverted the article back to the old reference system. Skinny87 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've made a comment in the Talk pages in case others have any opinion. I thought that the Rp method was definitely better, but appear, rather to my surprise, to be in a minority. Pol098 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd just like to say thanks for reverting back the referencing system so easily; given most of my experience on wikipedia, I was prepared for a lengthy argument. So thanks for that! As to the system, it does seem to have some promise, but I think it needs to be tweaked a bit. I'll have a think and try and come up with some ideas. Skinny87 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Two rather emphatic "no" votes and no other interest seems reasonably decisive. I'd have preferred to leave the new referencing in for a few days to see if others had an opinion, but this gets messy to revert if there are later edits, and leaving Rp referencing in another article for a couple of days drew no responses. If you come up with new ideas, or want to see what people say, the place is Template_talk:Rp. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

References using the Rp template[edit]

I've been inserting references using the Rp template into a few articles, as I find it much better than the usual way off handling numerous references from each of several sources. Rather to my surprise I find my enthusiasm isn't reciprocated. For reference, here is a brief description and example of use of the template:

The old style of references[1] included a separate reference in the footnotes each time [2] a work is referenced[3]. The new style of references[4]:123-124 includes a single reference in the footnotes, with a page number appended in the body to the reference number, each time [4]:321 a work is referenced[4]:312. If we use an entry in the list of References[5]:132 when using the new style, the entry in Notes can be simply author and year without full details[5]:213.

Notes (generated automatically from in-text references in the order found)
  1. ^ Smith, 123-124
  2. ^ Smith, 321
  3. ^ Smith, 312
  4. ^ a b c Newsmith, J, On New Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009
  5. ^ a b Anothersmith (2009)
References (alphabetical, entered manually)
  • Anothersmith, J, On New Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009 (if we have this in references, the entry in notes can simply be to "Anothersmith (2009)" without details)
  • Smith, J, On Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009

The new style does not generate an alphabetical list of references in addition to the footnote. We can either provide full details when the work is first referenced, so that the Notes will include full details, but not in alphabetical order as in the Newsmith example; or we can have an alphabetical list of references with full details, and simply provide name and year when first referenced in text, as in the Anothersmith example. Pol098 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Your doing great work but can you please use edit summaries - as that would be very helpful --VirtualSteve need admin support? 07:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be more systematic, too often I neglect to say anything (though usually don't intend to comment Minor edits). Thanks for feedback. Pol098 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to United States customary units[edit]

In the edit summary for this edit you claimed that the {{convert}} template produces incorrect spacing for temperature symbols. The Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811 agree with the convert template. By the way, in the USA, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to interpret SI. He has designated Special Publications 330 and 811 as the official interpretation of SI in the USA. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a surprise to me, I'm obviously out of step. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative number[edit]

Interesting addition about how to write negative numbers. Do you have some book where they use this kind of notation for e.g. (-5)? Best regards Ulner (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd never seen it before myself. The article mentioned that the notation -5 for -5 was "often" used, without reference. It seemed to make a lot of sense to distinguish between negative numbers and the operation of subtraction this way, so I modified the section on arithmetic to use it throughout. It could do with a reference, but I can't provide it. Hopefully someone will. Maybe you could delve back into history and find who initially wrote the sentence introducing this notation? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in this topic in its own right, the article was amended at some time to read: Sometimes in elementary schools a number may be prefixed by a superscript minus sign or plus sign to explicitly distinguish negative and positive numbers as in[1]
2 + 5  gives 7.
Pol098 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at Stanislav Velinov[edit]

Hi, Pol098. Thank you for your concern on my article. Now I'm working on collecting 3rd party information related to this article. it is hard for me to find such info, because most of the news is in Indonesian, not English. But I will put it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garuda99 (talkcontribs) 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Still needs references for almost everything though! No biographical details are referenced.Pol098 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: article was later deleted (not through my action, though it didn't seem notable to me). Pol098 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

teletypes (sic) are historical...[edit]

First Teletype is always capitalized...second while you may know that Teletypes are "historical", there are many others who may not know that a Teletype machine is a vintage electromechanical device. The "more recently" was added to frame the Radioteletype article and to add information that a first time reader may not know. I'd appreciate if you would rethink you change to the first paragraph. Thanks! Wa3frp (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Capital T in Teletype of course; but I didn't make any edits of that word in the article; must admit my typos and use of caps in edit summaries (not articles) is very sloppy. Trouble with "recently" is that it becomes out of date; the original intention of my edit was to remove the "now" viewpoint, though you wouldn't guess that from my summary. The use of "more recently" wasn't as bad in RTTY as in articles mentioning the recent (2005) football championship, next year's (2007) conference on whatever, etc. If I'd known when computers began to replace mechanical RTTYs I'd have replaced "recently" by "from the mid-1980s" or whenever. If you know when, I'd suggest that you insert the decade instead of the relative "recently". In the meantime I'll patch it up a bit (without mentioning a date). The early or mid 1980s sounds about right for the introduction of screen displays in place of teletypes in computing, at least, but I don't know about use in radio. Pol098 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!. The sentence, "...Starting in 1980s, teleprinters were replaced with computers running teleprinter emulation software..." appears in the history section to further support and clarify the first sentence of the Radioteletype article. All is well now as I understand your concern about the phrase "more recently". Wa3frp (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your numerous quality edits to Radioteletype that greatly improve the article. Also, thanks for picking up that deleted paragraph in the Telex section of Telegraphy dealing with the beginnings of Telex in Canada. I watch Telegraphy for edits but that edit must have happened while I was traveling. 73! Wa3frp (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what we're all here for! Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Supersede/supercede in Tom Cryer[edit]

With notes added at various times on these words in general
There seems to be a controversy over the two spellings of this word. Both spellings are correct in every day use. See, e.g., p.1168 (supercede) and p. 1170 (supersede) as variant spellings, in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). More to the point, the legal document in question used the spelling "supercede," not "supersede." So, the spelling "supercede" is the correct spelling to be used here. Famspear (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, supercede is often reported as a common misspelling, it's only used so often because people can't spell and relate it to secede, exceed, and do on. Looking up supercede on finds 7 matches, at least one of which reports it as a common misspelling, while supersede has 28 entries. However, discussing this further is a waste of time. Re whether text with occasional errors should be quoted with errors: I don't see any reason to quote people's errors unless I want to point out the error or make them look stupid. Pol098 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) MOS:PMC supports correcting trivial errors. pol098, 3 February 2012
Dear Pol098: With all due respect, I would argue that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, as published by the G.&C. Merriam Company, is an established authority on correct spellings, especially for purposes of Wikipedia. The "onelook" web site does not stand on the same footing as Webster's Dictionary.
Further, even if a word is misspelled, normal editorial procedure dictates that we reproduce the source accurately, regardless of whether the source contains spelling errors or not. Of course, true errors can be denoted by following the error with the editorial notation "[sic]" or by a footnote with words to the effect of "So in the original."
This is especially true of legal documents. For example, even the actual statutes as enacted by Congress occasionally contain a rare misspelled word, or a grammatical error. The private printers (such as West Publishing) who reprint such legal texts for actual use by lawyers and the courts will in no case take it upon themselves to "correct" the text. Those publishers reproduce source material exactly as it is written.
In an encyclopedia or in other formal writing, "quoting other people's errors", to use your terminology, is a basic tenet; we are not supposed to "correct" what others have written. Instead, we quote accurately what others have written -- errors and all.
In any case, I would take Webster's Dictionary for authority that "supercede" and "supersede" are both correct spellings. Famspear (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Notes added much later for anyone interested) "both correct spellings?" I'm not sure what you mean by Webster's, but entering "Webster" into address bar brings up Merriam-Webster, who say "Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error." And this. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) MOS:PMC: trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment. Pol098 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Regarding UK usage specifically: Times Style guide says "supersede (never supercede)", Oxford guide to Style uses supersede, but doesn't mention supercede, Guardian style guide says "supersede not supercede".

Edits to Visible Light Communication[edit]

I meant no harm in changing your edit about fluorescent bulbs vs. CFLs. I just didn't notice that the original link was to fluorescent bulbs and not fluorescent lamps. With my edit I wanted to express a personal opinion about CFLs being a (rather poor -- thanks to a cheapo ballast) type of fluorescent lights. (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not complaining; I don't know much about the subject and was just fixing up the text, which had a link to "fluorescent bulb", which just redirected to "compact fluorescent lamp", so I changed "fluorescent bulb" to "compact fluorescent lamp". If VLC can use any sort of fluorescent lighting, which makes sense, then my specific reference to compacts was inappropriate and needed to be removed (which I did). Your edit was absolutely fine. Pol098 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your choice of Grammar[edit]

In Existence of God and electrolytic capacitors (e.g. "worse noise" instead of just "noise"), you are picking grammar that affects the meaning, and not just subtly. I have no time to check all of your work, and just wanted you, and thus others, to be aware of this observation. Jok2000 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(This slightly edited for clarity 17 May 2013) Let's make a clear distinction: if I make what I consider a trivial change I mark it "m" (Wikipedia minor); if I make what I consider a minor change but think that some people might object to it I do not flag it as Wikipedia minor, but put "minor", "relatively small", etc. in the edit summary. If I make changes which I consider to be mainly to wording, without adding or removing anything of substance, I put "wording" in the description. Beyond that I do not claim not to be changing the meaning; I often do, with no intention of subtlety. When making significant changes to wording only in controversial articles I sometimes say explicitly "Changes to wording with no intention to alter meaning". If you find examples where I have claimed a change is minor (in any of the above ways) and it isn't, please bring them to my attention. I'm not perfect and I'm sure you'll find them - I did find a dubious example in the capacitor article.

If you disagree with my changes (mostly not flagged as minor) to Existence of God, you have the right to modify or revert my changes; I may proceed in various ways, but in fact am quite happy to leave the article as you have left it except WP:MDASH and clarification of an unqualified reference to "Swinburne" which the average well-read reader would take as the poet. I think you have reinstated one or two clear grammatical or formatting errors, but they can stay as far as I am concerned.

In electrolytic capacitor I changed
"Aluminum electrolytics have problems of noise, high leakage, high temperature drift, high dielectric absorption and high inductance."
"Electrolytics have worse noise, leakage, drift with temperature and ageing, dielectric absorption and inductance than other types of capacitor."

I described that as a change to wording; in fact it is indeed a little more. and does change the meaning. While both the original statement and my version are correct, I think mine is more relevant as one chooses a capacitor for an application by comparing it with other possible types - being Wikipedia, it is open to anyone who disagrees (or wishes to claim a large willy) to change the article accordingly. I have on occasion chosen to use a (very expensive) non-electrolytic high-value capacitor where stability was an issue. Ta electrolytics suffer from the same issues as Al, though to a lesser degree. If you compare the electrolytic capacitor article before and after I started editing it (in History select revision before my first contribution, then select right tickbox for my last revision, then click Compare) you'll find that my changes are not exactly "subtle" or minor; e.g., the highest working temperature is 175C (referenced), not 105C as originally stated.

I've responded to this in some detail as I encourage anybody who thinks I'm flagging changes as trivial when they're not (or any other shortcomings) to let me know. I do tend not to add comments when editing; I'm aware of this shortcoming and do try, but too often hit Send as soon as I've made a change. Pol098 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Electrolytic capacitors[edit]

Okay, let's talk about capacitors. The noise aspect of, for example, a tantalum capacitor is implicitly referenced now, whereas the previous sentence was distinguising different characteristics of electrolytics. And in any event, opinion words like "worse" don't convey the scientific fact that electrolytics by their construction (of layers of foil) there will be inductance (which the old wording simply called a 'problem').
So in other words, it seems to me you are mixing in some opinion where there was simply logic or science before (here and there). Jok2000 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made Electrolytic capacitors a new subsection here as it's about the particular case. The original statement referred to Al electrolytics, and is correct. I worded it to include all electrolytics, which is also correct. Al are worse than Ta, and I should perhaps have addressed that. The original wording spoke of "high inductance"; I sometimes deliberately use words like "worse" as for the non-expert it's not always obvious whether a property is better if higher or lower. While "worse" is in principle a matter of opinion, I doubt whether anyone would disagree that noise, leakage, drift with temperature and ageing, and dielectric absorption are worse in electrolytics than other types (I'm not sure if supercapacitors should be mentioned explicitly; not sure about inductance, not familiar with the inductance of other wound capacitors). It certainly doesn't contradict the spirit of the original; it's just as much a matter of opinion to say that these are "problems". ALL of these issues are due to the construction of electrolytics (layers of foil, moist chemical dielectric, etc.).

I'm sure it sounds as if I'm trying to defend what I said; this isn't the case. I'm all in favour of criticism and take it seriously. In many cases I change my behaviour. In the matters raised in this "choice of grammar" section in general, and the sentence quoted from the electrolytic capacitors article in particular, I don't see any general change that I should make (I can be convinced by further argument that my particular contribution to electrolytics was not good enough, but don't so far see any general principle I need to change). I'd encourage you to compare the article as a whole just before I started modifying it with the edit of today (I've added that Ta is better than Al), and would welcome suggestions about what I could have done better. Pol098 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I read what you wrote, but I'm going to keep this short. "Problem" is a better word as a search term in conjunction with "electrolytic capacitor" on google than the word "worse", and so it should not be removed. Jok2000 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Excellent point, thanks. Any further comments will be appreciated. (added later) After considerable thought I no longer consider this point valid. While I do often make a point outside Wikipedia to include keywords in text, in Wikipedia specialist keywords are unnecessary as they'll normally be included in text as articles are added to. I often search the web an Wikipedia, and can't think of any way that inclusion of a general non-specialist word like "problem" could ever improve a search. I don't think there's much to discuss here (unless someone else would like to comment?); we should merely agree to disagree.

Bluntly I get the impression you're more concerned to find some valid criticism to back up your original comment that my changes were not trivial (to which I responded that I never said they were). I usually learn from criticism, but I haven't gained anything from this: I would do exactly the same again. If you consider that the sum of my contributions is a liability rather than an asset to Wikipedia by all means tell me so and raise the issue wherever delinquent editors are reported. Please let me know of anything I do systematically that could be improved (I'm sure I've made plenty of mistakes, but I'm more concerned about correctable trends), but otherwise let's drop this. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

re: your message[edit]

Hi Pol098, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pol098, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(Follow the "my talk page" links to see these messages, which are to do with capitalising the first letter of piped links or not, and my responses. 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Tectonic weapon[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Tectonic weapon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: :unsourced article about a non-existent weapon [boilerplate deleted]

See detailed discussion in article's Talk page (it wasn't deleted). Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fastnet Line[edit]

My recent edits which you have un/done is unacceptable, it is even style as TRAVEL GUIDE i have reverted your edits but also have moved facilites information to MS Julia page, as in the case of all P&O boats. I hope this dose not continue. Best regards --Kavs8 (talk  · contribs) 16:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

(Note: edit differences: [[5]])

Unacceptable? To whom? In particular the article before I edited it had text that would rapidly go out of date, which I corrected as per WP:DATED. What do you mean by "it is even style as TRAVEL GUIDE" - that I have styled it as a travel guide, that it is supposed to be a travel guide? I had in the Service section "From 1 March 2010 the service operates year-round with 3 weekly services, increasing to 4 in July and August." You replaced it by a long section which will soon go out of date, with odd capitalisation and grammatical errors. What information was in your much longer version that is not in mine? (I moved the sentence on what the service will carry to the first sentence, where it belongs.)

I really don't see why you're objecting, and so strenuously; I don't think I've changed the meaning of the article significantly (I did cut out detail about the vessel, but that's been moved out of the article, so it's moot). The points that need addressing:
  • Wording that goes out of date "will start", "new", etc. need changing.
  • It makes sense to mention what the service will carry in the first sentence instead of Service - it's just 4 words.
  • If you move detail about the ship out of the article you have to add information on the capacity (just a sentence with number of cars, trucks, people, cabins
  • In some places the wording is far too verbose and needs trimming. Also attention should be paid to capitalisation, grammar, style.
  • A minor point: "branding" is market-speak, and more of a US term (in a UK/Ireland article). We're just talking of the "name" of the service.
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

British Passport[edit]

Thanks for working to improve this article but I noticed that the current article is a little unbalanced because there seems to be a plethora of references to BNO passports vs the other 6 flavours. I suggest that we create subsections for the different types and amalgamate the references for each type there. This was resolve the balance issue and show other users where they can made useful additions to expand the other sections. Does this sound reasonable to you? Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I don't claim huge expertise, but it sounds sensible to separate the different types. I suppose a section covering everything that's common, and history, then subsections. But I'm just making suggestions, have no strong opinion. I've made most of the changes that I thought needed making and I knew something about, and updated a few bits that had fallen behind. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brain stimulation[edit]

The article Brain stimulation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Not a proper disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are to help find an article among several that users might use the same search term to find, like different cities all named Springfield. They aren't for the purpose of breaking a topic into subtopics.

Article was deleted but later reinstated by others. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing on Prince Rupert[edit]

Just to say thanks for the copy-editing and tidying up on the Prince Rupert article! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hope I didn't do anything which wasn't an improvement. Pol098 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Failure of AR torpedoes in Falklands War[edit]

Sir, if you have the time, check my entry on the ARA San Luis. You will be dumbfounded as to why the torpedoes failed as I was when I read that article back in 1993 on the report to the German Navy which was included. It has to go down in naval history along with the USN torpedo failures against the Japanese during the first two years of the war -- ie not only was the magnetic fuses failures, but the depth keeping was, and even when set to impact, they discovered that the impact pistols (firing pins) were made of material to soft and they bent!!! --Jackehammond (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to this, amazing. Strange that this wasn't better known, after being discovered in 1993. Similar to the problem with aerial bomb fuzing. Pol098 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for this --Jubilee♫clipman 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure Pol098 (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Chi-Chi Okonjo[edit]

Not sure of the technical side of things, but I have no problem with deleting redundant tags. Is one simply a redirect to the other? I'm too exhausted to look this up right now... Cheers! CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian bacon[edit]

Just a quick one - I think the bacon article was originally using the term 'Canadian bacon' to refer to back bacon (an Americanism) though somehow the article has got itself confused over the term 'Canadian bacon' and bacon from Canada (like where you tidied up). Its probably best removing misleading American slang I think.. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference to "Canadian bacon" I deleted was in the UK section, where it was clearly irrelevant (and unreferenced and tagged as such); Canadian bacon isn't prominent in the UK. As you imply, whoever wrote this was probably trying to distinguish UK from US usage. I don't actually know about usage elsewhere, so won't interfere. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lourdes grotto[edit]

The entire deleted content was: "A replica of the original grotto at Lourdes, a Catholic site reputed to have healing properties." , with a stub tag. I have no objection to your reposting an expanded article, but I don't see any purpose for reinstating this very brief stub, which doesn't even say where the replica is. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the disagreement; you are reading the text as if it were a SPECIFIC replica, site unspecified; in fact "Lourdes grotto" appears to be a generic term. I will modify this. Pol098 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Biodiesel Systems spam[edit]

You mentioned that the link was only posted once when reverting my edit. If you examine the user's record [6], the spam I reverted was added to numerous pages related to biodiesel. The user in question has added numerous refspam links, even after warning and conversation elaborating on why the references were inappropriate. See WP:REFSPAM. I have not, and do not dispute the inclusion of the information, but this source type (secondary, clearly commercial, no guarantees of reliability either) is to be avoided when the primary source (EN standards) is readily accessible. --E8 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. You presumably reverted all references (or maybe they were very new?), as a Google search for < ""> found only the one instance, so this particular search did not imply spam. I would comment that a point-by-point comparison of the different parameters specified adds to the article even though the article itself links the individual specifications individually (in fact, the presence of the links to the authoritative individual specifications leaves the advantage of the comparison but removes the non-guaranteed reliability), but on balance I'll go along with you. If you haven't removed the reference from the article in question. EN 14214, I will. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In your comment on the Talk page of the user who added the links you say "The information you have added is interesting and useful, but the source must be non-commercial in nature. If the website, not webpage, contains sales and product information, it's clearly commercial in nature. Wikipedia policy is unambiguous about this." Is this definitely so? My reading of the guidelines doesn't disallow commercial links. I ask because I sometimes add links in Wikipedia articles to commercial sites which seem to me to be useful; these links don't usually get challenged. For example, on an article on transistors, I might link the datasheet for a typical device. In the Instant hot water dispenser article I added a reference not to an authoritative datasheet but to information I thought relevant and useful and for which I didn't have a better reference (; this was in December 2009 and it's still there. This article and Water heating both have many commercial references; I haven't checked them all, but they seem generally to improve the articles. If the guidelines do indeed unconditionally forbid commercial links I may want to discuss this in an appropriate place as I don't agree, but don't want to engage you in a pointless debate here. I do agree, of course, with banning links intended to promote commercial (or other) sites without improving an article. I'd add that I have no commercial interests of my own in editing Wikipedia (I sometimes buy, and need to be informed about, transistors and water heaters for my own use, but don't sell them!). Pol098 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS I found the water heating site with Google because I couldn't find the information I needed in Wikipedia, and added it so others could take advantage of the information.
The best writeup I have seen on this subject is WP:WPSPAM->[7]. The purpose of DMOZ is to be a repository for interesting, non-encyclopedic (e.g., commercial) links, and Wikipedia in turn is linked to DMOZ.--E8 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, to clarify my earlier comment, I am involved primarily with science/engineering articles. Source quality is expected to be higher (generally academic) for such articles; my comment was overreaching and doesn't apply to all WP content.--E8 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies matters. I think I'm actually in practical agreement with you on the important general principles, though I'd express it slightly differently. In the particular case of the EN 14214 article context is everything, and the link added clearly had an agenda beyond adding to the useful content of the article, as you said. In general my existing attitude to commercial links (as discussed above) seems to me to be OK, and I don't need to change it. I've made enough edits (tens of thousands) that I need to be sure I'm following a reasonable line. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism I make in edit comments[edit]

I've deleted an exchange caused by a misunderstanding. If anyone who reads this considers I have offended them in an edit comment, please check that it does apply to your edit. I don't usually criticise errors (particularly spelling and typos - I make enough of them myself!); my rare criticism is intended to be constructive for good faith edits. Malicious stuff I can and do criticise. I consider repeated edits which, say, simply replace a correct by an incorrect spelling, to be malicious (a spelling error is a mistake, but repeating it is vandalism—anyone with a brain will check a dictionary before jumping in). Pol098 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

lehmeyun: Spanish transliteration of Arabic?[edit]

Do you have a reference indicating what source "lehmeyun" derives from? It may well be a transliteration of a transliteration of the Arabic - not direct.Mavigogun (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a reference. As transliteration is just the sound, a transliteration of a transliteration gives the same result as a direct transliteration. Transliteration is only necessary because the original word uses the Arabic, not Latin, character set, so we can't simply copy the word like "pizza"; if the Arabs had given us pizza, it might be "peetser" in English, "pitsa" in Spanish—it probably wouldn't be possible to find out if "peetser" had come directly form the original or from Spanish "pitsa", or "pitsa" from the original or "peetsa". Given that there are a lot of people of Arabic origin in Latin America, and that "lahmajoun" isn't in common use in English so wouldn't pass from English into Spanish, I'd expect the Spanish usage to come from the Arabic. I think the spelling "lahmacun" comes from Turkish (which uses Latin, rather than Arabic, characters); I think it's actually spelt ""lahmaçun" in Turkish, which is pronounced something like "lahmajoun". The real point of my adding to the article that "lehmeyun" is a transliteration into Spanish is that it's the sound, not the meaning; it's not a translation from Arabic or English, and sounds the same as the English transliteration "lahmajoun". In my own (unreferenced!) experience, people speaking Spanish would use the Arabic word as there's no Spanish word, but if required to write it down might use something like "lajmayin" or, of course, "lehmeyun". I hope this makes some sort of sense. Pol098 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

referring to an edit you made in 2008[edit]

not sure that I understand how a spark occurs when an inductive circuit is broken. Sorry about my lack of technical knowledge. Bwrs (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See talk:spark, I've answered there. Pol098 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

San Carlos[edit]

[8] thks! --Jor70 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure.Hope article is improved by changes. Pol098 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

LUV initials[edit]

Nice solution, clear and simple. Thanks 842U (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Acronym is wrong, initialism's daft, a sentence is too long, simplicity's apt. 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ESs and Archiving[edit]

Hiya. Bravo for normally supplying an Edit Summary - except perhaps when using the 'm' (minor) tag. But please remember to do one or the other :)

BTW, I see you pruned your talk page. Had you considered the benefits of Help:Archiving a talk page? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Thought about it, but prefer to delete rather than archive redundant stuff (can be recovered from History) Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the comments. As I see people notice, I'll try not to forget the edit summary - not the first time this has been mentioned. BTW, I'm far more prone to use the minor tag for edits than I remember guidelines saying - my attitude is that if I don't think anyone is likely to object to a change, usually in wording, minor is OK. I've waited (years) for an objection, and have had none. Thanks for the pointer to archiving a page, suppose I should. Till now I've just deleted stuff that I didn't think would be missed. I try not to remove any criticism (which I see as useful). Pol098 (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your positive response - refreshing to see. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation[edit]


Dear Pol098: Hi there! I'm NicholasTurnbull, your friendly mediator from the Mediation Cabal, a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation, discussion and advice from a volunteer. Someone's asked for our help, and mentioned you in the following request:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-01/ESR meter [boilerplate deleted]]

NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It was decided that references I'd introduced were excessively commercial, and they were eventually deleted (leaving the article essentially unreferenced). This was discussed re the mediation and on the article's Talk page. My opinion was and is that a lot of useful information was on commercial (but not advertising) pages, and the article has suffered by deletion of the references supportign and expanding on its content. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Wikignome.png Wikignoming award
For distinguished Wikignoming I, ResidentAnthropologist, award you the WikiGnome award. For your clean up at Rick Ross (consultant)
An unexpected surprise! Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Most of the statements you are simplifying there are mostly the result of several years of edit warring and not due to lack of copyediting. They needed clean up and you are a the first uninvolved editor to come by and do it and for that I salute you The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Weapons during travel[edit]

Dear editor - I appologies for my English - I would like to thank you a lot for your nice job here [9]. At the text about weapons - In late August 1941 unit - during travel - was disarmed (normal practice even at modern Army) - and up on arrival to training camp they recieved their weapons back. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  • P.S. Can you help me in a same way (grammar and copyedit) at other articles - it would be a great help. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look later. I didn't correct the article in detail, just a few points, and wouldn't expect to do a lot more on other articles. The problem with the sentence I corrected incorrectly was that it was not clear - "recieved of" could be a spelling mistake for "relieved of" (their weapons were taken away), or "received" (without of).

You might find it useful to use a spelling checker, which would have helped in some cases. Firefox has a spelling checker which underlines all the words it doesn't know in red as the edited text is displayed (the two options for recieved are relieved and received); and the Google toolbar for various browsers has a batch (not constantly active) spelling checker. The Firefox checker lets you install dictionaries for different languages and choose the language you want by right-clicking on the text. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you've been blocked from editing 3 times citing "tendentious editing". I must admit to seeing only the form of the article without paying much attention to the content, so I personally can't have any opinion on the content. But I don't want to spend much time on articles which are liable to be edit-warred, nor do I want to be seen to be promoting any POV on a subject which I'm not actually interested in or informed about. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually twice [10] (third record - it's talk page block -) - and both time becouse of my grammar [11] [12] - anyway you help will be appreciated at "calm articles" - 30th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Belarussian), 30th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(2nd_Russian) 29th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_RONA_(1st_Russian) Schutzmannschaft-Brigade_Siegling. However If it’s not in your rule to deal with “cursed editor” – I’m anyway understood you – you are happy not to be an WP:EEML target [13].Thank youJo0doe (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Camden Town[edit]

Hello Pol098, I'm trying to remove non-notable examples from the Cultural references section. The two sources do not show evidence of how Charlie Sloth's references to Camden are notable, the first only mentions a track title and the second is a self published youtube video which is not a wp:reliable source. Thanks Grim23 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So dump it on those grounds! I won't object or reinstate; if this is in any way seen as a conflict between you and me, I hope you win, I don't want to, I'm only cleaning the article. I found a very brief unreferenced mention of Sloth which had been deleted in the article quite a while ago, looked it up and reinstated, expanded, and referenced it; not someone I'd ever heard of. As a consequence I looked up the actual song and found its content mildly interesting, and accurate in its factual information (plus opinions of course). My personal opinion is that the self-published youtube video in this case (remember that Wikipedia gives guidelines, not rules) is reliable; whoever published it, it actually shows the person named saying the things reported. So I'd argue that the material is all sourced. Having made all that argument as if I desperately wanted this material to remain, I personally see no reason for any of the huge majority of this kind of "references in popular culture" section in an article on a place or event, and would raise no objection to deleting them all as non-notable (both formally re Wikipedia guideline and in my opinion) (including the Camden Town ones, and this one). I'm more or less saying "I don't agree that these popular culture sections belong here, but if they're found to be unreferenced or unsatisfactory I'll clean them up" - but I don't think they belong even then. Pol098 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't figure out why you (?) removed ref to Camden Town site? I don't think it breaks any Wiki guidelines? Our link was on this page for donkeys years - then suddenly disappeared.

Best Wishes

TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few tourist-guide type links got added; at the beginning of last year they got cleaned out. The change that removed "our link", specifically, was: 14:49, 14 February 2012, Grim23. This was discussed in some detail on the article's Talk page - links didn't "suddenly disappear".

I've just had a look at the page linked; it contains an ad for minicabs; I don't know how commercial the rest is. I looked at the "Eating" page; at a quick glance 2 of 3 Chinese restaurants listed are long gone, the 3rd I don't know; 1 of 3 French is long gone, one still there but Belgian; I think the third has also gone. Not only at least some advertising, but uselessly out-of-date tourist guide information (WP:NOTTRAVEL). HTH and best wishes. Pol098 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the out of date stuff. I'll sort it out over the weekend. It's really difficult trying to keep up with local firms - I'm running the thing almost alone... We don't make any money from the site. It would be nice but it stopped generating any dosh about 2007, even then it only covered it's costs. We don't really deal with big firms. The mini cab guy hasn't paid anything for years. We do, however, live in Camden Town and have done so for 33 years. Kids go to school at Hawley Infants and Camden School for Girls. We shop at the big Sainsburys.... Our aim is to promote our neighbourhood and local small-enterprises, community groups and charities including:

Camden Community Radio Camden Credit Union Camden Black Parents Maiden Lane Gardening Club Shopmobility (wheelchairs) Women in Health Camden Law Centre Camden Enterprise Agency The Working Mens College Camden calling (homeless musicians) Camden NHS smokefreecamden nhs Breastcanceer care Mind in Camden Camden cyclists Camden Abu Dis The Jewish Museum Camden Climate Action Network Thecamdentownshed Camden community empowerment network

Looking back I found a ref to our including the site in Wiki on 17th Nov 2004 (21.22). Yonks and yonks ago. Do you live here?

Best Wishes


ps. sorry if I'm in the wrong spot again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Personally I don't think this link belongs in the article according to WP:NOTTRAVEL and guidelines on commercial links (it was originally deleted, not by me, in 2012). While I appreciate that you're trying to promote the area and its facilities, that's not what Wikipedia is for—the link is appropriate for a travel guide, not an encyclopaedia. Also, while I understand what you say, objectively the link seems so out of date as to be literally worse than useless; if I used the linked Web site as a tourist guide and decided to visit L'Ecluse restaurant (which I often did, their confit de canard was a favourite), I'd find people there no longer even remembered it, it's been years since it closed. I don't like to set myself up as judge and jury, so will not take any further action myself. If you reinstate the link you'll probably find other people will eventually remove it, sometime between immediately and 5 years later. There's an obvious conflict, I wish you well but can't in good conscience support this link in Wikipedia. I think this discussion belongs in the article's Talk page, not mine, and might copy it there if you don't mind. You didn't post in the wrong section; I had a wrong-headed idea and created a section which I should have deleted years ago. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think your response was very thoughtful. I shall have a think about it... I shant put stuff here again. Final best wishes TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I'm not totally hostile to your edit, but I am not familiar with the term "flag rank" being used with respect to (army) generals - only with respect to (navy) admirals. Is this a US thing, or is it a more widely used term, and if so, by whom? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You may not be hostile to my edit, but I am! I retracted it before receiving your message because US forces do not have brigadiers. Otherwise the comment on flag rank would have been correct; I only know what I have seen on Wikipedia, but flag rank for land forces is indeed a US thing: see the article and you'll know exactly as much as me. Best wishes Pol098 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Your answer, and more importantly (to me), you attitude, are both appreciated and enjoyed. Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (T)[edit]

This is one in a series of 21 lists with near-identical leads, so changes to that section should be discussed at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster. Please post there instead of reverting again so that discussion can be undertaken as to whether that is necessary. Thanks. — KV5Talk • 21:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted Pol098 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vecino[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

Vecino has been proposed for deletion: Dictionary definitions only, not appropriate in encyclopedia [boilerplate trimmed] PamD (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete notice removed, explanation added to article's Talk. Pol098 (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support for exporting Office Open XML[edit]

Hello, Pol098

I saw this contribution of yours and checked your source but not where in the source there is a mention of support for exporting into OOXML; it just says "Password protected Microsoft Office XML files" are supported. How do you know it's not just read support?

Fleet Command (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. 3.2 release notes clearly indicate support for these file types (even password-protected), while 3.0 clearly said it could import. Ooo program available to anybody (hence not original research) has "Microsoft Word XML (.docx)" as one of the input and output formats supported (it's on the list of formats, not import/export as such). Have added another ref to article. Pol098 (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Pol, you added the ref before (and not after) the text that talked about version 3.2. I missed looking at the reference as a result, until I found out this discussion on your talk page. I have moved the ref to the proper place. Now, neither of the refs talk about write capability. Also, the references do not justify the usage of the word "even" to suggest that non-password protected files are supported. I went through the release notes of v3.2 and it clearly mentions only import and only password-protected files. I plan to undo this change of yours. Let me know if you have a reference that talks about write capability. Jay (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for misplaced ref. I haven't used used OpenOffice since LibreOffice was released, so can only say what I remember; my previous comment here is relevant: when running the program, docx was on the list of output formats supported, and I did at the time save docx files (and xlsx I think). Too long ago, can't remember more. HTH, Pol098 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I wish what you say is true, as I am myself looking for write capability for docx files (either OpenOffice or LibreOffice). But for Wikipedia verifiability purposes, I'll undo your edit. Jay (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Do as you see fit, I'm not going to intervene. However, I have just this minute opened an .odt file in LibreOffice, saved it as .docx, and opened it successfully in Wordpad. In the version of referred to in the article I had checked at the time that .docx was available in the "Save As" options, but don't remember if I tested it—I probably did, as I had the requirement to save documents in that format. Insofar as you're concerned with the article, rather than Real Life, you could download that version and try (I no longer have either the installed program or the installation file). In my opinion actually doing this is a reliable source in Wikipedia terms rather than the bête noir "Original Research", as anybody with a computer running a standard operating system can verify the statement (unlike some generally accepted sources that can only be found in a national copyright library!). I think the article is better off with information which is actually correct and reliable (as in my version), but it's your call. BTW, if you actually need to write .docx files, on seeing the article I'd suggest you should have downloaded and installed your choice of OpenOffice and LibreOffice and tested—this is your ultimate reliable source. Trying to be helpful, not critical. Pol098 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I had installed LibreOffice and tested it out. It does create .docx but is poor with merging two .docx documents, which is my requirement. It could not merge even two simple .docx files (with headers,footers,references). I did not try OpenOffice as the OpenOffice article said "OpenOffice does not write Office Open XML (Office 2007, Transitional or Strict) ... OOXML writing functionality was in the go-oo branch and is now found in LibreOffice." I agree with what you say about original research, and I would rather let someone else decide. I started a discussion at Talk:OpenOffice#Write support for MS Office 2007 documents? Jay (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I remember that I was using the go-oo branch of OpenOffice, without considering differences in .docx functionality as OpenOffice standard, so my comments above and in the article are probably misleading. MSOffice functionality can be tricky; when I needed PowerPoint compatibility it was there, but with enough little issues to prevent me from making a single-word edit to an MSO .PPT presentation and returning it to its developer to continue. You obviously by now know more than I do about the topic, so I will bow out. In your place I might see if Wordpad would merge .docx files, but wouldn't be hopeful given the features you require. Good luck, Pol098 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking for programmatic merging in Java, so Wordpad won't help. The OOo vs go-oo clarification has been made in the article. Jay (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israel and the apartheid analogy. [Boilerplate deleted]

Please also note that I am neither a vandal nor ignorant. The spelling was perfectly valid, and it is not up to you to alter another editor's choice of terms just because you are not aware of a less common form of the word. In future, please keep your unfounded personal remarks to yourself RolandR (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This from someone who objected to my changing "publically" to "publicly", reverted, and objected to my re-reverting. I'm perfectly aware of the illiterate "publically". No further comment needed. These remarks of mine available to anybody interested, publicly. Pol098 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials[edit]

Hello, Pol098

I am sorry to inform you that I had no choice but to revert all your recent edits to Microsoft Security Essentials article. (I do not like mass-reverting other people's contribution but sometimes I have to.) Unfortunately, all your contribution had grammatical and style problems. In most cases, you create ambiguity and vagueness. Your most significant erroneous contribution is "MSE provides protection against more forms of malware than just spyware and adware, unlike Windows Defender; it disables Defender if present."

Now, this doesn't mean that I didn't see some problems that you tried to address. In fact, I'll go ahead of and fix what came to your attention. I'd like to thank you for what you did, thought it was not something to keep. But I assure you that your work will be the basis of a better article.

Fleet Command (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, here is what I did based on your contributions: First, you had deleted one sentence and completely altered another because they lacked source; I added sources and re-instated the sentences. Second, you hadn't like the style of the sections about MSE replacing WD and license agreement. Your judgment was good, but your contributions were not. So, I checked the high-school and college books on grammar and rephrased the sentences again. I think you'll like them. Last, you tried to fix the incorrect focus on the test results of the Beta version of MSE. Again, your judgment was good but your writing omitted a lot of info and gave the impression that tests were done by the same entity. So, instead, I merged the paragraphs and added a topic sentence. See how it looks.

Again, thanks for your contribution and again, sorry for having to undo them; but I think the eventual result is fine. Still, you are more than welcome to comment on my contributions; after all, what's fair for me is fair for you too, isn't it? Fleet Command (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actions of 5/6 May 1945[edit]

A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


In this edit to American University of Mayonic Science and Technology, you changed the wording of a sentence from:

As of December 2010, AUMS&T has chosen not to seek accreditation by any accrediting body.


As of December 2010, AUMS&T had not been accredited by any accrediting body.

I had specifically chosen the former wording to indicate that the lack of accreditation is a choice by the University, as documented on their website. The wording you chose leave open the inference that the university has failed to achieve accreditation despite efforts to do so. It's a subtle difference, but in trying to keep the most neutral tone, I believe the first version presents the facts in a clearer light. Please discuss before reverting back to the wording you chose. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, I had missed the statement in the reference given that accreditation was not sought, careless of me. My changing that statement was erroneous. I was first drawn to the sentence by a grammatical error which I corrected, and has remained corrected. Pol098 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Byrds typos[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for correcting some of my careless typos in The Byrds article - that's twice you've done it now. It's good to know that someone's looking over my shoulder and keeping an eye on my work. Many thanks! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. i'n not really looking over your shoulder, it just happened to come to my attention and I won't be watching routinely. Why don't you try a spelling checker? There are several that work with browsers. If you use the Firefox browser (for most operating systems) it has a checker that highlights all the words it doesn't recognise in a page being edited (lots of names, it's a bit confusing). Or the Google toolbar if you happen to be using Microsoft Windows. Pol098 (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I do normally paste any new text that I've written into Microsoft Word, in order to check the spelling before I save it, but I guess that sometimes I just miss things. Anyway, thanks for the browser advice. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman[edit]


Thanks for your help there. I was citing Croatian translation of the book (not English original) so there are some mistakes in re-translation.Plus typos ,that occur always in fast typing.

I plan to add more citings there so I'd appreciate you help there in the future.--Kennechten (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Will see what I can do about the simple linguistic things (I won't get deeply into the article).Pol098 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

question (Asif Ali Zardari)[edit]

You templated on the zardari page [14]. i dont understand why u did that and what it means? and for that matter, what is it in the first place?? thanks for your time. (Mni9791 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Asif Ali Zardari: I added the "{{As of|2008|11}}" template to "As of November 2008 the proceeds were in a liquidator bank account while a civil case continues." The change I made is not visible when reading the article, only when editing it. The information was presumably correct when it was added, but eventually it will change; in such cases articles often don't get updated and go out of date. The As of template identifies the article as potentially outdated, so that others can find it and update it later. See Template:As of. HTH Pol098 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

understood. thanks. (Mni9791 (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Third Raid on Banu Thalabah[edit]

(This moved from my user, rather than talk page on 5 May 2011. pol098)

dear wikipedia user, there is somethign wrong with the table box on Third Raid on Banu Thalabah.

can you please kindly fix, i tried everything and cant fix it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have looked, but I'm not particularly good at tables, and don't know what you intend. Pol098 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
the table on that page is very wide, the tables on the other pages aren ot wide at all, i dont know whats wrong and why it is so wide --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I was looking at the infobox rather than the very obvious wide box at the bottom. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this; your usage looks correct to me, an similar to other pages. There may be an error in the template; you could ask at Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad, mentioning the article with problems. I hope this helps, I can't do anything. Pol098 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Internet Watch Foundation[edit]

Back in 2008, Wikipedia compiled a list of IP addresses believed to be IWF transparent proxies (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action). They could all have changed since then, so this is for reference only. Since there is a known problem with people uploading illegal material to file hosting sites, some of the URLs may be on a blacklist. It is interesting that the ISP admitted to using a transparent proxy, but as Wikipedia found during the Virgin Killer affair, this can also affect innocent users.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly file-sharing site URLs will be on a warned list (not a blacklist as such—traffic to listed sites is proxied to IWF, who vet it and allow it if pages are not deemed illegal). All sorts of sites will be there, e.g., totally innocent sites which may once have been hacked and had suspect material posted. I have heard of sites dealing with topics such as breast cancer ("breast"—obviously dodgy) being blacklisted (not by IWF; they are secretive so we can't know what they blacklist). There is no reason for an ISP to deny using a transparent proxy. An ISP has no obligation to refer traffic to the IWF; even if they do, they don't have to use a transparent proxy (which makes all traffic from the ISP's users appear to come from the proxy address, not the true addresses). You say "this can also affect innocent users"—it does affect innocent users. Consider a site that recognises users' IP addresses to regulate access. If it gets on the IWF list for any reason (e.g., a single page is reported to the IWF), suddenly it doesn't work any more, as happened to Wikipedia. I sometimes distribute files (e.g., photographs of family events) via file-sharing sites, as well as downloading from them (e.g., Scientific Linux). I keep an (encrypted) image of the data part of my passport and travel insurance details permanently on such a site; in case of catastrophe I can always retrieve it, if the site works. Pol098 (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Sites that allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to upload files are bound to receive some illegal material, and copyright violation is also a problem. In recent years I have steered clear of sites like RapidShare for this reason. Ultimately, either paying to host files from your own website (where you would have final control over what went on it) or hosting the files directly from your own computer (eg with HFS Server) are more reliable options.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(We're not talking about IWF any more). Regarding file-sharing sites, I don't care what else they have, nothing to do with me. I don't myself, as it happens, make files available to the public in general (only to people to whom I have given the link), though I might want to (I have in the past produced and distributed freeware). If I want to send someone not particularly expert a large file, a file-sharing site is my preferred option if a DVD is not suitable. I agree with what you say about hosting files; in fact, I can always connect to my own network over the Internet (via VPN), and that is my first option for my own use (including passport image). But I don't trust technology (being involved with it), so invariably have several redundant fall-backs. Pol098 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to use multiple uploads, eg Mirrorcreator which uploads files to multiple sites. Personally, I don't believe that public file hosting sites are ideal places for important documents, as they are an online version of a rummage sale and may have the sort of filtering issues described here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
"I don't believe that public file hosting sites are ideal places for important documents". I absolutely agree, I never said anything about important files. I detest the whole fashionable idea of "cloud computing"; I don't trust any person or company to keep my documents either without misusing them or without losing them (e.g., going bust). Maybe I've not been clear about what I've been saying; if a file "out there" goes missing, it's never a problem, I always have multiple copies of everything, and there's nothing permanently available that's dangerously confidential (I may upload something moderately sensitive for a day or two until its recipient has received it, but this is safer than email). It is not easy to access my files if I don't want you to: you need the URL, to know that the file is useful from its name, and the encryption key. And if you manage all this—a big job—at best you have a paper copy of my passport, not all that damaging, though I try to keep this information hidden. It's easier to get this sort of thing from a corrupt employee at a bank or a hotel. If you want to experiment, I authorise anyone who reads this to find, download and decrypt my passport details, which I store permanently on a file-sharing site as ultimate backup if needed when travelling and I am unable o gain access to my own network (it's up to you to find them, though). Coming briefly back to IWF, it would be a problem if I were unable to access my files in a (very unlikely: lost passport, no paper copy, no access to my network, lost network backup that I always carry with me) emergency; I would have to find an Internet connection not using a transparently-proxied ISP. Pol098 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
FileSonic's FAQ says: "If you do not have a FileSonic Premium account, certain restrictions may prevent you from downloading: We do not allow more than one concurrent download per IP address and also limit the amount of data you can download from our servers within a certain timespan. If you share your IP address with other FileSonic users (e.g. because your ISP uses proxies or NAT), you may be adversely affected by their activities." This could clearly lead to issues with an IWF proxy, although any type of proxy could set off this problem. The file hosting sites have these restrictions for free users to prevent excessive use in a short period of time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That's basically referenced confirmation of what I wrote; you could add it to the article. Technically we've never been speaking of an IWF proxy, but transparent proxies which ISPs choose to use to route traffic via IWF, although they could do it another way. Pol098 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brigadier and Garrison[edit]

(Spring 2010 Brigadier section moved out of chronological order to combine sections)


I've granted the IP's request for a fairly long wikibreak. The false edit summaries almost threw me for a minute. Face-confused.svg. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't hold your breath - what is almost certainly the same person has made the same changes under different IP addresses, so I made no attempt to ask for a ban. Pol098 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No probs, I've got a banhammer and I'm not afraid to use it. I've got a way of keeping and eye on that particular article, along with about 3,000 others. Face-devil-grin.svg Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't stop editing. Maybe a request at WP:EF/R would be of use? Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: {{IPvandal|}} This is the third time this person has used different IP addresses to vandalise. See User talk: for the sad history and details. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No surprises there! More than 3 times, I think.Pol098 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


What's going on here? Bearian (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you have a look at the history of Brigadier, particularly the revision of 18:32, 14 May 2011 by Mjroots, and the section on Brigadier immediately above this. Essentially a very childish user from a range of IP addresses and various user names repeatedly vandalises web pages, with special emphasis on Brigadier, and now Garrison. Also apparently Troop. This started roughly a year ago, and goes through periods of intense activity separated by long quiet periods. User:Mjroots, who I have contacted about Garrison, is, I believe, watching this more closely (though not apparently aware of Garrison, which is being edited by different user names than Brigadier, though with identifiably the same type of kindergarten content and modus operandi), and can tell you more. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've semi'd Garrison too. Sock already blocked by another admin. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots for update. I hope I've clarified things for Bearian. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you all! Bearian (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to copyedit History of Georgia Tech :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Very minor changes! Pol098 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-evaluation Counseling[edit]

Thanks for your bold edits to this article. Marshall46 (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Still has a lot of text unreferenced or referenced by the RC website which is likely eventually to get deleted. Best wishes. Pol098 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)



Hello, Pol098, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Happy editing! Wipsenade (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

--Wipsenade (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and best wishes. Pol098 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the edits on the Neutrogena page. It looks cleaner and better now. I learnt a thing or two about writing/ editing an article. Thanks..Student68951 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Pol098 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Ayman al-Zawahiri is a WP:ITN/C candidate if you weren't aware. Marcus Qwertyus 21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, wasn't aware. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Most prestigious[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Embry.E2.80.93Riddle_Aeronautical_University. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see that. As others have removed peacockery before and after me, and I got no support on the Talk page, I felt that I'd done what I could. Funnily enough, I've probably done more harm than good, by editing unacceptable peacockery which would have been reverted by others in the fulness of time into acceptable, referenced form. Pol098 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here I Am (Kelly Rowland album)[edit]

Supercede means 'to take the place of'. Previously "Grown Woman" and "Rose Colored Glasses" were announced as lead singles but then "Motivation" was released and it was dubbed the lead single. As the previous two singles are excluded from the album by logic and common sense, "Motivation" takes place of (supercedes) "GW" and "RCG" as the album's lead single. It has NOTHING to do with sales as such. I understand you're trying to say that "Motivation" was dubbed the lead single because it was more successful but songs on the R&B/Hip-Hop format often chart highly due to airplay rather than sales. Fans seem to forget that "GW" also charted... for all we know "M" could have sold less than "GW" but garnered higher airplay. Without a source you cannot claim "M" outsold all other singles as this is WP:Synthesis. Chart positions are not determined by absolute sales but rather my comparative sales. i.e. it is LMFAO who topped the Hot 100 because they sold the most in the week just gone NOT because they sold x-amount. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 18:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to claim that it outsold others, and have no wish to say that (I obviously misunderstood the original unclear statement and "clarified" it to something wrong). But I still think "According to Rowland's website "Motivation" featuring Lil Wayne superceded all other singles in the United States upon release, on April 15, 2011" is unclear to anyone not thoroughly immersed in the subject (apart from the spelling mistake) - what does "supersede" mean here, what did it replace?. I looked at the web page referenced and couldn't find "supersede" (or "supercede") anywhere on the site (Google site search: "search - supercede OR supersede - did not match any documents"). "Outsold" is clearly wrong. Also, a singer's website claiming that her recording superseded all others is a dubious source. Reading your note here (the article doesn't help), maybe the meaning is that it replaced other recordings on the Billboard Hot 100 or similar list? The original text may be suitable for a publication for enthusiasts, but either it's not clear for a general encyclopaedia article, or possibly it's just me, I'm not seeing something that should be obvious. Pol098 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I was providing a definition of supercede. I don't understand the issue here. The best example I can give is Obama superceded Bush as president of the USA. This is comparable to the album. "GW" and "RCG" were announced as lead singles but their release was limited. When "M" was announced a the album's new lead single by the very nature of the annoucement "Motivation" replaces the other two singles as 'the lead single'. Are you aware of what a lead single is? Its the single which immediately precedes the album's release. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I know what supersede means (please correct the spelling in the article), but the use is not clear to the non-initiate in the article. Motivation "superceded all other singles in the United States upon release." as what? If I say "Boris Johnson superseded Ken Livingston." (a true statement), does it mean anything to you? You say "Are you aware of what a lead single is?" No; that's the point; I shouldn't need to know, as a reader of a general encyclopaedia. If the article had read "Motivation superseded the previous lead single" it would then make sense to the general reader, but I think that "superseded all other singles in the US" is still unclear. Pol098 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Shopping in Jaipur[edit]

Hi, you had put the advert tag on Shopping in Jaipur and deleted the list of malls. I agree with you that it may sound more like an advertisement but enlisting important shopping malls does sound reasonable. Similar pages like Shopping in Delhi, Shopping in Kuala Lumpur also contain lists of malls and hence it should not be an issue here. I think the page needs to be written more comprehensively and better phrased. Hope it would happen soon. Could you suggest a suitable way out ? --Adroit09 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that a simple list of malls and similar places (shops, restaurants) is ever relevant in an encyclopaedia article, except possibly for some particularly noteworthy example. In fact, I don't think an article on "shopping in <anywhere>" is appropriate. I think this opinion is probably in line with Wikipedia guidelines. However, the place to discuss this is in the article's Talk page; others will have different ideas and maybe a consensus can be reached. If you think the malls should be listed, by all means reinstate the list and see what other reactions you get; I will not revert. Pol098 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. if others generally support the article, and the list of malls, please make a note here (I might not notice otherwise), and I will change my attitude towards editing this sort of thing in future. Pol098 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Western Australian state election, 1933. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.


  1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Orderinchaos 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense; I made a change unredlinking common names such as Alec Thomson. My change was reverted asking why? I reinstated my edit, with summary: "WP:REDNOT personal names". It was reverted again, with a summary asserting notability of the names I had unredlinked. I reinstated my edit, with edit summary "rv. sooner or later another, different "Alec Thomson" will become notable & will be linked from here; this often happens. Redlinking "Alec Thomson (Australian politician)" would avoid all except very exceptional such coincidences." This is in accordance with WP:REDNOT:

"Redlinks to personal names should be avoided ... Frequently a redlinked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name....". I don't propose to continue; so far, each edit I make has had more information in the edit summary, and I have said as much can be said in a summary. I note that I made an edit, and reverted changes twice, with explanation; but Orderinchaos, belying his username, reverted 22:23, 28 July 2011; 11:01, 29 July 2011; 12:25, 29 July 2011; by my reckoning this is 3 times within a 24-hour period. Orderinchaos has clearly made 3 reversions in 24 hours and violated a guideline on name redlinking. While guidelines are not binding, it is sensible that in case of disagreement the guideline should be followed until a resolution is reached. In this case a proper solution is simple and clear, instead of redlinkiing a bare name, add a qualifier such as "(Australian politician)". As commonsense has not prevailed in edit summaries, this silly matter will need to go to the Talk page for the article to see what others think. Pol098 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Regions of Brazil‎. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got better at providing edit summaries, but do admit to sometimes omitting them for edits flagged as Minor. Pol098 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

iPad screensize[edit]

I just fixed your iPad screen size calculations you did on 5th June 2011. It was 19.7x14.8cm and not 19.1x14.8cm. Coeur (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Indeed. I looked it up rather than calculating, but the figure I found was wrong. Pol098 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011 - Hibernation (computing)[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I usually do (much better than when this was first brough to my attention), except for some minor edits. I think this comment comes from a recent case when I forgot; I hadn't even noticed until this reminder. Apologies. Pol098 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It is curious, though: You did it again. You just don't supply an edit summary when reverting my edits. I don't mean to assume bad faith, so please be careful, okay? For example, you must explain why you reverted my insertion of {{refimprove}} and reinstated {{more footnotes}}, especially given the fact that the article does not have a list of sources besides the footnotes.
Apologies, if it's any thing more than a point that is really minor or trivial. It is really unintentional. I have been know to hit Save accidentally prematurely. In this particular case I'll try to include an edit summary for all edits. I've made a mistake somewhere here, as I didn't intend to revert {{refimprove}} or reinstate {{more footnotes}} - could you tell me which edits they were please so I can work out what I did? Pol098 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
And by the way: You are edit warring. When someone contests your contribution, you must not put it back to the article without communicating with the person who contested and without gaining a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see this as edit warring; on the contrary it's a very useful process. I added material on hybrid sleep; you quite properly deleted it as it was entiorely unreferenced (as most of the article is, I must add). This forced me either to abandon the change, or improve and reference it, which I did, and I think there was further back-and-forthing, each one an improvement. I think the hybrid sleep is now mutaually acceptable, and an improvement.

I've seen drives become corrupted so as to destroy all data from exchanging drives when hibernating, and could replicate it (I haven't tried recently, may be fixed). So it's a real issue (this statement is of course unacceptable original research in an article). I'm not just reinstating text, but improving and referencing it; there are recent eamples I've found of disc corruption assocuiated with hibernation. If I get to a stage where I can add nothing and only reinstate text, with neither changes nor arguments in edit summaries or Talk, then a war situation is possible. I've already [provided references that establish that hibernation can cause corruption in the case of an easy-to-make design shortcoming. Have to rush offnow, so will truncate this and not check it (hope it's reasonably coherent and correct); hope to add referenced information on corruption later, and won't consider I'm warring if it's improved each time. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC) PS have just updated computer, no spellchecker, which I'm addicted to, hence hopeless typos (I can spell but not type).
Oh, yes, we do have a consensus on Hybrid Sleep, but not about the Windows XP problem. I have a suggestion: If you wish to reinsert it, do so in Microsoft Windows and make sure that it is attributed to Windows XP. As for using hibernation for hardware maintenance, I think it seriously needs a source. And don't worry about communicating: I am an easygoing person; we achieve consensus quickly. Fleet Command (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits in Embarcadero Delphi[edit]

Hello, Pol098

I am afraid I had to revert your recent edits in Embarcadero Delphi. Unfortunately, they were less than desirable because:

  1. You had used "significantly lower", which is a peacock term
  2. Your second edit basically made the article read: It includes VCL and is not backward-compatible with VCL.

Personally, I think those parts of the article are good as they are and need not fixing; but again, you are more than welcome to try to improve them. Surely, your edits will be kept if they are indeed improvements.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You are nice. But please do not enclose what comes after |quote= into quotation marks because they are automatically enclosed. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011[edit]

Your addition to Calibre (software) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page VHD (file format) appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of children's classic books[edit]

P - In your mind, what does still in print mean in the lead? Since we live in a digital world, a great many works published before 1923 are available as Print on Demand. Do they qualify for still in print? What about non-English language titles, are they included in this list? Discriminate inclusion criteria are very important for lists like this, so these are just questions to help establish good inclusion criteria and the right sourcing. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Example. The works of James_Willard_Schultz#Books_by_Schultz are well known children's stories about the blackfeet indians. Here's an example of one of those works currently available: [15]. Would this work qualify for this list? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"what does still in print mean?" Readily available to children in some form. (Added later: changed "in print" to "available".)
"Do Print on Demand books qualify for still in print?" Yes. If I make available for PoD "Small Means and Great Ends" edited by Mary Hall Adams in the nineteenth century on an obscure and unpopular website, I would say it's in print; but it still doesn't qualify for this list unless lots of children have it.

For this article to exist there have to be criteria; ultimately maybe we can find a respectable published definition. But simply to say that any old children's book is to be included radically changes the article to "children's books published before <date>".

The original "60 years old" is much better than "before 1952" for an encyclopaedia in this sort of case. For example, it is quite appropriate that "Lord of the Rings" will be included in a few years unless it drops out of print; the article will come to look ridiculous without it over the decades.

"Would 'Rising Wolf White-Black Foot' qualify for this list?" I don't know the book so can't say. It is over 60 years old and was in print in 2009, so meets those criteria; I don't know if it's classic or not though. If and only it's accepted as classic is it included.

I suppose you could say that a book that is not available is not classic, so the "still in print" criterion is, while not incorrect, redundant. What we need is perhaps a sourced definition of "children's classic". There are lots of references to classic books, but it's assumed that we know what they are, and the term isn't defined.

Perhaps "available" is a better term than the lang-standing "in print" nowadays.Pol098 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
(Further changes discussed in the article's Talk) Pol098 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


I believe that it is current practice on DYK to use factually correct but misleading blurbs. You may want to complain about it (if you haven't already) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. No admin was going to remove it from the Main Page unless there was some immediate problem with the article (e.g., factually incorrect or copyright violation). Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's the practice I might leave it alone, didn't know (but don't approve!). Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to IPv4 address exhaustion. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I regret that when making a series of edits, or very minor single edits, I may sometimes not provide individual summaries. I made some very minor edits without separate summary, marked as minor, and covered by the summary of the next edit, itself smallish changes to the wording re IPv6. I then made another edit with summary, followed by an unsummarised edit marked as minor to correct what I'd just done. While I usually supply an edit summary, I sometimes forget even for more significant edits (e.g. press Save instead of Preview), and am often careless with very minor edits, particularly when part of a series. (added later): "prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism". Vandals who know what they're doing provide misleading edit summaries; it's no guarantee. Pol098 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Castle Doctrine[edit]

Hi, I see you are actively editing Castle doctrine. In the course of your edits, you've backed out one of mine. I think it's one you'll like so I am asking you to either redo it or let me know when you're done and I'll do it myself. It isn't a major change; in the section on Adoption by states I wanted to move the paragraphs on Oklahoma and Utah into separate subsections as is done with the other states, rather than leaving those paragraphs at the top of the section as it is now. BTW thanks for the cleanup and reorganization you're doing; it looks good. Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, inadvertent reversion. I'd noticed the anomaly re Oklahoma and Utah but don't know enough to change it. I'll see what I can do about retrieving your changes in a while. Hope these things improve the article. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I figured it was an accident. It is a danger inherent in the crowd-sourced model. If you aren't comfortable redo-ing the changes then I will be happy to when your done. But I don't want to bother if you're still in the middle of edits of your own. :-) Those paragraphs could use cleaning up anyway; one of them references "the amendment" but never elaborates on which amendment exactly. Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've finished with this article for the moment; if you're happy to reintroduce and improve your changes, I'll leave the article alone, unless you'd specifically prefer me to reinstate. (Later: have made a couple of quick tweaks which didn't interfere with other edits.) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, and thank for collaborating! Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Great, the article is better for it. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


The highest apologies for undoing some of the work you did on Eureka: A Prose Poem. Having gone through the good article review process already, the article should probably stick with third-party sources. This reinforces not so much the reliable sources requirement as the policy that information in the article should reflect scholarship. If a reliable third party source has focused on it, it's more difficult to argue against it. In the case of direct references to the text, I'm wondering if it would be helpful to add a second citation which links directly to the text, but maintains the third party one. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made further edits which may have crossed with yours; you may wish to check and maybe revert. No need to apologise. My personal opinion is that if we are saying that a text says something, the proper reference is the text itself if available (particularly if available online); if scholarly works should be mentioned and there is no particular point in them to cite, they should be in the general bibliography. But I don't propose to push this, particularly if there's a consensus which disagrees with me, and have no objection to anything you do, or any intention to revert it. I won't do anything further to the references; I might add a reference to Harrison. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The concern has often come up in review of literature-related articles if we are pushing a POV. In my experience, the best way to avoid that allegation is to use third party reliable sources. It does seem to be consensus method for these types of articles; this way, it's not Wikipedia or a specific editor saying, "Hey, we should pay attention to this!" I do like your point, however, and would support a second citation after the third-party one which directly links to the text. I leave it to you if it's worth the effort. Thanks for bringing up the point either way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Murder in English law[edit]

I noticed your comment in this edit summary. I think that the expression "for a killing to amount to murder" would be accurate. James500 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pol098 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have put a reference for "Queen's peace" in the article as you requested. I have no objection to "Sovereign's peace" or "Monarch's peace" if there are trustworthy sources for it. But "King's peace" is clearly wrong if there is no King. James500 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "request" it, nobody can do that, but an article should be based on sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, so we need the general term, not what's valid today. If sources referred to "Queen's Peace" it would be arguable, but I've checked the references given (one from around 1648, one from 1905) and they state clearly "King's peace". If only "King's Peace" is mentioned, we can't consider "Queen's Peace" to be sourced. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As to your contention that there is no source for "Queen's peace": There is a source, from 1999, cited in the article, namely the updated edition of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice published for that year (which I happen to have with me). You are not entitled to ignore a reliable source simply because it is not available for free online or to say "I don't own that book". And of course, you could get that book, or another recent edition of it, from a library. Or, if you want additional confirmation, you could also look at the thirteenth edition of Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, published 2011, (which I also have with me) which says exactly the same thing at page 494. And there are other books. And I don't imagine that anything written after 1952 will refer to the King's peace.

There is a difference between rightly insisting that reliable sources be followed and selective blindness as to whether sources from hundreds of years ago might be out of date due to obviously changed circumstances and therefore not reliable. Especially when you have been directed to more recent sources, that more likely to be up to date, which clearly say something different.

The article has a separate section on "history", and importing the history of this offence into the main body will make the article confusing and probably incomprehensible. The history is simply too complicated. In fact, it will probably need its own separate article. There are plenty of other articles that adopt this approach. While that section exists, any discussion of the history of this offence should go in that section for consistency.

The article does need to explain what the law is now, at this moment, so far as is possible. It needs to explain that in a manner that does not force readers to look at large amounts of irrelevant material to do with things that are finished, over and done with, possibly for very many years. There is nothing newspaper-like about that either. Books on this subject do not adopt a historical approach, unless they are written as histories, because this is not a historical subject, because the offence still exists and is in daily use. They say what the law is now (or when they were written) and exclude material that is not applicable now (or when they were written). And Wikipedia should do the same.

The definition of "Queen's peace" which you have included is irrelevant to the subject matter of the article, for the reasons previously given on the article talk page. It also happens to be unreferrenced. It also happens to be wrong because the Queen's peace also protects aliens (including alien enemies) who are not subjects (1 Hale 433). The use of the words "for centuries" in relation to a rule of law implies that it has not always existed, something for which there is no evidence in this case. "Not considered to be murder" is probably a weaker condition than saying that it is not murder. And the references are not formatted properly.

Volume 3 of Coke's Institutes cannot have been written in 1648 because he died in 1634.

You have offered no evidence that there is a "general term" for what is now referred to as the Queen's peace.

Regards, James500 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


Hello, I restored some of your changes in Physiognomy, and then I changed it further.Please review it. One comment: when fixing articles, it's better to add at least one source that supports the change. It reduces the chance that someone might revert everything as unsourced. Oh, you have as much experience as I have. I'll just say that inserting "this is pseudoscience" in an article tends to be reverted unless it's well sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


I got an edit conflict when saving the DAB page, so it turns out we both had the same idea at the same time! After looking at both versions, I decided to save my version. I thought it would be courteous to give you a heads-up, thanks Widefox (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One of us could have saved a couple of minutes! Sure, either version is fine. Have re-added MitB, the usual capitalisation. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


I think "pop" is usually just seen on packaging. e.g. "Serving size 2 oz (4 pops)". Sucker may be going out of fashion as I've mostly heard it from adults, but it's still definitely in common use at least in the USA. I've never heard sticky-pop either but it seems to get a fair amount of hits on Google images if you filter out the pictures of post-it notes. Soap 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not up to speed on this. It seems to be regional; do you know if "lolly" is used in the US? It's very difficult to get this sort of thing right, it might be different in many countries, and isn't a serious enough subject ot be documented. Pol098 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The only time I've heard lolly in person was from a guy who was visiting from Australia. I guess, like sucker, it's another word that is widely understood but rarely used in America. Soap 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Obviously very regional, not particularly surprising. I've said as much in the article. Pol098 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Software portability[edit]

I have removed your citation needed, with an explanation in the talk page Talk:Software portability. Basically, the links to the other wikipedia articles answer your questions. If you want to ask for citations there about the definition of POSIX/what Cygwin does, it should be on their respective pages. If you think that the part about cygwin needs an expansion, I'll try to expand it or explain it better, but to me it reads fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcbirzan (talkcontribs) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think the citations are needed here. Amongst other things Wikipedia is not considered a proper source (WP:CIRCULAR: Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources). However, I'm not one for enforcing guidelines (this one is more honoured in the breach than in the observance anyway) and will do nothing, being quite happy for others to intervene if they want. You could either leave the article with the citations removed and see if anyone has anything to say (probably nobody will notice), or ask in the article's Talk (feel free to copy or comment on this if you want). Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POV in Comodo Internet Security[edit]

Hello, Pol098

I see that you have placed a POV tag on Comodo Internet Security without introducing any evidence or opening a talk page thread. Although I think you might be right, I think every assertion in Wikipedia requires a piece of evidence. As such, I have removed your tag until the evidence is provided.

If you would like to re-add the tag, please do not forget the evidence. Fleet Command (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is absurd. "Although I think you might be right..I have removed your tag." That flies in the face of WP:5P. Toddst1 (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Absurd or not, that is policy. Everything in Wikipedia needs source and my mere personal suspicion that Pol098 is right is not evidence. Although I give no credit to my personal whims, apparently you do: You have disregarded WP:BRD and have started an edit war. So, I have nothing more to tell you, edit warrior. Fleet Command (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow! An abusive and edit warring administrator who has no clue about Wikipedia policies! How my faith in Wikipedia soarth everyday! Fleet Command (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the evidence, Pol098. Based on your suggestions, I have improved that section a bit. I know, it is not high quality but that's all I could do in my short break. I hope there will be more improvements. Again, thanks for evidence.

Regards and best wishes, Fleet Command (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

H-II and Pronunciation Discussion[edit]

Greets, Pol098

My source for IPA reference as well as that pertaining directly to the English language is Professor Roy Delp of the Florida State University College of Music, until recently the master instructor of Vocal Performance. He and the colleagues there agree that proper pronunciation of "two" involves a j-glide. The reference text they use is primarily John Moriarty, "Diction--Italian, Latin, French,German--the sounds and 81 exercises for singing them"(Boston: E.C. Schirmer, 1975). There is a new edition of this text available, but this point would not change as the authority is not on English, but on IPA symbols. The thing about this is, certain pronunciations are considered archaic in some places and not archaic in others. For example, in German there is heavy disagreement about the ending E sound being [ɛ] as opposed to [ə]. I think in this case of "two", a case could be easily made either way and it really depends on the original speaker of the word. In this case it might be whoever donned the term "H-II" for such regions of space. I am sure he must have orally presented the paper. If we had this source information we could confirm what pronunciation he uses.

I hope that explains some of the confusion we've had - pronunciation is a big love of mine, so I love discussing it, especially with someone else who recognizes IPA as a form of language rather than random symbols that happen to mean random things.

BerretSO4 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think it's at all relevant to the HII region article, as I said in the article's discussion - basically, who cares? - but I find it interesting. I don't claim vast expertise in different varieties of English in phonetics, but I think I know what [j] sounds like (it has been said that it's like the "j" on "hallelujah", which sounds right to me); conceivably I've misinterpreted something. In normal English speech (and in all singing I can bring to mind) Daniel Jones's (and the less authoritative OED's) [tu:] sounds right to me (sometimes the vowel is shortened depending upon the following phoneme, but there's never a glide). Words that definitely have a glide in English speech, but often not in American I believe, are such as "duty". If we wanted to take this seriously I think we'd have to go to sound files, but frankly it's not worth the effort. If you're interested maybe you'd be interested in listening to some BBC radio programs, which I think are streamable from anywhere, unlike television? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You may be right on that, especially recognizing duty as having the [j] glide. And yes, [j] as in "Hallelu[j]ah" or [ha:lɛ:lu:ja] with the possibility of the [a]'s being [ɑ]'s (depends on how tall the vowel is in practice). I've been "purified" by all the choral and vocal diction that conversational diction has some differences that are either wrong (from the origins of words) or simply how the language has evolved. BBC talk may be a good authority on this stuff, excellent point. But, as you said, it doesn't matter to H-II. I used my pronunciation (without the j glide of course), but a case could be made for [eɪ:] as opposed to [ɛi:] for the first syllable, so I may take your input on that since it also comes from OED. BerretSO4 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your general impressions of Interferometry?[edit]

Hi, thanks for your edits. You obviously read the article very carefully to catch my spelling, grammar and usage oversights. I've been working on this article since April 1, and I was wondering if you had any more general comments on what I've done with it. It started off in pretty pathetic shape, and I needed to be bold in my edits. But it's very hard to judge one's own work. Have I managed a decent balance between comprehensibility and technical accuracy? What sections need improving? Are my drawings useful and well-integrated with the text? Also, do you know if there is any way to recruit an expert to peer review the text? I'm not an expert, just reasonably well-read. Thanks again! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant to get back to the article to be able to respond properly, but haven't done so, apologies. My edits were basically tidying up the wording, I will have to spend some time on the article to say anything more general. You have probably sorted it out, but adding Template:Expert-subject is probably the best way to invoke an expert. See also Wikipedia:Expert editors. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Toro[edit]

Hi! Thanks for improving the text. Hispanicultur (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I hardly did anything! Pol098 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Diana and Lucrezia[edit]

See [16] - the family tree that you reference only shows that Diana and Lucrezia are fourth cousins many times removed. Unless an reliable external source can be found, the reference should be removed. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. The original text said that Lucrezia was an ancestor of Diana and was deleted as unsourced; I reinstated it as there was apparently a connection that could be followed, but didn't study it closely. I have no real information, let alone strong feelings. Pol098 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Maybe one day such a source will turn up! AlexTiefling (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


Nice work on integrating some treatment of the theological. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad it helped. Just tried to reword some existing text, and put it in the body of the article. Best wishes. Pol098 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Randy Couture[edit]

Would you mind terribly if reverted your recent massive edit? Some of what you removed was excessive detail, but much of it is useful information. I imagine many readers would like to know (and it is very relevant to a fighter's article) what actually happened in the fights, not just who won, how and at what time. That kind of brevity is already in the results table. A blow-for-blow isn't necessary, but key moments should be addressed. Also, you (unintentionally, I assume) have created some new errors. Enson Inoue wasn't in RINGS, for example, and the Randleman paragraph is a mess. You've completely removed entire tournaments and obfuscated the point that he holds a title match record (if Silva or someone beats the record, it's an easy edit). Thought I'd ask before reverting, in case you have any real objections. I'm willing to compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind, and you don't have to ask. If you don't mind I'd suggest a discussion on the article's Talk page; while always a good idea, I want to know what others think for guidance for future edits. For example, I feel that for an encyclopaedia a list of only the most important sports wins is enough, relatively unimportant competitions and competitions not won (unless notable for some reason) should be omitted. I repeat, I'm not trying to argue that I'm right, but would like to find out if I should change my editing. In the case of politicians, I think articles are largely full of political propaganda; for an encyclopaedia (not a news medium) details of nominations and so on are irrelevant, election is what counts. I've applied the same general ideas to this article. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily right either, but I feel an article on a fighter should educate a reader about his career in general, not just the peaks. Skews the perspective that way. Keep in mind, at the time, RINGS was probably a more "important" organization than UFC. I also think a fighter is more defined by how he wins or loses than if he does. Sports are quite different from politics. But yeah, always good to get an outside opinion or two. I've pled my case on the talk page and fixed the obvious Inoue and Randleman errors. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the RfC wasn't going anywhere, I've reverted. I've re-added some of your changes, but the lead is beyond my capabilities on a PS3. I have no problem with you re-adding "as of" or trimming any non-factual wordiness there. I thank you for your polite and reasonable approach to this dispute. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine. As I said, I'll not do anything further. I'll leave the request for comment in place (unless you've removed it, or decide to - haven't looked, but don't mind). Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it's still there. I don't have much hope of anyone seeing it in the RfC log now, but if someone visits the talk page later, it's there for them. Might automatically disappear after a while, not sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up to Sri Sacchidananda Bharati I[edit]

I think this topic is of general relevance. With the permission of Kbala1055 I'd like to move it to the article's Talk page. pol098

I had noticed that you had removed the term His Holiness and also the visit to the point of confluence of rivers and ruins of the temple by the Jagadguru. I wish to state that the term His highness is still being used for addressing the Monarchy - royal lineage like the British Kings and Queens, and other state kingdoms in the world. In this way, in India, His Holiness is generally used to reverentially address the highly respected sages and seers of the ancient historical establishments like Sringeri Sarada Peetam. I kindly request you not to remove such reverential terms of address which are generally accepted in India. Anyway, I have used the terms like He for now. But I would like you clarify if I could still use these terms. Also Kindly request you to not remove the sentences that describes the visit to the ruins of the ancient temple - This is a part of the historical biography published in 1965 by Sri R Krishnaswamy Iyer and is essential for establishing the integrity of the article. The ruins of the temple near the confluence of the 3 rivers is an important point in the article and is an essential aspect of the biography (Part- 2 of the Biography - See the references section) published around 47 years ago - nearly half-a-century ago. This is an important event in that village. Kbala1055 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2012

This is an encyclopaedia for general readers, not for those knowledgeable about a subject, and not supporting any particular viewpoint. It has many guidelines intended in general to support this objective. It also should only include matter described in objective sources, which the article should cite. Sources should be third-party sources not associated with the subject of the article, and also not things such as personal blogs. You should read the Wikipedia guidelines, some of which I'll point you to. The need for reliable sources: WP:Reliable sources. The need for objective articles: WP:POV.

Terms which are purely honorific, rather than descriptive, should not be used MOS:HONORIFIC. This applies in particular to religious titles (WP:NCCL). The particular term "His Holiness", while clearly covered by the general guidelines, is mentioned explicitly: "Honorifics such as "His Holiness" should ordinarily not be used in naming clergy except when discussing forms of address; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes." Terms of praise should not be used (WP:PEACOCK), simple facts should be stated. To use a non-religious example, if a soldier does something very brave, he would not be described as a brave, unselfish, gallant hero, but the facts would be laid out ("he defended his position with a rifle, while wounded, against hundreds of heavily-armed troops..." , and it it could be said he was awarded a medal officially described as being "for gallantry". Thta would establish that he was, in fact, a brave, unselfish, gallant hero, but by facts rather than using these words.

Material which is merely stated, but without giving a source, is often politely tagged by saying that the article as a whole is unreferenced, or needs more references, or by marking some text as needing a citation, showing as[citation needed]; but it may be deleted immediately.

Some facts, even if meeting all guidelines including source, are considered not to be notable; an encyclopaedia is not a full biography, but a brief description. A visit to a temple in a village of 300 people and mention that a wish may come true is not notable (and also not referenced). If it is, in fact, important, the text needs to establish that it is.

This is all general. Some specific comments to what you say:
  • "I wish to state that the term His highness is still being used for addressing the Monarchy - royal lineage like the British Kings and Queens, and other state kingdoms in the world." So? That is in the world of protocol. In Wikipedia "His Highness" gets deleted.
  • "in India, His Holiness is generally used..." While I've already established that it's inappropriate anyway, I also add that Wikipedia is a general, international encyclopaedia, not an Indian publication. The same rules would apply to any country.
  • "reverentially address the highly respected..." Wikipedia does not revere or respect anyone or anything. Wikipedia also does not disrespect anyone or anything, it restricts itself to stating facts.
  • "I have used the terms like He". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents: "Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures: Jesus addressed his followers, not Jesus addressed His followers".

    Everything I've said applies equally to all articles, it is in no way discriminating against this one. An article starting "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" would be modified to "Queen Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth II". An article saying the Christian God is merciful and compassionate would have that statement removed. Finally, I have no authority in Wikipedia (nobody does). These are my opinions, not an authoritative laying down of the law. You have every right to disagree and to write whatever you want. If we end up disagreeing on what should be said, we would eventually call in other people to give their opinion. I hope you find this really helpful. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your efforts in pointing out the Wiki style of writing. My comments below -

  • Bulleted list item

I would like to let you know that this article had been under the REFIMP tag some years ago as I had just provided one or two references only then. But over a peiod of past 4 to 5 years, I had collected reliable and authentic references from periodicals in India, Monthly magazines, newspapers, published works of the biography along with website links from various sources. Now the list of references along with external references are more than a dozen. I hope this is sufficient and I feel that REFIMP tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Also I would like to inform you that this article had been cleaned up by user:ravichandea84 (User:Ravichandar84|Ravichandar ) - He is an experienced wikipedian who had authored many articles on India in wikipedia - The tags were removed after he cleaned up this article after I had added some more references and the tag was removed after discussing with the wikipedians. You can refer or ask him if you wish to clarify this article. He had placed this article as "Start-class" - I had provided the material content from the various reliable sources like published books, articles in magazines and internet links.

I feel most of the article has already been cleaned up by him - He had reformatted the article in sections called as "Early Life", "Pontificate", "Biographies" and "Places associated with Sacchidananda Bharathi-I" . I added 2 sections like "Compositions, Hymns and Works" and "Visit on June 2 2012" - I feel most of it can be retained except the new section on the visit on 2nd June 2012 - Pls go through the section and let me know which of the sentences have to be wikified.

To clarify your queries -

1) Mutt is the term used interchangeably in India to denote " Matha " - You are right - But both terms are accepted in India - Can both be used as per wiki guidelines? Pls let me know

2) Pontiff - The wikipedia defines pontiff for Jagadgurus and Swamijis in Hinduism - So I think it is appropraite to use this term interchangeably with Jagadguru or Swamigal. In cases where you find He as inappropriate as per Wiki guidelines, I think Jagadguru can be used.

2) Sachchidananda Bharathi-I is considered by his devotees to have saved Sringeri through his penance and austerities -> you can refer the link as this is reliable source - " " -- He had done it through his meditation, prayer, austerities and penance - An extract given below for your reference: " No sooner did Virabhadra Nayak ascend the throne of Ikkeri, than Bhairava, chief of Kalasa, invaded his territory and captured a slice of it, which included Sringeri. In his cupidity, he committed the irrelevant act of ordering the Guru to come to his court and compelling him to yield the valuables of the Math. Nothing perturbed the Guru who went into meditation and refused to yield to aggression. Bhairava then went to Sringeri and plundered its wealth and on his way back defeated the Nayak forces that had come for the relief of the Guru. Thus emboldened, he again went to Sringeri, and when the Guru was about to leave the Math, relief came from Nayak. Bhairava came a third time to plunder the Math. Left with no help but the power of his tapasya, the Guru retired to his meditation, and saw in a vision the mysterious response of the deities in Sringeri, who appeared as bearing arms and attacking the invader. The Guru was soon informed that Bhairava had actually left the town. He celebrated the occasion by composing the poems, Ramachandra Mahodaya, Guru Stuti Satakam, Rama Bhujanga , Meenakshi Ashtakam and Meenakshi Satakam."

Pls let me know if REFIMP tag can be removed and additional clarifications tag also can be removed. Thanks for your time and hope that article can be reatined without tags. Kbala1055 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Where to start? You've beeon on Wikipedia for years, so I'd expect you to get most of your ansers by reading tha many documents on th Manual of style and guidelines. The criteria are very often not met, and this is often accepted. The general idea is that every statesman should be supported by a specific reference, and that reference should be from a source not closely identified with its subject. What is written should be verifiable fact. Thus "The singer appeared at the Xxx festival", without a reference, would often be accepted as reasonable and probably right, although it should have a reference. "The singer is prestigious and has a very powerful voice and masterful technique, and was a very important influence" is likely to be deleted if not referenced. Even with reference, it may be criticised as WP:PEACOCK wording, with facts instead of descriptions. Thus replace "prestigious" with awards won, singing professorships, and so ob.

There are no rules as such, you can write exactly what you want, but anyone else who disagrees can change it. Between two people who disagree amicably, the end result is usually an improvement. You ask me if you can use "Mutt"—you can use whatever you want, but use of an unusual and unexplained trouble is likely to be criticised. I'd be equally critical of an article saying, without links or references, "a helium-neon laser emits light of characteristic wavelength". In this case most people do know what a laser is, but at least links to other articles help them to look it up; in some cases adding "(a device which emits a tight beam of light of a single frequency)" would help. I worked out by looking at some links that mutt was probably mathi, but the article should have told me. In the article as it was I consider "He was the supreme pontiff of the Hindu mutt Sringeri Sharadha Peetam" ro be obscure; my wording wording is one clearer possibility; otherwise you could at least say [[Math|mutt]], which renders as the visible word "mutt", highlighted as linked and leading to the "Mathi" article. You say that "pontiff" (which wasn't linked) is OK because the Pontiff article says that it is equivalent to Javadguru—I just added that to the Pontiff article myself because it seemed to be the case, without reference (I couldn't find one)! It may be wrong, in which case I hope somebody either corrects it or finds a reference—that's how Wikipedia works. I think it would be useful for the Pontiff article to have a bit more on use in Hinduism, and for all articles using the term to link to it.

The incident you describe in detail as "having protected the integrity of the Peetham and enhanced its greatness" and "is generally credited by his devotees with having saved Sringeri through his penance and austerities", without further context is both very obscure and not referenced in the text. What you say above is that it was attacked three times; the first time it was sacked, the second time armed defenders were available, the third time Sacchidananda Bharati prayed, dreamed about divine defenders, and the attackers left. You could say something brief like that, but the original unsourced statements didn't put the situation accross.

You ask about removing the "refimprove" tag. In my opinion the article is still full of statements which are not supported by inline citations (footnote numbers to sources, giving page numbers where relevant). Look at template:refimprove and Wikipedia:Citing sources. The tag calls attention to everybody to add references and sources.

I have to go, so will stop here. I've had a very quick look at the article on Hinduism; it seems at a glance to be reasonably well sourced and footnoted, and may serve as an example. Pol098 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Numbered list item
Indented line

At the outset, I frankly would like to let you know that this article was cleaned up by an experienced wikipedian who had written many

Indented line
articles in the wiki using the references provided by me. After I had gone for a wiki help, another wikipedian had mentioned that the tag

Indented line

can be removed after I had provided a lot of references. I thought that the article had enough citations until now.

Indented line
I spent a lot of time reading the biography and digging some more and am writing after this reading.Also I noticed that 
Indented line

you had cleaned using the material provided - But there are additional citations that would be useful and bring to your attention.

Indented line

I had a look at the article Hinduism and it is very well written but I would like to point out that the subject like Hinduism is a vast ocean and you can get numerous citations and references from various sources. Here I am dealing only with a biography of the 25th Jagadguru in the hoary lineage of Gurus of Sringeri matham/mutt with just a dozen or more references. Hence, I feel that I can improve the inline citations only at certain relevant places which are important to the biographical outline even though theoretically evey sentence can include a citation. This is my limitation and I would to state my difficulties given below:

I would definitely like to improve citations of references but I am faced with a peculiar problem - The Tamil version of the biography of Sri Sachidananda Bharathi-I Vijayam – Volume -2 contains 9 chapters devoted to this aspect of his pontificate or peetadhipadhyam -Chapters 4 to 9 from pages 31 till 70. The English version of the biography of Sri Sachidananda Bharathi-I contains 4 chapters from Chapter 7 till Chapter 10 from pages 18 till 29 – Chapter 7 – Political troubles Chapter 9 – Defence of Sringeri Chapter 10 - Divine intervention As the numbers of chapters are voluminous, it would be too cumbersome to include in detail these chapters and since this is only a summary of his biography, I need some clarifications - I would like to know how to include this as a citation inside the article. Do I need to expand this article by including a few more sentences given below by including the references of pages or chapters or if I can just mention these pages as references? - Sachchidananda Bharathi-I is considered by his devotees to have saved Sringeri through his penance and austerities during a period when Sringeri was attacked by a neighboring King Bhairava of Kalasapuram thrice. The King of Ikkeri, Veerabhadra Nayaka came in support of the Sringeri Mutt and the surrounding territory. He was defeated by King Bhairava twice and thus he was emboldened to attack Sringeri the third time. Sri Sachidananda Bharathi-I prayed for divine help through his penance and austerities. The next day, the Jagadguru was informed that he had left the town. The Guru in his vision during his meditation gleaned that the surrounding deities had defended Sringeri. You can wikify these sentences as required.

  1. 2)

Sanskrit words have been translated by scholars to different languages for so many years – We can only use close equivalents of the words if the exact match is not available in English – So, Matha or Mutt , English equivalent of Jagadguru can be used as pontiff due to the lack of an exact equivalent word which expresses the complete meaning of the Sanskrit words like “Jagadguru” even though the meaning of Jagadguru literally means the Guru of the world or universe. But I do not know how I can get citations for this – Do I have look in Dictionaries for this? I am not sure.

  1. 3)

“Some facts, even if meeting all guidelines including source, are considered not to be notable; an encyclopaedia is not a full biography, but a brief description. A visit to a temple in a village of 300 people and mention that a wish may come true is not notable (and also not referenced). If it is, in fact, important, the text needs to establish that it is.” This is an extract from the website for the visit in this URL I feel that Jagadguru has emphasized the importance of this visit to this village even though he could not visit many places in this region - I think this is notable considering the importance this village has for the general article and other subsequent events that have happened in this village. Pls let me know your opinion and I feel this can be retained by wikifying this article “The Jagadguru expressed that it was natural for the Acharyas of Sringeri to associate a special importance to the birthplace of their predecessors and remembered His Guru’s visit to the village in 1965 and His own visit in 1987. The Jagadguru conveyed that that though He was not making a Vijayam to many towns in Tamil Nadu during the current Vijaya Yatra, He had resolved to come to Kunnuvaarankottai and bless the residents. The Jagadguru gave His blessings for the proposed construction of a Mandapam in the Vishalakshi Sameta Vishwanathar temple and said that the Math would offer its help in the construction.” Pls let me know if the following can be added : Jagadguru appreciated the efforts of the villagers for having built a Dhyana Mandapam in this village for Sri Sri Sri Sacchidananda Bharati I. He recalled his visits to this village in 1987 and his Guru’s visit in 1965 and blessed the residents of this village. He also gave his blessings for the proposed construction of a mandapam in the Vishalakshi Vishwanathar temple.

  1. 4)

There are a few more references that have been published in monthly magazines in India that details the visit of the Jagadguru to this village on June 2 2012. I will try to add them soon in the references. Kbala1055 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Indented line
   I have included some more inline citations in the main article. 
    Also I scouted for some good English to Sanskrit dictionaries and found that Pontiff has been translated as Pradhana Dharmadhyaksha

Jagadguru here can mean upholder of Dharma also – in this sense, Pradhana Dharmadhyaksha can apply to him also – I am including this citation from dictionary Pontificate - meaning - Dharmadhyaksha Adhikara - Who has authority to protect and uphold Dharma - I feel this an be used and iincluded this citation. Hope this is ok as per Wiki and hope that this tag be removed. Kbala1055 (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I really can't say much more in detail. You just need to make sure that everything you write is supported by sources which you reference, and that these sources are what Wikipedia would call WP:Reliable sources, i.e., impartial sources not closely aligned with the subject. Wikipedia has no enforced rules, but people may object to things that don't seem objective and edit accordingly. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
--  Just to clarify --
  Thanks for your suggestions. I would like to politely submit that the sources referred are mostly independent resources like periodicals and newspapers. Author of the biography is not a part of Sringeri mutt if that is what you mean - He hails from Tamilnadu state whereas the Sringeri Mutt is in Karnataka.

Sorry for the belated response on the 25th of Dec 2012 03:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbala1055 (talkcontribs)

July 2012 Study[edit]

of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Pol098

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Forensic Facial Reconstruction. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page ( and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Children's literature article[edit]

Hello. You left a comment on the talk page of Children's literature in December, questioning the division of books into four sections. No one has answered or replied. Though I have tried to fix it up a bit, I too, find the divisions questionable and cumbersome. Would you support removing them? Along, perhaps , with the UN def of a child, which seems awkward to me? Why not just start by discussing various types of kids lit? The article gets quite a few hits, and I hate to see it in such a mess, but I'm pretty new here and don't feel comfortable taking such moves unilaterally. Thanks for your input. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a while ago; I've had another look at the article and it's basically a mess. When you say "Would you support removing them?" what do you mean? I would approve of anything that improves the article; but you don't need anyone's approval. Personally I would probably just write something sensible "children's literature is literature written to be read by children—people under perhaps the age of 13—where it shades into young people's literature...". That sort of thing might be accepted; but ideally you are supposed to write only what is found in WP:reliable sources, which you cite. I didn't make any major changes to the article because it would need lots of research in an area I'm not familiar with. As a rule of thumb, if you make significant changes without citing sources, if they're sensible they often get left, but anyone can challenge them and either delete them or flag them as[citation needed]. Of course, you can do the same things. To get you started, the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed (the huge one) defines child as: "A young person of either sex below the age of puberty; a boy or girl"; you can use this if you want[2]. (By the way, you might want to distinguish between literature for girls and boys, I think that needs mention, and doesn't have it). If you don't want to start with major changes, make small changes. If you're not sure how to get the format right, check a Preview carefully before Save-ing, or copy/paste the whole article to your personal sandbox, edit it there till you're quite sure, then copy it back (if someone else has edited in the meantime you have to handle that and merge the changes manually). I hope this is of some assistance, Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I agree it's a mess, and I would like to do just what you suggest. I do have a number of ref books on children's lit that I can use. But I hesitated to make any major changes on my own. I know I don't need permission, but some kind of agreement or consensus is nice. Anyway, thanks for the input. I'll take a look at my books and maybe just dive in. (Thanks for the shorter def. I may use it.) Tlqk56 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. You could ask on the article's Talk page; even if you're ignored, you've got a leg to stand on in a subsequent discussion. Some people get upset if you make significant changes without discussion (which I often do, usually without problems). Pol098 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ Grant P. Wiggins; Jay McTighe (2005). Understanding by design. ACSD Publications. p. 210. ISBN 1-4166-0035-3. 
  2. ^ Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed, Child: a young person of either sex below the age of puberty; a boy or girl

Cite for sentence at Stone (unit)?[edit]

When you were editing Stone (unit) a few days ago, you added the following:

While the stone remains a common unit of weight in the British Isles, it is virtually unknown even as a historical unit in North America and other places; use of the term can mystify an international audience.

If you had a cite in mind for that, could you ping us at Talk:Stone (unit)?


GaramondLethe 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dieppe raid[edit]

Plesae put in a critique of Okeefes stuff to balance the section. Otherwise a lot of conspiracy nutjobs will leap on it. IMO its serious crap anyway. The capture of ENIGMA related material would have alerted the Nazis anyway, considering that Doenitz was highly suspicious that either Enigma was being compromised, or it was HUMINT work at the U Boat bases. Sorry to be bugging you, but just trying to improve the article too :) Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of it has just been published very recently, it's early days. There was a television program "Dieppe uncovered" shown I think in several countries very recently in which most of this can be seen. Film of typescript with significant text is showm, suggesting that it's either original, or a copy of original. The idea does actually make a lot of sense; Enigma was considered to be extremely important, important enough to not try to avoid the flattening of Coventry so as not to reveal that Enigma warned about the plans, or so it is widely reported. Until O'Keefe publishes I don't think the original sources, to which he says he had access, will be known. At the moment O'Keefe is quoted in respectable places, as he promotes his book. I'd happily include any contrary opinion, I don't want to promote anything. I tend to believe there's probably something in it, but ultimately it's sources that matter. Haven't found anything useful Googling "o'keefe criticised dieppe",lots of sources hailing the new material. I couldn't find anybody expressing serious doubts. I don't claim either independent evidence or information, or a desire (as distinction of consideration of evidence) to support O'Keefe. I would like to say "some historians dispute O'keefe's interpretation", but can't find any. Maybe you can?

Theidea of stuff kept secret until now and just coming to light is not only the stuff of conspiracy theories, it's what happens with a great many British wartime (and other) secrets.(talk) 01:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The link being flagged as dead is definitely not; I can either click on it, or copy and paste it, and it comes up quickly. Maybe if you try through a proxy? The content is similar to the other link I added, with some mode details, presumably different writeups from the same source.Pol098 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ive not been able to pick up the link. Maybe the problem is here. I will have a look for critiques of the OKeefe theory. My only point is that without some balancing evidence, some Wiki users may come away with the false impression that this was the official and accepted reason for the raid, while we all know that it is contentious. Also remember Enigma was in the public domain in the early 70s, so why does this theory only come to light now? The only problem with Dieppe was Mountbatten, who was a strategic A***hole, IMO. Will have a look and mail if I see anything.Irondome (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
As more is to be published related to the new evidence, the simplest approach to the content is probably to wait and see. Regarding the link, I remain able to connect with no problems, but it is not important; I only added it because the statement that the pinch was unsuccessful was tagged as dubious, and this particular fact, though obviously true, wan't stated in the original article. I'll address comments in article's Talk. Pol098 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Gerald Robinson (priest)[edit]

Thank you so much for the efforts you have made to bring that article in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. I am insanely busy in Real Life and frankly, while I talk about the case with family and friends in Toledo, I had forgotten to check on the article. It was most kind of you to let me know you'd worked on it and you seem to have improved the article greatly in terms of toning down some of the more sensational assertions. As for whether it belongs under his name or under the victims name -- Wikipedians tend to be divided on this when the victim is famous in their own right but not when the victim's only celebrity is due to their death. In those cases, they tend to lump the crime under the person accused or convicted. To make the article more in like with WPBLP standards, we could include more information about the man's life and career before the allegations that implicated him in the murder case and during the decades long interval when he was not charged with the crime. As I have said before, I don't take a stand on his factual guilt or innocence. How could I? I wasn't a fly on the wall when that poor woman was killed nor was I privy to the evidence the Jury saw. My interest in the article has more to do with the community reactions, a resurgence in "Satanic panic" type prosecutions, the RC Church's flip-flopping opinions on the case and the ongoing and ever-widening RC Sex Abuse scandal in the Toledo Area. I'm a Folklorist and Anthropologist who has written about similar issues and so, this case struck a chord with me.

As for the article, you seem to be doing fine on your own but I will do a little more advanced research and see if I can come up with some neutral information that adds to the entry without weighting the article to one side or the other. Again, I thank you SO much for taking on such a task. I know it's not easy to take a step back and edit articles like these. It's commendable that you even gave it a go! You have my gratitude! Thank you again for tackling a difficult subject. I hope I can help out here and there with a fact or two and a reference. LiPollis (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad it helped. I have no independent expertise or knowledge of the case, and don't think I can do any more. Personally I think it's all about the case; Robinson's life is relevant only as far as it reflects upon his character or relates to the murder. You mention an "ongoing and ever-widening RC Sex Abuse scandal in the Toledo Area" which I wasn't aware of (I may have come across it, but there's so much, in so many places, that one loses track). It would seem relevant to add some indication of this, either as background, and to the effects of the case within the community. Rumours often should be reported, as rumour rather than fact of course. Not for me to do. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input regarding my comment about the sex abuse scandal in the RC Church as it relates to Toledo. I'll have to mull that one over since the article about Gerald Robinson (priest) falls under the Living Persons Biography rules and the Abuse Scandal might be too big of a subject to do more than mention with a citation and then a wikilink to another article. That will take some research on my part to see if any other articles have covered it. As I said, it's such a large subject. If I can find an appropriate way to work it in I'll run it by you beforehand. Thanks again cleaning the article up. I see you do a lot of that and encouraging. Happy editing! LiPollis (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't feel you have to run anything by me unless it's useful to you. I would have thought that brief mention of any scandal with sources to look up the details would be useful and probably enough. I simply don't know enough to judge whether more, or another article is needed. Good luck, Pol098 (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Copied content lacks attribution.[edit]

Did you write this sentence, "They place less electrical load on the memory controller and allow single systems to remain stable with more memory modules than they would have otherwise."? It looks like you copied it to ECC_memory from Registered_memory without attribution. Such copying is fine, IFF there's proper attribution. Please respect the BY in CC--BY-SA! Apologies if they were your words in the first place, but it looks like plagiarism.--Elvey (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not with you. I copied brief explanatory text, not originated by me, from one Wikipedia article to another; I quite often do. I also included a link to the article copied from, as relevant, not attribution. Is there any reason not to? If you think it appropriate, you can of course edit the article to add the attribution. Pol098 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It's plagiarism if you don't do it properly. There's guidance about how to do so properly and what to do to fix the problem with your copying here and at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. It's your responsibility to add the attributions. There's even a {{Tl:Uw-copying}} template which I'll add so you can see it. As you say you do this a lot, it's particularly important that you read up on how to do so properly. Please read it and address the problems, OK? --Elvey (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one page into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Elvey (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Argos TV[edit]

Before this gets becomes an edit war, Argos (retailer) is an article on the company (e.g. infobox says Argos Ltd) and so should be linked to the company's name, as it does on the Freesat and Sky lists. A similar example is Renault TV on CanalSat#Foreign Channels with Satellite (I've never edited the article) linking to Renault in the Owner/parent company column, rather than the channel name. Another example is TopUp Anytime1 on List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK)#Interactive not linking to Top Up TV or Top Up TV#TV Favourites. WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article". The same principle has been applied to the rest of the UK channel lists, section links also aren't used, which would appear to be a natural consensus through editing. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed on the article's Talk page; I don't think I should copy or move it there without discussion, but would encourage you to do so, or agree to my doing so. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
As it would affect a couple of articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV/Channels would probably be the better choice, although neither is particularly active hence the direct approach. Before opening up the discussion elsewhere, there's enough on Argos (retailer)#Argos TV for at least a stub article on Argos TV which would meet the suggested criteria in WP:BROADCAST and resolve the issue of what to link. Would that be a better idea? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've finally got back to this, sorry about the delay. I see we seem to be agreed on the basics; as I understand it, you'd be happy to have a separate article on the TV channel, and links to the article on the company and on the channel. My view is essentially the same, except that I see a section link as being totally equivalent to a separate article; if a click takes you to the same text, it doesn't matter whether it's an article or a section. You quote <WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article">. (1) We mustn't ignore the word "generally"; there is good reason here to have the two links. (2) And don't forget WP:IAR and WP:IAR?. I disagree that the absence of section links constitutes an unexpressed consensus; maybe there aren't many, or any, useful sections, or maybe nobody has thought of a section link. It's a subtle and hidden point, not comparable to a potentially contentious word being accepted without demur. Anyway, I continue to favour a separate link to the channel for that to the company, whether as a separate article or a section. I don't propose to do anything further; if you disagree strongly I suggest either you do whatever you want, or open a discussion in an appropriate place. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lambert[edit]

thanks Pol for pushing the de-puffing (or is it un-puffing/with or without the dash) of adam's page. i've been working on this page for a while, though not from the beginning. i've begun lately to delete content and trim it, along with the ads i do make -- many of which i intend to reduce now that their significance in the context of a longer career has become apparent. in addition, his album pages seem to be getting a good fleshing out. i've removed the tag because we will be working on exactly this. i hope that's ok. in good faith, i want to offer as an example the fact that i recently dismantled the entire television section, either incorporating its elements into the main text, or working with others to relocate the material to album pages. only last week i deleted a sentence from that first paragraph -- the one you had your way with ;) -- i'd thought i couldn't go through it too radically as it was another's work etc. -- but now i see i can. however, i disagree with a few of the things you altered -- i'll run one or two of them by you -- but as for other things, if i change them, i will source them and try to word them better than they were before. you certainly do like a very flat read Pol098! i thought opening paragraphs were permitted to contain a tiny bit of real life language in order to draw interest to the topic?

ok so album's are customarily said to debut, not to start. that's not overly detailed or exaggerated language or weasely etc. it's a neutral, descriptive statement that contains no pov. in my opinion, of course. similarly headline. in the music world, headlining a tour and making a tour (which is an expression i've never seen used) are not the same. a headliner is a top biller or a single act that carries the show on his own. lambert had one or two opening acts (a very different thing) in north america; and when he went international, he was largely the sole attraction. so again, headlining is significant and conveys information which is distorted/and also absent when instead one writes made a tour (and it's a bit weird, sorry Pol -- because i can see from the edits you've made around town that your language skills are superb!). in addition, it is significant that after a first album, that an artist can carry an international tour (113 shows) on his own: and especially an idol runner-up, as this is a first and still an only situation (which you deleted). in that world, the music world, the american idol world -- which is his world -- that counts. but i leave that for now; though i wonder if you could explain to me why a statement like this, in the opening paragraph, seems too much/too exaggerated or detailed or what exactly for wiki? thanks. two other similar issues come with your deletion of the first album having success internationally or the second, just recently, having critical acclaim. if multiple high level sources were provided, is this still language or detail that you wouldn't want to see in the first paragraph? last point: you changed what was there to, "He was nominate for Grammy nomination for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance.". is that a mistake or is that what you meant to say? I am going to change it to make it clearer and a better read. i assume you were just moving quickly through the paragraph to give users an idea of the kind of change you deemed necessary. and i thank you for that input. i also thank you for the "supersede" change. i didn't realize that on wiki, even if a word is within quotation marks and exactly as written, that rather than use [sic], one can just change the spelling. i did check the spelling before deciding to leave the quote (and not sic it) -- because it seemed that both forms were in use -- though one is surely preferable. i appreciate your pointing out the rule.

i'm going to post this up in adam's talk section so that others can see/and comment on the issue you raised. thanks again for the help. you're correct and this will be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan200 (talkcontribs) 06:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments re my edits. I'm glad to hear you're working on the article, and I don't have any problems with different opinions as long as it's not a PR campaign. I won't go though a lawyer-like discussion of guidelines, but my aim is to try to have articles which (a) are not designed to praise (or denigrate) anyone or anything but to describe; and (b) are written for the general reader, not mainly for those knowledgeable about the subject. For (a) I try to avoid language of praise (or condemnation). An extreme example is in articles about people who are undoubtedly heroic, I sometime remove comments on heroism as unnecessary; the facts speak for themselves far more loudly. Similarly with successful, famous, prestigious, etc. etc. Many articles which use these terms seem to be written by or on behalf of their subjects, or by uncritical supporters. The actual facts which imply these conclusions are more useful. For (b) I try to use language which will be understandable to an English-speaker on a remote Pacific island - I agree that this probably can tend towards a flat read. I also, as you note, make mistakes! (meant: He was nominated for a Grammy Award.) Some of the things I write may simply be due to not understanding what was read, being unfamiliar with the topic and jargon. I do not apologise for this, it is up to the article to be comprehensible to the general reader, though I may also sometimes misunderstand things that aren't really unclear. Regarding minor errors in quotations, my view (which is in accord with guidelines) is that they should be corrected unless they're relevant (maybe we want to implicitly criticise the original writer); they're otherwise just a distraction. I've said all these things so you can see where I'm coming from, not to justify or try to enforce my opinions - everybody is obviously free to disagree and edit accordingly. I probably won't do much more on the Adam Lambert article. If you're going to start a discussion on its Talk page, please feel free to copy this there; I probably won't join in. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

ok Pol098, i think i understand better where you're coming from and appreciate your taking the time to clarify further. with such a broad, general readership (including those speakers of english on the remote pacific island!), wiki poses quite a challenge for users who by definition are more fluent in the dialect of their subject matter. -- and in many cases the facts/that speak for themselves (especially in the arts), are the opinions of others who happen to write for journals. anyway, it's quite interesting. thanks again, i did open up talk and will copy you in. (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"in many cases the facts/that speak for themselves are the opinions of others who happen to write for journals." That's certainly true. Unfortunately there's no guaranteed source of objective truth; Wikipedia's idea that material quoted from a source is considered more reliable than unsourced material, and a source meeting criteria of reliability trumps one not so, makes sense.

By the way, particularly for an encyclopaedia, "debut" and "headline" are nouns, not verbs, in formal writing. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, you're right and i hadn't thought in terms of formal writing. -- here's a present for you, should you ever have a free minute ;) i read it just the other day. very nice talking to you. Jordan200 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry, back again. i tried to copy/paste your comments into adam lambert talk; but while it looked fine in edit, when i previewed it, what i saw was a large blue rectangle with a bit of the copy, the rest running off the page. just letting you know, no need to try to explain what might have happened. we'll all live! Jordan200 (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for improving the article about Swami Saradananda.You may also try: Swami Nirmalananda Swami Trigunatitananda Swami Advaitananda

Swami ShivanandaSwami Subodhananda Swami Turiyananda Swami YoganandaSolomon7968 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will see what can be done ... Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Guideline for names is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics.

AC/DC Power supplies.[edit]

If you do not have the technical expertise in a subject, it would be better if you did not attempt to edit articles on such subjects. I have just noticed that I am not the only one who is clearing up the continual mis-information that you keep insisting on editing into AC/DC receiver design. Having worked in display systems (both TV related and the more essoteric systems) I can assure you that I am vastly more qualified than you in the matter. (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What misinformation, specifically? I'd comment that some material I've edited has to do with sources; sometimes sourced material has been replaced by unsourced. I've found out more about history since I created the article, but I can't find good information about the origins, though it seems to be Verschoor and the Kadette. Pol098 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC) PS Congratulations on deleting the nonsense section, my trying to clean it up was misguided.
I count fifteen instances in the last week in that article. However, to be fair, good references (for what is in reality obsolete technology) is often hard to find. Such articles often have to rely on peer review and editing. Unfortunately, there are always editors who will challenge unreferenced material even though they have no basis for believing it to be incorrect. My personal view is that historical articles of this type should have a tag to flag them as being based on peer review and that reliable citations are not easy to find. The wiki admins don't necessarily agree, arguing that references for challenged material should be found. This often results in a citation from some dusty old university text book that no one else can find a copy of (thus failing WP:VERIFY on a technicality).
I wrote an article several years ago on an obsolete technology, and although it was uncited at the time, several contributors have added to it and cited the odd part of the article. The original has remained largely in place and largely unchallenged. Fortunately Wikipedia rules allow uncited material that is unlikely to be challenged. The problem is: that every editor can easily add a {{cn}} tag anywhere he likes (and some do). There was even one editor running around a year or two ago deleting absolutely anything he could find that was unreferenced (he was eventually blocked - though it did take some time).
If you have any future points to make in the article, you might want to look at the discussion that is flourishing on the talk page and perhaps make suggestions there. (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blockade of Germany (1939–1945)[edit]

Hello Pol098,

I am going to translate in French this very interesting article, and I have a question for you because you are the seccond contributor to this artiole (and because the first one seems to be away for months).

It is written: "In the first 6 weeks of the war the average number ships stopping at Weymouth was 20, and while many were allowed to continue after a brief examination of the ships papers, out of 74 carrying 513,000 tons, 99,300 tons of contraband iron ore, wheat, fuel oil, petrol and manganese were seized." 20 ships per what? month, week, day...? Do you have an idea of the answer? Thanks in advance for your help. Kind regards, Skiff (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Daily. I've added a reference and clarified the text a bit. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer. Have a nice day. Skiff (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pol098,

This article is very good (I hope the french translation will be a good article in a few months). The probleme are the reference, only 100 for a 193ko artcle. Some paragraphes haven't any reference (for example: "The shipping shortage", "The Navicert"). Do you have some? Thanks you for your help. Skiff (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't help. I didn't actually write any of the text in the article, mainly tidied up the wording, and don't have any specialist information or sources. My answer to your previous question came from a Google search of the subject. I've just Googled Navicert and the first page has come up with some promising-looking sources, but it will be a big job to source the whole article. Skilfull Googling will be necessary, with carefully crafted terms like both <blockade germany "shipping * shortage"> and <blockade germany "shortage * shipping">. I'm not sure if "~" works in quoted terms, try <blockade germany "shipping * ~shortage">. Good luck, Pol098 (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Secure Digital[edit]

I am enthused at the information you are adding to this article, and hope you don't mind me post-editing you for brevity and organization. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits seem sensible (whether I agree in detail or not). I don't mind (and of course, it doesn't matter whether I do!). I've made one change to your wording: I make a big distinction between having a good reputation, and advertising enough to make your name known. So I've replaced name-brand with reputable. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I made that change in wording deliberately. "Name-brand" might be a consequence of advertising spending, but "reputable" is an overt value judgement. Let me substitute "major". Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My edits to your user page[edit]

Hello, your name appeared on my watchlist when you copyedited the Ward Weaver III article. On your user page, you previously stated that you registered your username in January 2004 and all the pre-registration contributions from your old IP address were lost. However, if the time when you created your user page is any guide, you registered your account in January 2005, not 2004 (that must have been a typo on your part) and your contributions from before you registered are completely intact. I've changed your user page to reflect this fact; hope you don't mind. I normally wouldn't edit another editor's user page like that. However I'm very interested in the early history of Wikipedia, and I know for a fact that by the time you started editing, Wikipedia's history was kept very reliably. I didn't want a page staying around that falsely implied that this was not the case. Graham87 06:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries! :-) Graham87 04:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft accidents[edit]

Hi Pol098. Thanks for taking an interest in our article 1949 Queensland Airlines Lockheed Lodestar crash. On 5 February you added a sentence saying The cause, according to an investigation, was that the aircraft was tail-heavy and unstable due to incorrect loading. See your diff. I have erased your sentence for three reasons.

Firstly, your sentence contradicts the following paragraph in the article:

The aircraft had been in daily civil operations in Australia since November 1946 so the investigators assumed there must have been numerous flights with the centre of gravity significantly more than 39% of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. It was necessary for the investigators to find something unique about the fatal flight of VH-BAG that would explain its sudden climb immediately after take-off and the pilot's inability to regain control and prevent the aircraft crashing. The aircraft's tailplane was one of the few parts of the aircraft not destroyed by fire. The position of the elevator trim tab spool appeared to be in the normal position for landing rather than a typical position for take-off. The investigators concluded that on the final takeoff it was likely that the elevator trim tab was still set for landing. This, coupled with the aircraft being tail-heavy and longitudinally unstable after undercarriage retraction, caused the aircraft to pitch nose-up so strongly that the pilot was unable to retain control or prevent the aircraft stalling.

Secondly, aircraft accidents are most commonly caused by a combination of factors rather than a single factor. Also, investigations often describe the cause in terms of the likely contribution of different factors because investigators are not 100% confident about the significance of each factor. For this reason, well-written articles about aircraft accidents don’t reduce the cause to a single, short sentence. To adequately cover the information available in all the reliable published sources I have devoted an entire section to the investigation and the various considerations that came to light as to the likely causes of the accident. To try to summarise all the information in this section in one sentence is misleading.

Thirdly, your sentence is not consistent with any of the sources already cited in the article; and you did not cite a source to support your sentence.

I'm happy to discuss further if you wish. Dolphin (t) 07:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dolphin51 for your comment. I don't have any knowledge of, or opinion on, the accident. I added what I did to the introduction as I felt it needed a brief mention of the cause without anyone needing to study the text. In the body of the article is the sentence "In its report the panel stated the accident was caused by the aircraft being loaded so its centre of gravity was behind the rear limit." I essentially inserted a reworded version of this sentence in the introduction (The cause, according to an investigation, was that the aircraft was tail-heavy and unstable due to incorrect loading.). (Also, the text reads: "The Minister for Civil Aviation, Mr Drakeford, made a public announcement that the accident had occurred because the aircraft was tail-heavy and unstable as the result of incorrect loading.[18]") No source is needed in the introduction for matters summarised from the body (sometimes such text is sourced separately, sometimes not). Wikipedia essentially includes published information, not independent analysis; if a report said that the cause was tail-heaviness, that's what the report said, though Wikipedia text should be worded something like "according to an investigation" or "it was reported that..." rather than "the cause was..." (I was careful to word this properly).

If the information I paraphrased was not in the report, I suggest that you further edit the article to remove it from the body; it would definitely be an improvement. The article as it stands now, after the edit still contains the information objected to.

I am not going to do any more; you obviously know a lot more about the crash and sources, I was merely trying to improve the introduction as a summary of the salient facts in the body, with no independent knowledge. Possibly it would be appropriate to restore my sentence, with a brief comment ", but this was disputed"? Or maybe the report doesn't say this at all—I haven't checked?

Whatever the information and wording, I strongly suggest that brief mention of the cause belongs in the introduction. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I have added a new paragraph to the lead saying:
Investigation of the crash uncovered some errors in the information used to determine the position of the aircraft’s centre of gravity. It became clear that the aircraft had taken off with its centre of gravity slightly outside the approved limits. Investigators also found evidence that the takeoff may have been performed with the elevator trim tab still set for landing. If the elevator trim tab had not been set for takeoff this would have been exacerbated by the incorrect position of the centre of gravity and the aircraft would have been uncontrollable.
See the diff. Regards. Dolphin (t) 06:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Sports drinks[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for creating a good section on the efficacy of sports drinks :) I wanted to include such information myself, but I'm not that good at writing. I might try and add to it or modify it, a little, which I always find a lot easier than writing a section from scratch, but either way it is good to see the issue being properly dealt with, in the article, as it should be.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It needed saying. If you add anything, be sure to provide reputable sources; it'll be contentious and someone will delete anything not well-supported. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits about the pope Francis[edit]

Noted your [edit on Francis]. Please refrain such edits Pol098 and comments (doubt francis supports a football club) before making sure what you are doing. If you have doubts, do some search. Wikipedia is no space for "doubts". Francis is a supporter of the football club!. I have just added his membership card number of the club!! Thank you. Happy editing. — Ludopedia(Talk) 20:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In the article I changed "Pope Francis" to "Bergoglio", nothing else (added May: and nobody has changed this in 2 months), with edit summary "doubt francis supports a football club". I have no reason to doubt that Argentine boy/priest/bishop/cardinal Bergoglio expressed his support for a football club, but doubt Pope Francis publicly does or will. I may be wrong, but it's not a big issue. I'll make any comments I choose in summaries and Talk, but only make edits to articles that seem to meet guidelines. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary[edit]

You need to understand that the article to the BLESSED Virgin Mary is used in Roman Catholic articles.

While the VIRGIN MARY relates to Protestant/Secular views on the Virgin Mary.

The title of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a valid honorific title, just as SAINT MARY is permitted by Wikipedia.

The point is, if its a Catholic article, its a Catholic title of the BLESSED Virgin Mary.

See the difference. Visit both pages which are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from each other.


Thanks for pointing this out, I'll bear it carefully in mind. I think the way the articles are named is bad and confusing. For example, I've seen many articles on specifically Catholic topics which link to "Virgin Mary" rather than "Blessed Virgin Mary". My personal preference would probably be to have a single article with a common part (it's the same person, after all) and sections for different religious denominations. A disambiguation page is a possibility. The author of the previous comment, or someone else, may like to suggest this in the articles' talk pages if they agree. Pol098 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NCCL should be WP:HONORIFIC[edit]

Hello, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you used the edit summary WP:NCCL quite often when removing honorifics. This is the correct thing to do, but NCCL is the guideline for article naming conventions and does not apply to text inside articles. The correct guideline is from the MOS:BLP and is known by the shortcut WP:HONORIFIC. If you make future edits such as this, please keep that in mind. Thanks again! Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I've been looking at the guidelines, and it's not as clearcut as it should be. As you say, NCCL says it is for article names at the beginning; but in its text it says things like "Do not use a pope's personal name except when referring to his life prior to becoming pope: 'Luciani entered the minor seminary of Feltre in 1923...' (life before papacy) but 'John Paul refused to...wear the Papal Tiara' (after being elected pope)" and "When it is necessary to add the title "Cardinal", it will usually be sufficient to prefix it to the surname of the cardinal, especially in the body of an article". And HONORIFIC says "Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)" (i.e., NCCL). All things considered, I think I'll continue using the more specific NCCL for clergy-related changes in the text, although technically it's not the applicable guideline. If several people disagree with this, I'll change (please, everyone, feel free to comment). Pol098 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yerba Mate page[edit]

I'm new to this editing thing and still trying to learn the ropes around here.

We're editing the same article and I wondered about your addition to the first paragraph, specifically this:

"well known as the source of the beverage called mate after the gourd it is traditionally drunk from."

Since the article is about yerba mate the plant and there is another page for mate the drink, shouldn't the etymology of the word mate be on the other page? At the very least, I think the reference should be moved below under nomenclature.

Also, the word mate come from the Quechua word mati[1] which has multiple meanings important to drinking mate. Mati can be a gourd, but it can also be a cup to hold liquid, and it can also refer to an infusion, not only of yerba mate but of other herbs as well[2]. It is misleading to say that mate means gourd in South America because it refers to so many different things. If someone wanted to ask specifically for a gourd, they would use the word 'porongo' instead[3]. Ironically, that word likely comes from Quechua as well

angelajean (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)angelajean 23 May, 2013

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I usually don't, though can make mistakes. This comment is probably not intended as friendly general advice, but implies such actions; if so, you should give detailed information (e.g., link to a diff) on at least one particular case.

You should not remove material which is relevant, notable, and supported by reliable sources, according to Wikipedia guidelines. An example of deletion of text is: [17], supported by both a tabloid and a non-tabloid reference for the same material. Another is removal from the same article of a paragraph about a notable and important video narrated by the subject of the article sent to legislators and put on YouTube; the video, which was cited as a source, verifies its own existence. Pol098 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC) (slightly edited and link to wrong diff fixed 15:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

Whose opinion is it that the video was "notable and important"? --John (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I take this as a suggestion that it may not be notable or important enough, and have asked for opinions on Talk:Keith O'Brien#Video on embryo research sent to MPs - notability. Pol098 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC) No response, favourable or unfavourable, to this question. Pol098 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Somatics[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

This topic does not appear to have attracted a sufficient amount of mainstream coverage to establish its notability

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. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Somatics for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Somatics 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/Somatics (2nd nomination) 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. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary trains[edit]

Looking at your changes here I think you are assuming that the legislation requiring these trains to run (in the original sense) was repealed. The problem is that someone will ask you to provide a source for this. So I will ask you to find out when these laws were repealed and place that source in the article. I hope you understand that without sourcing you are making this assumption. Britmax (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clearly and obviously true that the act that created the original parliamentary trains is no longer in force. I did some quick, unsuccessful searching for a source (I do try to source what I say). (If it turns out that I was wrong and the act is actually still in force, that would be a very notable fact worth pointing out.) I agree that, in principle, everything should be sourced to avoid error, and have certainly on occasion made the mistake of asserting something obvious and unsourced that is not, in fact, true.

However, a great part of the value of Wikipedia is in unsourced matter that is useful and true. If everything unsourced is removed, much of Wikipedia's value is lost. Even in the Parliamentary train article much would be deleted, including the entire Speller Act section.

The Parliamentary train article before I made several edits left open a confusion, as I don't think it was made sufficiently clear that the old and modern uses of the term were totally different. I clarified this, and said that the legislation no longer applied as part of the clarification (to see this the article before I made the first of a number of edits can be compared with its present state).

I've laid out my reasoning for consideration; it's now open to anybody who disagrees to act as they see fit: if content is correct, add a source; delete content thought inappropriate; tag it as unsourced; or leave it. I would suggest that anybody who chooses to delete content go through this article (and the rest of Wikipedia) and delete everything else unsourced; a surprising amount will go. Even adding [Citation needed] wherever appropriate would make an unwieldy encyclopaedia.

Pol098 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your meritorious service[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your work on CryptoLocker. It is an important article. Wincent77 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this unexpected honour. I needed to find out about this threat, and tried to share the information I gleaned. Pol098 (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Omani UNESCO ambassador[edit]

Hey, I was sort of wondering about this edit. Technically removing the honorifics is correct, but I don't understand the comment about "trivia." You removed info about an agreement signed with the UNESCO head but left in the info about the subject's attendance of Omani Cultural Days. On the surface, if the former is indeed trivia then the latter should be as well, though from reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections I don't think either would qualify as trivia. Could you shed some light on the rationale when you get the time? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, it's always good to know edits are being properly scrutinised. This was a quick, rather than deeply considered edit, mainly trimming honorifics. My thinking was that the nation of Oman made a modest emergency contribution to UNESCO's budget while Al-Moosa was ambassador; she signed the agreement, with nothing said about her involvement in the decision. "Ambassador signs agreement made on her watch" didn't seem particularly relevant to an article on the person in the role; that is why I described it as trivial. Personally attending a conference isn't big news, but it was at least to do with the person. I'm trying to explain my, very quick and unconsidered, thinking here, not to make a reasoned justification. You may disagree; in particular, you may have more insight into what lies behind—if Al-Moosa was doing more than being the appropriate person to sign for her country, perhaps a few words of explanation would help. Something like "While Al-Moosa was ambassador UNESCO had serious financial problems; Al-Moosa instigated a contribution of $2m from her country" says more, if true, and is clearly relevant. I don't have the slightest objection if you consider this should be changed. Thanks again, and best wishes. Pol098 (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well thanks for the explanation, and it does make sense. Unfortunately I don't have that much insight into the agreement signed - I created this article one afternoon at work when I was bored - so it would take me time to look it over. Given your comments here, I wouldn't consider returning the comments unless I could find another source showing more significant involvement from the subject personally. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Simon Mol[edit]

Thank you for your linguistic fixes to this article. FYI, I quickly copied the older version from 2007, which had been vandalised (censored) back then, not expecting that it stays for so long again, you know. Consequently, I did not fix its language, my bad.

Zezen (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Cheers for going over this cluster of articles :-) - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No thanks required! Pol098 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war at FRG[edit]

Of course, you are right, but being right does not justify edit warring. You could well have been blocked, and you may yet be if you continue. See the policy on edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Context (without further comment): the above appeared a few hours after I added information on reliably documented controversial opinions to the James Watson article. (Red added above by me.) Pol098 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs / popular press[edit]

While Ben Goldace may be right we do not use blogs for sources of medical articles. We need him to publish these conclusions in a review article first per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion, with summary, before seeing this. I think that in this case, an article by the co-author of a cited academic paper, which actually updates the paper with information too late for inclusion, is appropriate (perhaps invoking WP:IAR in this case?). Pol098 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Have started the discussion on the talk page but WP:MEDRS is clear on this point. If he wishes to update his paper he needs to update his paper. We cannot use a non-peer reviewed blog. Are there any review articles that comment on this issue/ come to this conclusion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For your contributions to VMware Player! Enjoy and have a great time! JobinWhat's up? 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Mubarak Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah[edit]

G'day, I have just left a message at OJOM's Talk page regarding his edits to Mubarak Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. I'm hoping he will engage in conversation; thought you might like to know. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had outlined some issues a while ago on the Talk page of this article, but not communicated directly (I have the impression that it won't be very useful). I see your approach addresses the real issues directly, while I have taken a more formalistic approach about specific violations of guidelines (perhaps more difficult to argue against, but leaving serious problems unaddressed). The two approaches complement each other. I've also made a brief comment on Military of Kuwait's Talk page. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Good-oh. YSSYguy (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I try to specify WP guideline breaches corrected, etc. in my edit summaries. Pol098 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Preceding comments moved here, out of chronological sequence to keep all discussion of this article in one place) Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of articles which seem to be basically a transcription of very POV government sources (mostly by one editor) which I've been trying to clean up a bit. Pol098 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh--there's more. Well. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably dozens of articles, essentially "supported" largely by one source (some articles with a few sources have had the independent ones added by me). Pol098 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
How serious is it? Does it need stopping, or wider attention? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at some articles, histories, and discussions. Some links: Talk:Mubarak Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, Talk:Military of Kuwait. This article, before my first edit; immediately after. User talk:OJOM#Mubarak Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (and other sections). NPOV(?): "In topic of a decorated, renowned, accomplished, monarch and Late Lieutenant General ; such validations of fine historical career facts should not be taking into effect at the expense of those that have accomplished much". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, see Battle of Hamdh, before and after. Little Google snippets are all I have to go on, and I don't like using them, but they're better than the document used before. Note how the earlier version doesn't mention that the Kuwaiti forces lost. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice work! A sensible short article now, giving information. Before it wasn't just slanted, but didn't say anything anyone would actually want to read—nothing on the cause or outcome, in particular, lots of pompous fluff. I've edited it a bit further, to get the date in the text (not just the infobox); I also search for information, I'm not an expert on the subject. Several of these uninformative articles didn't even identify the belligerents faced by Kuwaiti forces, never mind report an outcome if unfavourable (where belligerents are stated, they've sometimes been added by me). Pol098 (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've experienced this problem often. Editors think that government sources are reliable primary sources because they trust the government. However, the government is an advocate for laws that are often unpopular among the masses, doesn't always have a reputation for fact-checking and often the sources create undue weight. CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This article and a few others which seem to be "maintained" very frequently by a particular user (Military of Kuwait) keep getting worse (copying more from the extremely POV source). Maybe I'll do a big cleanup every year or so, though it still leaves a very poor article, just a bit less fawning. Pol098 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 13:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I don't have the expertise required. I probably came up due to editing physiology-related articles, but this will have been a matter of wording and copy-editing. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Heartbleed". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion contributed to. Pol098 (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being a top WP medical contributor![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation


Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Laplace transform[edit]

I'm trying to help resolve your issues with the Laplace transform. It is rather problematic to say that "it can be proven that the Laplace transform exists". This is actually not true for lots of functions. For example, the function has no Laplace transform because it does not decay sufficiently rapidly. There are classes of functions for which the Laplace transform exists. The very definition of the Laplace transform even depends on the function space. The article includes some such spaces, but if we do not specify the space in advance, then it is simply false to say that the Laplace transform exists.

It is also problematic for other reasons to say that "the Laplace transform is unique". What you actually mean by this is that the Laplace transform is one-to-one from a suitable function space into the analytic functions. But this is not what the statement actually means. When we speak of uniqueness in this setting, it means that for every input to the Laplace transform, there is only one output. But that is obvious since the Laplace transform is given by a formula that computes a single output for every input. Uniqueness is often presented in contrast with multiple valued functions, where an individual input can produce multiple outputs. What you actually mean is that the inverse of the Laplace transform is unique. That is, that the Laplace transform is one-to-one. It is preferable to use the correct and more precise terminology. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that I've oversimplified like mad. I'm somewhat out of touch by now (and was always more involved with applications than the underlying theory). So I never expected what I've said to stand unchanged. However, one thing I've always thought is that statement and proof of existence and uniqueness are vitally important; what I've said needs saying, but properly. For most applied users of the transform it simply exists and is unique in the usual circumstances, but in mathematics—and encyclopaedias—more is needed.

"Uniqueness ... means that for every input to the Laplace transform, there is only one output. But that is obvious...". With thought, it's obvious. But it should be stated explicitly. I haven't studied the article as carefully as I should have, but it's always good practice in real-life applications to know that you're looking for something that exists. As you say, the information is somewhere in the article; bijection is stated (I tended to use "biunivocal", maybe vocabulary has changed). But I feel that an explicit (but correct, unlike my wording) statement of existence and uniqueness is not out of place. My intention was always to try to get this point addressed, I knew my wording wasn't going to be enough.

There's maybe a matter of personal history: I was once asked explicitly to carry out an integral transform which was an "obvious" extension of a Laplace transform; I was new and junior. I didn't question the requirement and worked at it, unsuccessfully for a long time, and had to justify my failure, as a new and untested team member, to do such a simple and routine task. I ultimately was able to prove that what I was being asked to do was not possible (formal proof of non-existence), which freed my mind to be able to solve the underlying problem in a different way. But I've always been a bit pedantic about existence and uniqueness since. Pol098 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
If uniqueness means that each input gives only one output, then that is in no way related to the existence of an inverse. For instance, the double valued function is not unique in this sense, but it does have an inverse. We don't need to assert uniqueness in this sense, because the Laplace transform is given by a formula. If we instead decided to axiomatize it in terms of the heat semigroup for instance, then we would need to establish uniqueness. But that's not the approach taken in the article, and asserting uniqueness seems to make it more confusing rather than less. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The article has ultimately been further edited, by Slawekb, and is much improved in these aspects. The shortcomings I perceived—implicit assumption that things existed, and were unique—are no longer there, and it is more correct than my edits made it. Pol098 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Very thank you[edit]

I'm just university student learning in South Korea. Very thank you for editing Enslaveries on Sinan County's salt farms. I'm able to speak English well. --햄빵이 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I hope you consider that the article was improved. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't overwrite existing redirects[edit]

Twice now I've found that you've overwritten a longstanding redirect to create one of your own choice. Please don't do this: if there's now a second sense of the word for which readers need navigation, create a dab page instead. I've now done so at Willowing and Twilly. Please stop removing long-established navigational aids from the encyclopedia. Thanks. PamD 14:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is nonsense. I changed "willowing" to point to a technical term instead of to "birching"; there is not even a mention of "willowing" on the "birching" page, hence not WP:DABRELATED. (And the OED includes "willow" as a verb only in the context of the textile process.) And my redirect of "Twilly" to the new "Willy (textile machine)" (for which it is a sourced synonym) replaced a redirect to the game AdventureQuest, where Twilly is mentioned once in the text as a character. In fact, there are 30 hits on a search for "twilly"; the game character is less notable than most—you might care to correct the disambiguation page you created by adding them all, non-notable as they are, including Sick Puppy with more than 20 occurrences, and Scat (novel) with two. Consequently, neither a redirect nor a disambiguation page is justified in either case. I had checked both these points before editing. That the originals were longstanding is neither here nor there, they were inappropriate. I'm not going to waste time getting rid of the inappropriate disambiguation pages, but that would be the right thing to do.

In other cases, also following checking, I have converted a redirect to a disambiguate—I don't routinely change navigation without careful consideration. And I'm not going to stop removing inappropriate navigational aids just because they've been there for a long time. Pol098 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, on Willowing I agree with you - I'd assumed that a plausible-looking redirect was justified, without checking the target article, and have reverted my change. But Twilly was the subject of an AfD which closed as "merge" rather than "delete", so I think the navigation to the game needs to be preserved. If you had left more informative edit summaries it would have been helpful. PamD 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's agree to disagree on Twilly; it seems to have started as an article on the game character, and nominated for deletion as "100% uncited fancruft", and it was ultimately decided to point it at the game. I don't personally think it merits even a redirect; and that if it is, there are lots of equally or more worthy articles, and more, more notable, disambiguation entries would be justified. If I had very carefully considered all aspects of the page rather than making a quick judgement after checking AdventureQuest, I would still have made the changes I did. However, following discussion, I have no wish or intention to push my personal opinion. Pol098 (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Juan Carlos[edit]

Hi there,

You just made an edit to Juan Carlos I of Spain with the summary "is king of spain". It's my understanding that Juan Carlos now has the title of 'King' as a sort of courtesy title; that the title 'King of Spain' means the head of state, and thus applies only to his son. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen any source for this, i don't even know if it's been formally defined. He unquestionably remains King Juan Carlos. Rather than my most recent wording, I had earlier thought it best to specify the difference by saying he was "reigning king" until 19 June 2014, but someone reverted that a few times, so I have been seeking some wording that doesn't explicitly say that he ceased to be a king of Spain, bu does specify that he ceased to be head of state. I'll try to find something else that avoids implying that he is not a king of Spain. I don't want to make a big point of saying "he's still a king of Spain", just unobtrusively not say explicitly he isn't. In brief, it's not reliable to say that he's not a king of Spain without a source. Pol098 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
My reading of article 56.2 here: [18] is that the title King of Spain belongs to the head of state. I think sourcing this one either way is going to be difficult. I suggest calling him 'King Juan Carlos' in the lead - because it's clear from that that's still his title - and then say that he was head of state from X to Y. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree on the facts; it merely seemed wrong to me to say, as the article did, that JC "was king from 1975 to 19 June 2014". A minor issue of wording. It's easy enough to word the article not to say or imply that he ceased to be "king". It could be useful to insert "reigning"; he definitely was reigning king from 1975 to 19 June 2014", when he stopped reigning. Pol098 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia appreciates your help. Your recent edit at Lauren Bacall does not appears constructive to me, but am comfortable Rosspz (talk · contribs) made a change. Wikicology (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I literally don't know what you're talking about. I made three edits, all of which seem advantageous, though very minor. I was thanked after one, and another was discussed in Talk. I cannot accept your thanks on behalf of Wikipedia; it is not up to any editor to speak on behalf of the encyclopaedia. Pol098 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for editing my reports on the ongoing situation at Bardarbunga, I have attempted to summarize the data from the Icelandic Met Office which means sometimes there is repetition. I can see you have reworded my paragraphs in a more economical way without losing any of the content and some has been updated with more recent content which is good, thanks.Chuangzu (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it OK. I read the Icelandic site to see what was happening, then updated and reworded WP slightly for compactness. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it may confuse people to reword the updates into the past tense, the dyke extension, earthquake swarm and events in the caldera are continuous and have been since the 16th. Chuangzu (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that this is not a newspaper, reporting events as they happen, but a reference work, which needs to make sense whenever read. This isn't an opinion of mu own; it is clearly laid out in WP:DATED. I don't know exactly where it was said that articles should be worded so that they make sense to someone reading in five years' time. I suppose you could make the pint that this is a current event, and likely to be updated; but I have come across some horrible examples, e.g., an event reported in an article as it was in 2013 as "forthcoming" in 2008. There;s no point in making a meal of this, if you want to use wording in the present tense in the light of this, I'll leave it. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I will go over the article and edit it more appropriately once the current events have run their course.Chuangzu (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep off. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Typo Team[edit]

Hi. Thanks for updating the Typo Team project page. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've updated it a bit more. It and Wikipedia:Typo Team/works completed don't seem very active, though, except for one contributor. Pol098 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The project is more of a mindset. Most "members" don't really post their activities, including me. I think of the project's page as an orientation for the people that prefer to do that kind of editing. While there may not be a lot of activity on the project page, there are tons of people actively doing "typo team stuff" who consider themselves members. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I correct quite a lot of typos without listing them anywwhere, though I have listed some on the project page; but I haven't "joined" the project. Is there any point in joining? Pol098 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

AposTherapy page add-ons[edit]

Hello Polo98, Thank you for adding information to AposTherapy page. Unfortunately, there's one paragraph that requires clarification, as the information is not up to-date and thus might be misleading. I'm referring to the paragraph regarding a review of claims performed by UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which I'd suggest that you reconsider. Advertising Standards Authority review and issuance of adjudications are regular, daily and cross-industries (especially medical devices, healthcare and pharmaceuticals). It is common to have an enquiry resolved by advertiser in a way that complies with the Advertising Standards Authority and CAP standard. As with other regulators, once an enquiry has been resolved and advertiser complies with the adjudication – it may be misleading and harmful to let general population think that the advertiser is in non-compliance. Apos addressed the enquiry promptly and complied ever since with the adjudication. Therefore the inclusion of the paragraph is irrelevant to Apos marketing actions as they stand today, and perhaps misleading a lay person to think that Apos is in in non-compliance state. In light of the above, may I suggest that you kindly remove the paragraph.

Best Regards, Olros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olros (talkcontribs) 19:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to the later compliance ("Apos addressed the enquiry promptly and complied ever since with the adjudication"); can you supply one, and I'll add it? Thanks Pol098 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've had no response to what I said a week ago, so I've reworded the article slightly to clarify that the ASA adjudication referred to advertising at the time, without implying continued breach. Pol098 (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Romanization of Greek[edit]

Thanks for your help there, but do kindly remember WP:BLUE. A definition cite of "romanization" belongs at romanization (or better yet, Wiktionary). The 'cite' you gave wouldn't actually support anything about Greek in particular and citing definitions for romanization and Greek and combining them would fall under WP:OR... if it weren't for the fact you don't have to cite that the sky is blue or that words mean what they do. Cheers. — LlywelynII 10:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I try not to link everything under the sun, this isn't shotgun linking. My thinking here: (1) there is no source for the article definition; (2) if you stop 100 people in the street and ask them to define "romanization", I think correct answers will be few, answers addressing the particular issue of transliteration (as against, e.g., imposing the Roman system on subject peoples) even fewer. You will get a rather higher figure for "what colour is the sky?" (though I would probably answer "grey" today). The article did define what its title means, but did not provide any reference. While the definition given was unobjectionable, there are plenty of articles starting with unsourced definitions that are plain wrong; the whole idea of Wikipedia is that you know something is right because there is a reliable source for it, not because some editor says so. An example of a definition I have clarified (not nearly as bad as many, but recent enough that I can find it) is "A dynasty is a sequence of rulers considered as members of the same family.". "Considered as" doesn't make sense, and is not sourced. Obviously you may disagree with the detail, but do you not agree that a definition needs some sort of source? You may well know the subject better than I do (which os not diffiult!), in which case I expect you can provide a better source than I did. For now I've put a cn in; in fact, a lot of the article is unsourced. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Review WP:BLUE again. It also covers tendentious use of the {{fact}} template. (Neither here nor there in this case, but {{fact}} tags follow the punctuation and don't precede it.) If you are confused about whether Romanization means Roman rule in Greece, kindly follow the provided links to the Romanization article or view Wiktionary. (Neither here nor there in this case, but that would be "Romanization of Greece" and is not even a possibly valid meaning of the article we're talking about.)
As already stated, if you think the term Romanization in and of itself is confusing, the place for that OED cite is at the romanization article itself, not its daughter articles dealing with particular languages. — LlywelynII 12:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Similarly, "considered as" makes perfect sense and that straightforward definition of the word 'dynasty' didn't need a cite at all (it's simply what the word means), but at least dynasty would be the article to place it in. You shouldn't waste everyone's time (including yours!) by cluttering pages by copying that citation to Han dynasty, Tudor dynasty, ad infinitum. Last, it's great to keep conversation on your talk page if that's all it is. If you're actually going in and changing the page during a conversation like this, it's better to provide your thinking on the article's talk page. — LlywelynII 13:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Excessively close paraphrasing[edit]

I have always tried to cite sources as accurately as possible, without actually copying them. I've been criticised on an article Talk page for paraphrasing a newspaper article too closely, approaching copyright violation. I reported myself to the copyright police, getting an opinion that I was too close to COPYVIO for comfort. So I'll try to paraphrase less closely in future. If anyone considers I'm straying over the line, please tell me. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OED citations[edit]

Having said all of the above, I am very happy that you're using honest OED citations for definition articles rather than the usual "" dreck. Some things I'd personally appreciate (you can see examples at dynasty):

  • If you include the etymological information, kindly remember to wrap the text in {{lang}} templates. So, {{lang|grc|δυναστεία}} instead of naked δυναστεία. You can find the language codes in the sidebars of the language pages—the most common ones for English etymologies are going to be enm (Middle English), ang (Old English), la (Latin), lat-med (Medieval Latin), fr (French), fro (Old French), roa-nor (Norman), grc (Classical Greek), ine-pro (Proto-Indo-European), and gem-pro (Proto-Germanic)—but you can find a full list here at Wiktionary.
  • The transliteration (usually) goes on the outside and the foreign-text form (usually) goes in the parentheses. Dynasteía (δυναστεία), not δυναστεία (dynasteía). The only good exception I can think of off the top of my head are Chinese characters, where sometimes you're talking about the symbol itself and not the sound or where you are talking about the word in a way that transcends its Mandarin Chinese use. Also note that English almost always derives from Classical Greek forms and romanizations and not the Modern Greek ones.
  • Kindly provide all of the citation. Personally, I like my formatting more than the templates: ''Oxford English Dictionary'', {{nowrap|1st ed.}} "dynasty, ''n.''" Oxford University Press (Oxford), 1897. or <ref name=OED>''Oxford English Dictionary'', 1st ed. "dynasty, ''n.''" Oxford University Press (Oxford), 1897. Writing it out lets avoid the ugly template formatting's needless parentheses and wrong dates for most of the entries (at least, if you're using the version, which provides more specific dating for entries' first appearances than the templates allow). But you can always use those, too: {{cite}}, {{OED1}}, {{OED2}}, {{OED}} (for 3rd edition definitions).
  • Remember, though that the n. and v. &c. bits go inside the quotes since they're part of the entry name. For my money, it looks better if you use the unicode superscripts ¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹⁰ instead of the Wikipedia 1234567890. Last, please use different reference citations for each entry. Wikipedia isn't a paper book and there's no need for (and some problems with) putting all the words into a single cite.

Thanks for helping out! — LlywelynII 13:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. I've made a lot of references in the form <ref>Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., herpolhode</ref> which I thought, and still think, make sense, and were a great improvement over what was there before, but your suggestions are better. To start with, rechecking, where I actually get a lot of the information from, it's now identified as 3rd ed. (the last time I looked it was 2nd, the 3rd was not final AFAIR). I don't include the URL as it's a site only accessible to "subscribers". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005.  (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) I've taken the liberty of editing your comments to show both the Unicode and the Wikipedia superscripts; please revert this if you find it objectionable. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Santander Bank vs. Santander Group[edit]

Hi Polo98,

I reverted your addition to Santander Bank concerning the Carmen Segerra audiotapes. This content really should be at Santander Group, not Santander Bank. Santander Bank is a regional American retail bank that was purchased by the Spanish conglomerate Santander Group. It's one component of Santander Group. The phrase "Santander Bank's Brazilian subsidiary" is also not accurate, the Brazilian company was a subsidiary of Santander Group.

I'm not certain that this material is appropriate for an article on Santander Group either. The ProPublica/ThisAmerican Life stories were about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and its effectiveness as a regulator and, in particular, its relationship with Goldman Sachs. The involvement of Santander is somewhat incidental to the story. However, that's a discussion to have on the talk page of Santander Group

Best, GabrielF (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to remove your contributions to Kinder Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and El Paso Corp., at least until you can rewrite them to be more neutral and better reflect the sources. You can't say that Segarra "was dismissed for refusing to falsify a report". That's Segarra's allegation, but it's a matter of dispute. If you listen to the This American Life story, it's very clear that Segarra and her superiors had a disagreement over whether Goldman's document regarding COIs did not constitute a policy or constituted an inadequate policy. Segarra's superiors would argue that they asked her to change her conclusion to match the facts. Given that it's a matter of dispute, you cannot say that she was asked to falsify a report. You can say that she was asked to change her conclusions, or that she alleged that she was asked to falsify a report. There's also some coatracking going on where you include information about Santander in articles like Kinder Morgan and El Paso Corp., even though the Santander incident has nothing to do with either of these companies.GabrielF (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, your points are well taken. The original text is unsuitable, I'll look at rewriting. BTW, the inclusion of Santander in several articles was a result of my working quickly; I removed it from one non-Santander article, should have removed it from others, and probably would have later. Explanation, not excuse, it didn't belong.

Regarding the bank name: the source refers to "the Spanish Santander Bank", and I deliberately used the name (presumably it was Banco de Santander itself, rather than the group? The source (Guardian) says "the Spanish bank Santander", but it's a newspaper article which doesn't discuss the matter in detail.) If it was the Spanish bank (I have to check), what wording would you suggest? "Spanish Banco de Santander"? It is necessary to distinguish the Spanish Santander Bank, the US bank, and the group. The source also says "its Brazilian subsidiary", perhaps technically correct though misleading if it's a subsidiary company with a different name. Pol098 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thank you very much for your contributions at technical support scam! - TheChampionMan1234 05:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I hope the article is more useful. BTW, I am one of the people who use a virtual machine, though I haven't recorded any sessions. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Next UK General Election rfc[edit]

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I don't really know how to respond to this. Ahead of an election it seems premature for an encyclopaedia. Examining chicken entrails for good news is a political, rather than informational, rite. I'm reminded of the last US general election, when careful statistical analysis was brushed aside, quite sincerely I think, by the party that eventually lost; an objective review before the fact would have had to include that sort of nonsense (without calling it nonsense until after the election). There's also the possibility of endless edit-warring by opposing views. On the other hand, I have no objection. An unsatisfactory response from me, I fear, but I've sat on it for a couple of days and should respond. Good luck with it, Pol098 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Catholic usage"[edit]

You need to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before widespread changes such as removing "Saint" from all articles you encounter. Elizium23 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Irish War of Independence[edit]

I am not interested in an edit war, so I have started a discussion on the talk page of Irish War of Independence. Please participate. The Banner talk 15:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did it before seeing this. Pol098 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! And may I offer you a virtual beer? (I don't know if there is anything like that in Wikipedia, so no nice picture, sorry.) Pol098 (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Acronym pages[edit]

Please stop. It's great that you want to bring these pages in line with the guideline, but please check to see whether the acronyms are in common usage. Without too much effort, I found that Advertising Standards Canada and the American Society of Criminology both consistently use the acronym ASC. It looks like there are many, many more that you have missed. Please just slow down on this and exercise care. StAnselm (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Where we disagree is the criterion for inclusion of an article in a disambiguation (dab) page. I take the strict line, per WP:DABABBREV and WP:DABACRO, that an article only belongs if it contains a verified use of the abbreviation. (Full disclosure: I have made a fair number of contributions to the wording of WP:DABABBREV over the years, although I did not originate the guideline.) I consider that an entry that "should not be added" should also, if it has been added, be deleted. I believe you take the viewpoint that an abbreviation that is know to be used belongs in the dab page, even if not in the article; e.g., your example of Advertising Standards Canada. That is basically where we disagree. The problem is that, if the article does not provide verified information, it is WP:original research to assert in a dab page that the abbreviation is used. There have been huge numbers of examples; e.g., a dab page that had a section "people with these initials", listing people who not only are not verified to be known by their initials, but actually are not. I don't think my Talk page, or a particular dab Talk page, is the place to discuss this; if I find a better forum, may I copy your message to me (above) there? If you still disagree, as you probably do, we need a wider discussion. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
American Society of Criminology uses "ASC" plentifully on its own website - as can be seen in the refs in the article - so I have now added it to the article. This then justifies the presence on the ASC dab page (where I see it already is present). But unless it's in the article, it doesn't belong on a dab page, no matter how often it's asserted that "everyone knows" etc. And yes, clearly "should not be added" implies "if it's there, it was incorrectly added and should be removed". PamD 12:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, of course that the American Society of Criminology is known as ASC. My reason for deleting it from the ASC page is simply (per guideline) that the initials weren't documented in the page; they now are, and the article should clearly be listed on the ASC page. Pol098 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
There's an increasingly long discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Delete inappropriate dab entries?; it's probably better to say anything further there. (Added) The opinion seems to be fairly strongly that an abbreviation not in the article should not be in the dab page. Pol098 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Some results are in from the discussion. The following consider that the guideline says that there should not be an entry on a disambiguation page entry for an abbreviation unless the article says verifiably that the abbreviation is used: pol098/NE2 (see below)/PamD/jHunter/older ≠ wiser/Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! Of these, NE2 considers that the guideline, though clear, is wrong, the others that it is right. (Check this, do not take my word for it.) So the consensus seems to be strongly that there should not be dab entries unless the abbreviation is verifiably included in the article. I may later edit this paragraph rather than adding new results. Pol098 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is, was the American Society of Criminology added incorrectly to the dab page. I would say that it always belonged to the dab page, it's just that the acronym should have been in the article as well. StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
" was the American Society of Criminology added incorrectly to the dab page?" It's trivially easy to answer that: yes it was if the abbreviation wasn't verified in the article. The guideline says "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation". That is crystal clear. The guideline also says "If an abbreviation is verifiable ... consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page." (Some of the wording in the guideline is mine from some time ago, but I don't remember if any of this section is.) Pol098 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: CryptoLocker[edit]

WP:DTTR, but forums are not reliable sources. Your trimmed version also sounded awkward, so it has been revised. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think that the issue of who "discovered" CryptoLocker is pointless, and impossible; saying that it is Dell is clearly untrue, and they themselves don't make any such claim. So I've got rid of the whole thing; the article is shorter and better for it. If it did matter, a posting on a forum (verified by the Wayback Machine), with details and screen capture is more than reliable; there's no way that anybody could have reported in such detail something which hadn't yet happened. Rigorous logic would support WP:IAR; but it's all better dropped.
Thought its fairly obvious, there's no actual source for brand recognition as such; on the other hand it is clearly documented that CL was known and feared. There's also no actual evid3nce that the later malware wasn't connected in some way with the original. Pol098 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I have started a discussion about your contested changes at Haggis. Please see Talk:Haggis#Recent changes, and please do not reinstate your changes until a consensus is achieved, as per WP:BRD. Squinge (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As it happens I wasn't intending to do anything more. I agree that details of cooking are irrelevant in the intoduction and I totally agree with your removing them; I added them because a ridiculous time of 3 hours, unsourced, was given—actual time for a typical haggis bought at a supermarket (450g) is stated as 45'. Taking it all out of the intro is fine. It could belong in the body (I haven't checked if anything is said). A haggis only needs heating; how you do it is irrelevant, and some manufacturers suggest a microwave (or thermal) oven. Again, unimportant. I think some comment that the haggis is basically a standardised version of the age-old "stick all the guts in the stomach and cook them" idea belongs in the introduction (a short sentence), but it's in the body and is not that important. I'll now have a look at Talk, and maybe edit this to suit. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk)
Ah, I've just seen in Talk that your objection to the mention of the ancient way of cooking is not due to its content but because it it is stated to be unsourced. It is sourced in the article; for avoidance of doubt I'll repeat the sources, which responds to the objection. Pol098 (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine: references[edit]

Re Influenza vaccine#2014–2015 Northern Hemisphere influenza season

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I should indeed have provided better sources. I would suggest that in the face of information very likely to be true that, rather than reversion, better sources could be sought and added, or at least a "Citation needed" or even "dubious" tag, not deleting for at least a few days, to encourage readers to find better sources. Obvious nonsense, or genuinely suspect information is better removed, but removing reasonably reliable information reduces the usefulness of the encyclopaedia. While a balance must be struck and nonsense avoided, if all material not strictly conformant to guidelines were removed (mainly huge swathes of unsourced, but valid and useful, information), Wikipedia would be much smaller and much less useful. Pol098 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not use primary sources or the popular press for medical content. We have clear guidance here WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi Polo98. I just noticed some copyedits (very good ones) at Publishers Clearing House, where I have a COI and thought I would ping you somewhat at random. I follow WP:COI on a large number of pages by suggesting changes to an article on the Talk page, however this process requires me to find an editor with the time and interest to collaborate on each one and I can only drag around the same group of editors I know respond reliably to so many articles before it just becomes... a drag.

I was wondering if you would be up to taking a look at some of my suggested changes on a few articles by any chance. CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for message. I there a list of articles needing attention? I tend to clean up, rather than make major changes and corrections. Pol098 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like I have four currently open Request Edits:[19][20][21][22]. Most of them are pretty small. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Data Execution Protection "limitations"[edit]

Pol098, your edit completely lost the meaning of the Limitations section. There is nothing unusual about code being executed at runtime, that's the definition of runtime. The salient point about JIT compilation is that the new code is created at runtime, and you completely removed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. An obvious blooper - rather shocking that it's lasted since 2011. Obviously "code is executed at runtime" - that's what it's for. Having written some nasty self-modifying code myself, I do know better. Have changed it to "Where code is written and executed at runtime".Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Austin 40 hp[edit]

1. Hi, thank you for your edits. Are you aware that before manufacturers display new products to the general public they may display them to select groups. e.g. Potential customers and dealers. Dealers. Have a nice day, Eddaido (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

2. You are persisting in changing a correct spelling of a word ignoring Austin 40 my corrections. Why on earth are you doing this!! Eddaido (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You had previously made a comment on my change to wording on Austin 40 hp that you consider, correctly I think, gives a wrong impression; thanks. But you have recently introduced a misspelling in a word which is not spelt differently transatlantically, with an edit summary implying that the edit was due to national differences; that made me think of something like "liter" (I didn't introduce such a spelling, but it does happen that one editor gets accidentally considered responsible for another's edit). This can happen once in error, but the same edit was repeated with the same misleading summary. There is clearly no national difference in this word; if you search for "supercede" on this Talk page, and in general Wikipedia article search (the old search does not find instances which are obfuscated to hide from spelling checkers; either use the beta search, or simply look up James Swan (financier) and Iowa Masonic Library and Museum, also summaries near top of the Iowa article) you will find that those who insist on the "c" spelling are all concerned with US-related articles, presumably Usians! (but as verbatim quote, not correct spelling). If your intention was not in fact to introduce a subtle error (which dictionary did you use?), apologies for any suggestion that you did—I expect that's the case as you have made your comment to me instead of other changes to the article. If you continue to disagree we'll have to work it out, but otherwise I'll soon reintroduce the correct spelling. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Technical support scam has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Refs in the lead[edit]

Are not required but are definitely allowed. Please do not remove them from medical articles. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In general deleting references is undesirable, agreed. However, these were not unique references: the exact same text, with the same references, is in the body; duplicating the text is appropriate, but the references? While references in the introduction are indeed allowed (though discouraged), it seems pointless in this case. And the mention of medical articles is irrelevant; they are not particularly privileged in this respect. Pol098 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources#When not to cite: "Citations are often discouraged in the lead section of an article, ... although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." Pol098 (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ARA Alferez Sobral[edit]

ARA Alferez Sobral is actually used as a ocean going tug in Argentine service. Congratulations, you have a source that says aviso, suggest you look up what is meant by that description and maybe apply a little common sense instead of blindly reverting. WCMemail 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not so simple. She was indeed used as a tug, but not a dedicated tug; she was designated an aviso as a sort of general-purpose vessel for auxiliary tasks, including tugging, placing buoys, assisting other vessels and coastal regions, etc. Not, I would agree, a dispatch boat. This according to her 1982 second-in-command. I repeat, as stated by the source I cited, she was classified as an aviso, not remolcador (tug). This in 1982, I don't have reliable current information—Wikipedia Salish article says still in service, US source says "discarded by Argentine Navy in 1984, disposition unknown". You may have better information, but you don't cite any source so I can't check. With your permission I'll add this to the vessel's Talk page. Pol098 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC) P.S. the Argentine source above says the ship was still active 28 years after the war. Pol098 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


Sir -- I added a section at the end of the first part of Nerd because it had cited the term's use at MIT "as early as 1971." I was a freshman in 1969 and we used the term in 1969 quite certainly -- and we NEVER spelled it other than "gnurd." I can plainly recall conversations as a new freshman with pledge brothers -- in the fall of 1969 -- joking about calling other academically over-the-top freshmen "gnurds" and how it was not polite. Also -- while the content is protected because it is a secret fraternity and the minutes of our meetings are equally secret, I did look at old minutes after I was initiated and recall minutes in 1966 referring to the chapter's scholarship chairman colloquially as "The Knurd", this time spelled with a "K."

Most importantly, the 1971 date is quite incorrect; the term was in common use at MIT absolutely as early as 1969 and almost unquestionably so in the mid-1960s there. Please contact me directly at for any clarification. As the Permanent Secretary of the MIT Class of 1973, I would like to think I have some credibility here! So if you want substantiation, I'll just put a bulletin out to the 900 living members and will be happy to produce 100 testimonials from classmates attesting to the accuracy of my memory.

Bob Sutton (added by Pol098: no WP signature; 01:26, 22 July 2015‎

Thanks, that's interesting. I personally am quite prepared to believe this. I'm quite happy for you to edit the aricle in any way you wish, and won't change it further. [Added: I see that you restored what I deleted, and someone else has already deleted it.] The problem is that Wikipedia relies on information supported by reliable sources; anything else is deprecated as WP:original research (OR) and subject to deletion if anyone wants to. Quite a lot of OR actually does get in and stays, and is arguably what makes Wikipedia so useful. The problem with gnerd is that it isn't very believable without some sort of evidence, and I expect someone else will delete anything unsourced about it. If that happens, you will need to find a source, which may be difficult. This discussion would be more useful in the nerd article Talk page where others can see it; if you want to copy this comment of mine there, please feel free. I'll put a note in the article's Talk, but won't copy what you said—I think it's bad manners to do this without your permission. Best wishes, Pol098 P.S. your summary says "is in frat. mtg minutes" - great, can you add a citation? The source doesn't have to be available online so long as in principle someone could go and check it. If you aren't sure how to add a reference, give me the information and I'll add it. (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Bob, credibility is not the problem here; verifiability, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, is. It doesn't matter who you are or what you may have in your filing cabinet; if it is not verifiable by any reader, online or at least at their local library, it cannot appear here. General Ization Talk 12:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
People will probably disagree on how easily accessible a source needs to be; guidlne WP:SOURCEACCESS says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." Pol098 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course. That pertains to the accessibility of published sources. But I think we can agree that if the only way to verify this information is to knock on Bob's door and ask to look in his filing cabinet, it is, for all intents and purposes, unpublished and unverifiable from a Wikipedia policy perspective. If, on the other hand, the minutes of the fraternity are maintained in some repository at MIT, and a specific file, microfiche page or other document locator can be provided to locate this information, that would be a verifiable source. General Ization Talk 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Blog postings are not a RS for problems with a company. I reverted the entire series of edits, but some of the material may be salvageable. I will take a closer look in a day or two, or you may want to. Especially for negative material, it is fairer--and also more effective--to limit the references to the best ones available about which there can be no question. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement in essentials and most details about the iYogi article. I've commented in detail on the on the iYogi Talk page, as I think it's of general interest. I'm quite happy to discuss here too if you think it relevant, of course. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about IHS (schools)[edit]

[Edited to trim] Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IHS (schools) , notified by North of Eden, 18:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC) (I agreed with deletion).

Thanks for letting me know. I have no objection to deleting IHS (schools). Most of the "XYZ (schools)" and "XYZ (high schools)" articles in my opinion should simply be deleted (they're just lists of linked articles with no actual content; the links might belong in "XYZ (disambiguation)" if the linked articles support the general use of the initials per WP:DABABBREV). Pol098 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC) [edited for clarity 27 October 2015]

Technical support scam has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and it appears to include material copied directly from

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health[edit]

Hello Pol098,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have posted an objection for now, and will reword. On the article's Talk page I had already posted in response to the copvio notice:

Copyright: I have deliberately quoted the journal's objectives verbatim from its Web site, considering this to be the most accurate and uncontentious way to provide this information, and being of the opinion that this is fair use. If it is considered inappropriate I will paraphrase it. Pol098 (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why was this simply ignored? Among the responses suggested by the copyvio template is response in article Talk (I would suggest that CorenSearchBot was in error in this case, though this may not turn out to be the consensus). Pol098 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some deleted comments[edit]

Recent comments deleted for brevity,see here for original (from section "DFQ"). Deletion of "Runtime error 200" proposed (I agreed). Deletion of "Zuism" as redirect proposed; withdrawn per Talk:Zuism. Very long boilerplate criticism of non-summarised edit of Prey (software) by User:bojo1498; I responded that I often don't summarise an edit tagged as minor, particularly in a group of edits. Pol098 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Pol098. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Bananasoldier (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Pollocks) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Pollocks, Pol098!

Wikipedia editor JustAnIng just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I might recommend watching Pollocks, just to be sure if there becomes another page which could use Pollocks as a shorthand name, or just a name in general, it could be converted into a disambiguation page.

To reply, leave a comment on JustAnIng's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for comment. I don't think "pollocks", in plural, is likely to be linked; the fish, people's surnames, and other items in Pollock (disambiguation) are unlikely to be linked in plural. The most likely use of the word is probably the toy museum. [Unless you object I'll probably trim some of the boilerplate text of your message, to limit the size of this page.] Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


Mrs. B.'s plagiarism is attested by actual cited quotations in the text! Please don't try to paint it out: your edits on the article, especially now that I've started a discussion on the matter, are verging on edit-warring. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen my latest additions. I agree that modern commentators unanimously talk of plagiarism; by modern standards that is quite correct. What I'm trying to get across is that this, while it certainly happened, was normal for the time, as biographer Hughes clearly says. I'm not trying to "defend" Beeton, but to put events in the context of their time. I haven't heard of any complaints or lawsuits from the time, though I expect some people commented. Also, Beeton didn't systematically try to hide her sources (see my recent addition). Nowadays someone who copies ideas is criticised; Beeton was largely a person of her time. I haven't been simply reverting, but adding sourced material, in the expectation that it would be generally acceptable. I'll continue this on Talk: Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Floating armoury[edit]

Hi, I'm Chris troutman. Pol098, thanks for creating Floating armoury!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There are good sources online for this subject and you've made a really half-hearted effort.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have tagged what I wrote as a stub, which I usually do in these cases, I just forgot (have now done so). If an article is needed on a subject I don't know, which I usually discover by trying to read up on something and find it's not there, I often create a stub (a less than half-hearted effort) as a nucleus for others to expand on. I'm surprised it didn't exist, it's been a notable subject for a few years. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Alcock and Brown[edit]

Hi - thanks for your contribution on Alcock & Brown - I have however reverted it. The flight was undertaken in 1919 when the entirety of the island of Ireland was part of the UK, and there was no such thing as the Irish Republic (or Éire), which was only founded in 1937. By the same token one would not say the Tsars lived in the Soviet Union or that Hitler ruled from Berlin, East Germany; this is called an anachronism. Thanks Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Salem (supertanker)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Salem (supertanker) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unreferenced article alleging criminal activity (WP:IAR)
[Sources that had been deleted reinstated, article not deleted. Pol098 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)]


The appreciation in the gold Norse-American medal isn't really due to its melt value, which is less than a thousand dollars. It's that there is a very limited supply, and considerable demand. In 1925, it sold for about double its melt value, today it is maybe 50 times its melt value. Your point would be more applicable to, say, a common $20 gold piece which now sells for about $1300 or so because of the metal. So I'm not sure your edits fully state the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. My point is that the text originally said that the gold medals cost a lot more than the silver or bronze. This is a statement of the absolutely obvious; they did even when issued. What is meant (and is clear from the original and current prices stated later in the article) is that $100 invested in gold medals at issue would be worth vastly more now than the same $100 invested in silver or bronze medals; the $100 has appreciated a great deal more in value. I'm not too concerned about the exact words used (in my opinion my wording is both clear and concise, but maybe it could be improved upon), but to say that gold costs more than silver is banal and not what is meant. In fact, the original wording about the cost was trivially true and referred to the bullion value; my wording is intended to mean the exact opposite. I think we actually have the same idea; it's a matter of expressing it clearly. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC) [Have since made small changes to wording of this comment for clarity.]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pol098. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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


You placed an "outdated" tag on this article in March. Have your concerns been addressed, or is there more to do?

Regards, Samsara 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I fixed your error ^_^[edit]

From what it looks like, Wtmitchell's ref name message from a month ago was causing the error in the page, so I just went ahead and nowiki'd it. Seems to have worked out, 'cause it didn't cut out the messages in between and merge his and yours together. Booyahhayoob (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had found a nowiki ... /nowiki missing from a couple of "ref" statements in a contribution, and thought I'd fixed it by editing and saving my previous version of the page - your edit probably beat me to it, as it was exactly the same as mine, and WP doesn't save a null edit! Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Wireless remote-control switch for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wireless remote-control switch 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/Wireless remote-control switch 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. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


I just removed the multiple issues template from this article, since it seemed directed mostly at the final section (which also had a separate template). That section wasn't OR, just inadequately referenced, and that has been addressed. However, the Praetorian Guard subsection still needs working on; I remember wondering how relevant it was to Sejanus in any case when I first read it. I don't know enough about the historical background (and suspect you may not) to go grubbing for adequate references but will leave it to you to decide which template would be suitable for that section.

Incidentally, I found it useful to have your multiple [citation needed] indications as a guide but, in an article where I once provided them in the past, another sniffy editor told me off and said a template was all that was needed. Is there a guideline on this? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the person to ask about removing this article's templates, as I haven't properly read or judged the article; I made changes to the wording but didn't otherwise engage with it, and don't have plans to return.

I didn't add any cns, someone else did. I don't know of any guideline about when to use inline and when to use a template (a guideline may exist, I don't know it). As you probably know if lots of references are needed in a section, you can use {{refimprove}} (or {{unreferenced}} if there are no references) with the "|section" parameter at the top; but you might prefer to single out a number of individual statements. There's also a {{citation needed span}}, which displays the text you're identifying as uncited in a lighter colour. This is very rarely used[citation needed], but there's no actual reason not to use it.

Another thing you can do is to add a reason; for most browsers the reason is displayed when you hover the mouse on the citation needed—the one at the end of this paragraph is done like that. If you put something like "for the entire paragraph", remember that others may add to the paragraph or add a paragraph break.[citation needed] HTH and best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)