User talk:Susurrus

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

Hello Susurrus and welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you've been around for a week already, and no welcome! I think we must be getting lax. Anyway, I hope you decide to stay. If you do, tell us something about yourself on your user page. Are you Australian? If so, add yourself to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia -- I like to keep track of everyone. Have fun. -- Tim Starling 11:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Tim, and thanks for your welcome. I am glad to be here. I have added my name to the list of Australian users as per your request, and I have added a little bit of biographical information onto my user page. -- Susurrus.

Yes, I've noticed the problem with the search feature. Personally, I've just been using the "go" button for most things, and the google search where that isn't enough. The usual way to report a problem like this is to email wikitech-l -- see Wikipedia:Mailing lists. I'll do it myself if you want. -- Tim Starling 23:53 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

If you would do that for me, that would be great! In the meantime, thanks for the tips for workarounds. -- Susurrus

There's been some discussion of this at the Village pump, and it was then moved to Wikipedia talk:Searching. To sum up, it was deliberately turned off to try to speed up the server performance, but nobody bothered to put a sign on there saying it wouldn't work. :-\ -- John Owens 09:24 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

It's not quite that easy to block a logged in user. Ordinary sysops like myself can block IP addresses, but there's no simple way to find out the IP address of a logged in user. There's about 50 users at my rank. Only the developers (of which there are 5) can ban a user by username, or find out their IP address. Most of the developers only read the mailing lists, they don't watch RC (recent changes). What we would usually do in a case like this is revert whatever the annoying user does for a while before we take further action.

In the future, report things like this to Problem users or Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, rather than to me. -- Tim Starling 00:42 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Incidentally Susurrus, the user you were worried about doesn't seem to have made any edits since early February, so I don't think there's anything to worry about. --Camembert
Thanks, Tim. -- Susurrus

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney[edit]

Want to join? I'm still formulating policy. Incidently, there is a message board Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, Ta, but I think I'll be right for now. =) --Susurrus 08:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good changes on Origins of the American Civil War. 172 01:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, 172. =) --Susurrus 05:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image copyright[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Panopticon.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwin Stearns | Talk 17:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, Edwin. I'm claiming fair use on that one, as a straightforward photographic reproduction of a historical document. --Susurrus 23:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Portuguese language[edit]

Hello. I see you've been doing some work in the Portuguese language article. I'm curious about something, so I thought maybe I could ask you. Right now, there's a part at the Grammar section that reads "Portuguese is considered the third hardest language to learn, after Chinese, and Japanese, because of its grammar, and grammar variation especially in standard European Portuguese". Now, I know it wasn't really you who added that. It was user: (a Portuguese user, apparently).

Anyway, I'd like to know if you have any idea of the reliability of that information. Looks like it's been there in the article for some 4 days already, and nobody took it away (just some minor alterations), so maybe it's really true. I don't doubt it, if you're wondering. I actually agree with that statement, despite maybe the European part. All I want to know is if it's well, really "true". If it's somewhat reliable or if it's just that user's assumption.

I understand if you really don't know. I'm just curious anyway. =]

Thank you.--Kaonashi 23:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Kaonashi. You should really ask it on the Portuguese language's Discussion page, however. I was just reading the Portuguese language article for pleasure, and am not really an expert on Portuguese. --Susurrus 01:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eh, yeah, you're right. I'm sorry, though. My bad. Thought maybe you knew a thing or two, but that's okay. I'll see if I ask it there on that talk page now. Thanks for your attention. =] --Kaonashi 02:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's okay. --Susurrus 02:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CPU cache address translation update[edit]

Hi Susurrus.

I rewrote the first bit of address translation. Could you take a look and tell me if I've clarified the explanation at all?

Thanks. Iain McClatchie 00:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

I haven't tried to look at the whole section right now. From what I've seen it's getting better. But the basic problem is introducing technical terms without properly unpacking, defining, or at least linking to, them. For example, what is 'virtual tagging'? --Susurrus 23:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Bentham article[edit]

Hi I was just going through WP:CP#September_29 and I noticed that Jeremy Bentham has been listed as a copyvio of the biography at the UCL site . If you did copy this from there can you ask permission from Irena Nicoll (email ) if they don't give permission the article will need to be redrafted. I've also informed User_talk:Zanimum, User_talk:Stochata, and User_talk:Solipsist who seem interested in the article maybe you could collabarate on a redraft. Cheers Arniep 00:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So redrafted, with apologies. --Susurrus 05:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi I notice you deleted some things that might be worth including in your redraft, it might be worth emailing the person above, it could be they wouldn't mind you using it at all. Arniep 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I see no need to try to get someone's permission to use the passage as is. If you want to re-include the information, you could always reword it yourself. --Susurrus 05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Democracy copyright sentence[edit]

Hello, Susurrus. Thanks for spotting that copyright problem in Democracy. I've fixed it by rewording the sentence.

It's not a big deal, but you don't really need to list items on Wikipedia:Copyright problems if they can easily be fixed — only if the whole article and all its previous revisions are copyright, so that the page needs to be deleted. If one small part needs rewriting, you can do it yourself, or leave a message on the article's Talk page.

Stephen Turner 12:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. --Susurrus 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Titles in electorates[edit]



Would you like to give feedback on the use of titles in electorates?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates#Titles in member lists

-- Newhoggy | Talk 04:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation. I have placed my two cents' worth in that talk section, but it is not an issue about which I feel strongly. --Susurrus 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hume.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Hume.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kevin_b_er 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked for the entry for Hume.jpg on the Images and Media for Deletion page and found no listing. But I assume that this image is listed for deletion because there is now a better image currently linked to on the article on David Hume. I have updated the PD tag of Hume.jpg to PD-art, but beyond that, if the hive mind thinks it should be deleted, let it do it. --Susurrus 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I created Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_July_27 but did not include it into the main page. Its there now, however. Kevin_b_er 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising FAR[edit]

Warsaw Uprising has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

nadav 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FAR notice[edit]

A Tale of a Tub has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Athanasius Kircher FAR[edit]

Athanasius Kircher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript at FAR[edit]

Voynich Manuscript has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of semi-protection template from Love[edit]

Hi Susurrus, I've reverted your recent change to Love. In your edit summary you suggested that the semi-protection template was vandalism. In fact that page is semi-protected, so the template is appropriate. Its one of the standard and long-standing templates used to denote the status of a page. Best, Gwernol 07:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, there seems to have been a malfunction here. When I viewed this article, there was a clear piece of vandalism at the top of the article saying, in bold, something like i love you nadia. When I clicked on the article to view the source, no such text appeared, so I thought that somebody else must have already reverted it. But when I moved back to the page and refreshed it, the text still appeared. I saw this template saying "pp-semi-vandalism|small=yes", and two things about it suggested that it was responsible for the vandalism. First, it just looked like it said "semi-vandalism" inside, as though the creator jokingly intended the graffiti only to be semi-vandalism because it was actually according to the theme of love. Second, when I deleted it and then viewed the preview of the document, the vandalism had disappeared. Now you are telling me that this template has something to do with the fact that the page has been semi-protected. I therefore infer from context that "pp" stands for "protected page", "semi" modifies "protected" rather than "vandalism" (and that's not very clear phrasing), and I presume "vandalism" is somehow the reason why the page has been protected. Further, there is no notice of semi-protection on this page other than the icon in the upper-right-hand corner of the screen. I would have thought that that icon appeared automatically when an administrator semi-protected the page. Here, you seem to be saying that this template is the only thing that does semi-protect the page. This means that any established user, like me, can either semi-protect or un-semi-protect the page at will. I would have thought that that was giving us a little too much power, but at least it doesn't seem to be doing that badly. --Susurrus (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding or removing the semi-protection tag does not change the protection status of the page. The tag simply puts the lock symbol onto the top-right hand corner of the page. So removing the tag removes the lock symbol from the page. Only administrators can protect and unprotect pages. You can find out more about protection at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Best, Gwernol 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Seems to me that the effects of a template like that ought to be automatically built into the protection status of a page, or at least not be editable by a non-administrator, but then again, there's always the next version of the software to iron out kinks... --Susurrus (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:James Mill.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:James Mill.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It will be fine to delete it, thanks. --Susurrus (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pearl and the Puppets[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Pearl and the Puppets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. pablohablo. 11:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

<<Shrug.>> Anybody who bothers to read the list of my contributions knows that I don't usually create articles, and I have no intention of trying to justify keeping an article that I created purely because I saw a vacuum there for it. Nevertheless, I find this notice confrontational enough that I will add just enough to the article to justify why I bothered to create the stub. --Susurrus (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
<<Shrug all you like.>> - what was notable about this band in the original stub? That they are a band, or that they are Scottish? pablohablo. 11:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"The original stub"--as in, what I have put there now is already good enough to keep it? Very petty for such a lengthy and overbearing notice. --Susurrus (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No. "The original stub" as in the page that I tagged for speedy deletion. pablohablo. 12:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is academic, considering that you have marked the current article for speedy deletion anyway. Although your comment on same is hardly reassuring that you are doing it because of CSD A7. --Susurrus (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this article because it didn't satisfy the notability guideline for musical topics, and for no other reason. Your addition (adding "just enough to the article to justify why I bothered to create the stub") didn't change that. An administrator will review the page and either decline or endorse the speedy deletion.
You may have found the notice above "confrontational" but it does contain quite a lot of information and links to the relevant policies, as well as instructions about what to do, and what not to do, if you disagree with the speedy deletion nomination. pablohablo. 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you have made your point by now. At least this is talking to a human being and not a riot act that looked like it was generated by a bot. --Susurrus (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that Pearl and the Puppets has been restored now by someone else, just like I knew it would. The phrase "I do like you" even comes up as a suggested search in Google after only typing in "I do". You don't get to be a Scottish band who writes a song played on an Australian commercial without being noteworthy. --Susurrus (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lola Montez source for rumor[edit]

Hello, I saw your comment at the talk page of Lola Monetz and left a reliable source if you want to add the rumor. If you need further assistance, let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cool! A positive message for once. =) I don't know when I will get around to that now, but it's good to see progress with that article. --Susurrus (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewe" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I (belatedly) thank you for granting me this right, although I must confess I don't know what I did to get it. Susurrus (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Spring Valley Juice[edit]

Please see Talk:Spring Valley Juice. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Military career of Julius Caesar for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Military career of Julius Caesar 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/Military career of Julius Caesar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 June[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) 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)