User talk:Pi Delport

Iron Savior (album)

Hello, I was adding fair use rationales to album cover images when I was blocked and told I couldn't do that because the article about the album had to specifically mention the album cover's artwork. I went and put in mentions of the artwork in some of the articles, like Iron Savior (album), but you removed it as POV, which apparently may lead to the deletion of the image (which I think is ridiculous and unnecessary). --Strangerer (Talk) 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Who told you this? :) I'm pretty sure it's a mistake: you don't need to comment on the album cover if it's used as part of identifying the subject of the article. --Piet Delport 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

inconsistent removal of dab page "see also" sections

What's up with your inconsistency (hypocracy) in deleting "see also" sections from dab pages? This edit to Vampire (disambiguation) shows you leaving in the links to Vamp (a root word of "vampire") yet on other pages, like Inner space and Outer space (disambiguation), you remove the links to the basic words of inner and outer (which I have since restored). Why? These aid in dab page navigation. Please don't remove them! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was inconsistent: Vamp is a plausible destination for "Vampire"; Inner and Outer are not plausible destinations for "Inner space" and "Outer space".

This is how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, work constructively towards changing it: please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Piet Delport 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you seriously unable to comprehend how one can get "inner space" from "inner"? Yet you (or others--who knows now since you're all the same incessant gang) seem to think Im and Pact don't deserve to be linked to on Impact (in its "See also" section). More inconsistent, contradictory hypocracy... Hard to "work constructively towards changing it" when the people involved don't have a clue as to how linguistics works... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Im and Pact should not be linked from Impact. You alone are the only person that seems to think it should. --Piet Delport 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course why? You have continually failed to provide reasons while I, on the other hand, have provided numerous reasons constantly. <blink> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The converse is true: your reasons have consistently been revealed baseless, and countered, by a growing crowd of editors impacted by your loose cannon editing.

Your refusal to accept this and move on is causing all this trouble. --Piet Delport 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To tag in on this one; there is an ongoing RfC on Eep that has led to a number of blocks. if you would like to give your comments you are more than welcome to. Thanks -Catneven 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

<eyeroll> Typical gang-up-on mentality, as usual... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called consensus. Your personal beliefs do not give you license to override everyone else, ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and engage in disruptive editing. --Piet Delport 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure they do; it's called ignore all rules and consensus can change. Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read what "Ignore all rules" does not mean, and Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules".

The IAR policy gives you a license to improve Wikipedia, not disrupt it and ignore consensus. --Piet Delport 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over image sizes

I have to admit that your desire to edit war on Thread (computer science) over an image size is...crazy.

Since you want to reference the MoS, here's something for you to chew on:

However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ...On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

I certainly contend that "Thread" is much more readable with a larger image and it, doubly, serves as the lead image. I see two compelling reasons to set an image size against your one reason for concern about the antiquated 800x600 resolution. Cburnett 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war? I'm sorry, i assure you that was absolutely not my intention. I was following the guidelines in what appeared to be a routine way.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to rely on users' preferred image sizes: the 300 pixel image seems too large over here, and will surely seem too small on higher resolutions. I can definitely understand picking a specific good size to fit a raster image, but this is a scalable SVG; there should be no reason to prefer a specific fixed resolution.

If you still feel strongly about setting it, though, i won't stop you. --Piet Delport 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of your help with the mystery page, both in editing and offering solutions, I award you this barnstar. Catneven 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. --Piet Delport 00:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Adventures Unlimited

Why is the addition of these links in the "see also" section "not pertinent" despite such links being "pertinent" on name dabs like John Winston and other "personal name" articles? Hypocrisy... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They aren't: you added them to John Winston. --Piet Delport 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please desist in your repeated removal of other people's comments from discussions. Uncle G 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not removing your comments, i'm undoing your unnecessary and non-standard reformatting of the entire discussion. Please add your comment to the discussion normally. --Piet Delport 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are ill-informed about what is standard. You erroneously think that colons are the one "normal" format. That is wrong. My comment was added perfectly normally, moreover. I suggest that you gain more and wider experience of talk pages and learn more about what wiki markup actually results in. There are many places where asterisks are the norm, as well as good reasons for large discussion pages to use asterisks in preference to colons. Uncle G 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not ill-informed about the talk page guidelines: "Normally colons are used, not bullet points". The bullet usage on AfD and other specialized discussions do not extend to general talk page and noticeboard discussions.

With respect to your greater contribution history, this is a lame thing to cause a fuss about. --Piet Delport 10:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Context, for the record.) --Piet Delport 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Closures

I see you removed my sicp comment on closures. You say there is no reason to single out sicp, but if there are other books that explain implementation of closures, they could be added, why not? Also, the full text of sicp is online, this is in my humble opinion a useful thing to add. I understand your point, but I see no reason to remove an useful bit of information.190.31.67.222 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it were to be added, it would belong in the external links section instead of in the main article flow. (However, the current external links section is already in need of trimming: see Wikipedia is not a repository of links.). --Piet Delport 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue it is a far more important external link that most that there are right now. In fact most of the article could use trimming, there are far too many mentions on closures in every langugage. Maybe, if one wanted to keep this information, a separate article (Closures in various languages) could be added? Anyway, I see no point in not having a SICP mention anywhere in the article. 190.31.234.17 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

(in reply to User talk:DESiegel#Talk page redirects --Piet Delport)

Yes I do think that redirecting these was a good thing. Strictly speaking they weren't "orphaned" the relevant article pages had been converted into redirects to the newly created dab pages. Therefore i made the talk page redirects follow the article page redirects -- much simpler and cleaner than deleting them. Not a huge matter, and if you want to ask another admin to delete them, i'm not going to raise a fuss, but my feeling is that when an article page winds up converted to a redir, the most normal result is for its talk page to winds up with a matching redir to the corresponding talk page. DES ^(talk) 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant "orphaned" in the sense of Wikipedia:Orphan: the incoming links have been disambiguated.

Generally speaking, there is never a reason redirect a talk page somewhere just because the corresponding article redirects there: moving a (talk) page creates a redirect, but this is only to avoid breaking existing links. Once this motivation is removed (by disambiguating incoming links, and then creating a new redirect) there is no reason to keep the old talk redirect, and definitely no reason to change it as well. (Same as with other explicit redirect pages: their talk pages are content, or redlinks, not matching redirections.) --Piet Delport 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you don't object, i'll request them again. --Piet Delport 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pinion

Hi Piet:

I notice you changed the disambiguation page for Pinion to say "Flight feather, the outermost primary feathers on a bird's wing". However, this isn't worded correctly. While the article pointed to is indeed flight feather, the term pinion only refers to a handful of those feathers -- out of the dozens each bird has. Is there a problem with leaving the page as it was before the most recent change, with the term "Pinion" pointing to the flight feather article? I checked some other disambiguation pages, and they often show the same term used to point to multiple articles... (I won't change it back until we've agreed on what will work best.) MeegsC | Talk 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; thanks for pointing it out. I made the change mostly in passing, to avoid piping (which is discouraged on disambiguation targets).

I changed the entry to read Pinions, the outermost flight feathers on a bird's wing: i hope that's OK. (I also added an entry for Pinioning, while there.) --Piet Delport 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I didn't know about piping being discouraged on disambiguation pages, so thanks for correcting that... MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help. :) --Piet Delport 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mystery (disambiguation)

Regarding your reversion, I tried linking to the relevant articles, but you removed them! Then I made a list of mystery-related television shows and it was deleted! Now I made a category for such shows and you remove the link to it and tell me to link to the relevant articles! Uh, hello--contradiction/hypocrisy, anyone?! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity; i meant "add the category link to the relevant articles", instead of to the disambiguation page, (as implied by "not for topical navigation"). --Piet Delport 15:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you bothered to actually go to the category you would see the articles already are categorized (the correct term, incidentally) there, obviously. However, the link between that category and making the connection to "mystery" is not established. Do I need to add the category to mystery or will you revert that too? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You can try, but it's tenuous: don't be surprised if it's among the first links to be removed during cleanup.

If a Mystery television article ever gets created, that would be the place to put it. (Compare Mystery film.) --Piet Delport 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

How is making comments on discussion pages vandalism? Perhaps you should learn how to do your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.125 (talk • contribs)

My user page is not a discussion page.

Your comments, such as "your posting has a lack of talent" and "metal fans are idiots", have no relevance or value to discussions about improving Wikipedia articles: this kind of deliberately unconstructive behavior is considered to be Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Piet Delport 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, your user talk page tells me all i need to know about your character. Buh bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.125 (talk • contribs)

tagging redirects

Hi Piet,

When you're retagging redirects, can you please consider whether the tag should be added or substituted for the present tag? In my opinion, a redirect from lower case to a disambiguation page should be tagged with both {{R from lowercase}} and {{R to disambiguation page}}, rather than substituting one for the other, as you did here.

Cheers, Hesperian 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't, actually: {{R to disambiguation page}} is for redirects that are used by links that should always point to the disambiguation page, to distinguish them from other redirects (whose incoming links should be disambiguated).

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages for more. --Piet Delport 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point in general, but in this specific case you're bidding against yourself. Coast banksia redirects to Coast Banksia, which is a disambiguation page. Where do you suppose the former should redirect, if not to the latter? My view is that Coast banksia quite properly redirects to the disambiguation page at Coast Banksia, and so {{R to disambiguation page}} should have remained. Hesperian 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Coast banksia should redirect to Coast Banksia, but it should not be tagged with {{R to disambiguation page}}. As the guidelines and template documentation explains, the tag would only be for Coast Banksia (disambiguation), used to indicate a deliberate link to the disambiguation page.

In other words, {{R to disambiguation page}} is not for any redirect that happens to go to a disambiguation page, despite what the name might have one guess. --Piet Delport 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. The documentation is less than crystal-clear, but then again I suppose the concept is quite difficult to explain. Thanks for your time, and carry on. Hesperian 04:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, yeah, and the template name doesn't help: it should probably be renamed. --Piet Delport 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To what? "Dedicated links to disambiguation pages"? "Deliberate links to disambiguation pages"? "Self-evident links to disambiguation pages"? If we can agree on an appropriate title, I'll sort it out right away. Hesperian 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty high-impact change; i started a discussion over at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation talk page. --Piet Delport 05:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dylan (disambiguation)

Hi! Thanks for the note on my page, I should have remembered that - thanks for pointing out my daft confusion! Cheers, Lion King 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Piet Delport 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffalo

Minor point: I reverted your removal of the para spacing in this DP as I assume it wasn't intentional. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was quite intentional: why have excess whitespace on a disambiguation page? --Piet Delport 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary topic on Look.

Umm, I thought primary topic was for pages with the (disambiguation) as part of the title, and that it is the topic that you would end up on if you don't type this part of it. After all, the reason for moving it away from the rest of the topics is because it's unlikely that the primary topic is what is looked for. The way I understand WP:MOSDAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic is that Visual perception would be the primary topic of Look (disambiguation) if Look redirected to Visual perception. Taemyr 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's not strictly a primary topic according to the usual titling conventions, but i think it does qualify as a "well-known meaning that's probably not what they are looking for".

The edit was mainly to avoid mixing it with the other links, so i'm not set on it—in fact, looking at the page again, it should probably be a "see also". What do you think? —Piet Delport 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason we can know that the primary meaning is not what is looked for is because the dab page title includes the (disambiguation) part. Which means that the user have explicitly been avoiding the primary topic article. This is not the case on Look. While I can agree that most users can be expected to know what look means, they might be seeking the look article for answers to questions like; "What part of the prain is engaged when I look at something?" The article fits poorly in the "see also" section, and is clearly a relevant meaning of the word look, so I see no strong argument for separating it from the other articles. Especially since Look is a fairly small dab. Taemyr 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would they search for "look", instead of "vision" (or "brain" for that matter :)?

WP:POPE. "Look" is named as one of the 850 most common words. "vision" is not. A user might indeed type brain, if he follows the link from the introduction he will end up on visual perception. Taemyr 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, i think the argument for not mixing the entry is strong: "look" is not an ambiguous title for Visual perception, but a related term; it interrupts the flow of the other entries (which are all things named "look") to put "visual perception" in the middle of them. I think it reads much better either before or after them (whether as an entry, top link, "see also", or whatever). —Piet Delport 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The verb to look means engaging in Visual perception. As such I feel that more people would type in look in this context than are interested in LOOK Magazine. Especially since Looking redirects to Look.

A possible solution is to change Looking to point to Visual perception(no other articles on this dab fits). And link to visual perception via this redirect.Taemyr 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is Catholic is about avoiding assumption and systematic bias; i don't see too much relevance here.
I don't think the word frequency affects the situation much; even someone not using "vision" is still probably going to use "looking" if they're looking for information about looking. (I fully agree about the redirect, and changed it to Visual perception; nice spotting.)
Anyway, i'm not advocating removing Visual perception; just saying it shouldn't be lost in the middle of a list of unrelated senses of the word "look". —Piet Delport 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ecstasy

Thanks for your advice, I'll learn from it. Thaurisil^t_c 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Always good to have someone help out with disambiguation pages. :) —Piet Delport 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

R3 and new template

Hi Piet. I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD R3 expansion that you had created {{db-redirmisnomer}}, but I'm not sure it is really needed. This is because I've updated {{db-redirtypo}} to apply to the whole criterion, to make things easier. Would you mind if I redirect the misnomer template to the typo template? Picaroon (Talk) 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks, replied there. —Piet Delport 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Daniel Bernstein.jpg)

Bot notification

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again? It looks like the replacement this time (Image:Daniel Bernstein priv.jpg) is public domain, though; i requested deletion of the non-free one. —Piet Delport 21:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanctity's demo articles

I removed your merge templates from Sanctity's demos for the following reasons.

• Having track listings and album details on the main artist's page makes the page look unproffesional.
• Sanctity is a notable band, and therfore demos done by it are notable.
• Each page provides enough detail about the demo's to warrant having an article.
• The pages provide extra details about Sanctity's accession to a record label and an album.

Thnaks for reading. Also, I am going on holiday, so I will not be able to respond quickly to anything you do during that time. Hole in the wall 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the album notability guidelines i mentioned: Sanctity being a notable band does not imply that the demos warrant articles. They never saw significant release, and lack independent coverage; the articles are highly unlikely to ever grow beyond their present stub status.

There is nothing "unprofessional" about having discographies on artist pages: it's standard practice. (Length is not a problem; the content can overflow into a discography article.) —Piet Delport 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged them into Sanctity discography; see Talk:Sanctity (band)#Discography. —Piet Delport 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I may not agree with you, you are admin, and I am not, and as Wikipedia is not a democracy, you superceed me. I will thank you however for responding to my notice. I will not revert the changes. Hole in the wall 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, i'm just a regular user. :)

I want to make it clear that even if i was an admin, i would not supersede you: when people say Wikipedia isn't a democracy, they mean that it's based on consensus, not voting. This means that decisions should basically be unanimous: a majority opinion is not enough to force something through. No admin (or any other user) is above this; admins are just users who volunteer their time to take responsibility for more maintenance than regular users do.

Now, i still stand by my edits, and believe they're in accord with the guidelines (which should reflect consensus), but if you've reviewed them and disagree, we should take the discussion to the talk page, get some outside opinion if necessary, and go from there. —Piet Delport 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've just got back from holiday. I've been thinking about this and the way you have done the demo's in the discography page removes alot of the information that was within the demo's articles... Would it be possible to include that information somehow? (For the record, I have absolutely no inetention of starting and edit war. Hole in the wall 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the only thing i recall leaving out was a sentence or two of unsourced description.

What do you propose? —Piet Delport 2007-08-14 02:23

Mozilla developers are Free software programmers

Hi Piet. I removed the category Free software programmers from Jamie Zawinski as the remaining category Mozilla developers is a sub-category of Free software programmers. I suggest to list every article only in the “deepest” category which fits. --mms 13:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in general; however, Jamie Zawinski has contributed significantly outside of Mozilla too. In this case, i believe both categories are appropriate. —Piet Delport 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TSL color space

Hi Piet. In the TSL color space article I corrected the formula for calculation of the T, tint value, to use the sign of the ratio of r'/g' rather than the sign of g' to determine the value to add to the arctan term. Pete k 1948 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Do you have a good reference for the formula, by any chance? The article is rather conspicuously lacking one... —Piet Delport 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S., Welcome to Wikipedia! —Piet Delport 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to back out the change to the TSL color space entry; the earlier version matches the algorithm described by its originators, Terrillon and Akamatsu. A reference to their paper, for which a complete .pdf version is available via citeseer, has been added to the entry. Pete k 1948 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. —Piet Delport 01:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Accumulate and fire

Dear Piet Delport,

You reverted my edit on August 18th, commenting simply in your edit "please, that is not how it works: address the issue first, then remove the tag." I would like to note that I did indeed address the issue shortly after making my edit, as can be noted by the edit made on the Talk page dated August 13th, five days prior your 2nd revert, which spans some three paragraphs. If you wish to maintain your demand for notability in spite of what I have stated to the contrary, this is fine, and I do not take offense at that. I do, however, take offense at you undoing my change, stating simply the following:

Firstly, that you are correct and I am not. ("Please, this is not how it works.") Strictly speaking, this statement means nothing.

Secondly, you comment that I should "address the issue first." I wrote three paragraphs when I made my edit, so excuse me if I feel offended that you neglected them (which is evident in both this request and in your negligence with regard to the stub tag that I pointed out in my post).

Thus, I feel that it is you who should address the issue first, then revert the edit. If you wish to demand notability and have a reason, I am fine with that, and I am sure we can reason things through. If, however, you resolve that this is the most constructive form of reply, then I shall fire off a request for arbitration swiftly. In the meantime, I shall let your notability tag stand, lest a revert war occur. However, I would appreciate it if you did give a reply addressing the issue on the talk page of the edit. -66.245.56.12 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the unswiftness; i started replying before restoring the tag, but got pulled away for a few hours. I might not always respond promptly, but i won't ignore your comments.

As for my edit summary:

• I did not imply anything about who's "correct" or not; i'm referring to how the tag and its process work.
• With "address the issue", i mean establishing notability. The talk page discussion is good, but it does not justify removing the tag.

As for the stub tag, i removed it intentionally: the article is on the big side for a stub. (Less importantly, the tag is a footer, not a header.)

Finally, it's not "my" demand: the requirement is Wikipedia's (and i'm not the first editor to bring it up). —Piet Delport 2007-08-19 06:29 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:29:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC).