User talk:Splash/Archive18

Archives
Archive to end 1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006 18 September 2006 16 November 2006

How did you do it

A blank talk page.... seriously, how..... it looks so nice -- Tawker 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:) Not been editing much lately, so everything was old and I could just bundle it all away at once. Oh, and I like keeping the histories with the archives, so being able to do a full-blown 'move' is more-or-less a pre-requisite for me archiving. Splash - tk 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:German-American mobsters

Splash,

I hope I'm not distubing you, however Category:German-American mobsters has recently been nominated for deletion. I'm not sure if you remember, however it was originally deleted on December 30th for too few entries and was eventualy undeleted when the problem was resolved. As you've edited the category in the past regarding this issue, I was wondering if you might have some insight on the matter ? MadMax 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Input needed on Template:Sprotected

We have yet another brouhaha going on at Template:Sprotected. We once again have users who want to make the sprotected template so unobtrusive that it doesn't even states what sprotected means or why a page has been sprotected. Anyway. Input would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever

I've nominated it for deletion again. As a previous participant in the debate I thought you'd be interested. Duggy 1138 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

Somewhat crossposted from Template talk:Spam4im

There are a long list of templates that are protected forever now, lots of them "just in case."

• Neither Protection policy nor Semi-protection policy say this is acceptable.
• The High-risk templates guideline clearly doesn't apply to templates that should always use {{subst:}}. (Although the indef protection list clashes almost 100% with this.)

If you're feeling brave you could clean all this up in one hit...
152.91.9.144 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

Your trademark image has been updated, by the way. - 152.91.9.144 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UobArms.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:UobArms.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for my own comments on deleted user talk page

Hey Splash, long time no hear--so long I can't remember how I know you, but I have a general good feeling about you, long after the reasons why I know you have faded. (Funny how our mind works that way, huh?)

RE: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

Can you provide my last comments to User:XP when I called members of encyclopediadamatica lepers? You can email me the comments if you wish. Thanks in advance. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just checking in

You haven't edited in a while, just thought I'd pop in and say hi and hope everything was okay. Take it easy, Steve block Talk 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of AfDs that might interest you

Hi Splash. A persistent vandal who often uses IPs as sockpuppets decided on a new strategy and set up a couple of articles that really need to go. If you have a moment, I was wondering if you could look at Aga Khani and Islamic cults and comment on their AfD pages. Much appreciated -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a cow

I never saw a Purple Cow;

I never hope to See One;

But I can Tell you, Anyhow,

I'd rather See than Be One

Gelett Burgess. Don't be a stranger. Steve block Talk 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, good to hear from you. I've lately not had time to give to Wikipedia, between finishing my PhD (you can call me Dr. Splash) and working. That, and I'm not sure I was mollifying the inevitable conflicts properly, and the direction from the Foundation was/is becoming too control-freakish. In compensation, work is taking me into an area on which Wikipedia has an almost total absence of articles. In time, I may opt to overlook the "old articles bad, new articles worse" edicts from the Foundation, and write them. You know, making this one edit feels odd after a relatively long time away. It's odder because I've made a few typo-corrections while I've been using Wikipedia to learn about the lead-in to the new stuff for work and I've done those logged out, and it's strangely uncomfortable being logged in again. Anyway. Good work you've been doing on Superman (don't forget to unprotect it!). Hope the Wikimeet was fun! -Splash - tk 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice. It's good to see your name scroll by my watchlist again. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Doctor Splash, congratulations! Glad life is treating you well, and I'm sorry for dragging you back. The Wikimeet was interesting, let's say that. Yes, Superman is going okay, apart from the draconian FA rules. Apparently all cites have to be formatted the same and you can fail if you have too many blue years, whatever that means. But I'm griping, and you're well out of it. Look after yourself. Steve block Talk 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For Hijiri zaka

Tsuki no Misaki will become an article with enormous quantity. Therefore, I seek readers each of contents to refer to the end of the link. Could you please understand it.Tokyo Watcher 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

EffK and the ArbCom

Hi, Splash. Out of courtesy, I just want to let you know of this. There is a clear difference of opinion about whether or not someone may post on his talk page when banned, but most administrators seem to feel they may. At the time that EffK was banned, Sam Korn, who was then on the Committeee, said that if he continued to post that stuff on his talk page, his talk page could be protected. He never even hinted that the block should be extended. Even if there is a policy forbidding banned editors to post on their talk pages, an editor should not be penalized because an administrator gave him wrong information. EffK certainly believed he was allowed to post there. He knew that a consequence of continuing to post his "Str1977-is-a-Vatican-agent" theories could be that his page would be protected again; he did not know that his ban could be reset.

If he is allowed back, there are two possibilities:

1. He behaves himself, and stops posting his strange theories. (That's most unlikely, but I'm sure we agree that it would be an ideal solution.)
2. He continues the behaviour that got him blocked in the first place, and gets blocked again. That, I think, would be a better solution than the current extension of the ban, because it would not be unjust. He didn't know he was violating anything in his talk page posts. There are, however, remedies in place to prevent him from disrupting pages when he returns. He is aware of those remedies (indeed, I'd remind him again), and would therefore have nothing to complain about if he violated a ruling and got blocked.

I admit his talk page posts are not pleasant, but I've seen worse behaviour from people who didn't get blocked. He doens't engage in foul language or threats. And I am quite sure he did not create any sockpuppets during his ban. Musical Linguist 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

request for help explaining the difference between a redirect and a deletion

Good evening, Splash. I am having a terrible time explaining to a user that turning a page into a redirect is not the same as a deletion, that redirects to not require AFD decisions and that AFD decisions do not preclude the possibility of turning a page into a redirect in the future. I'm casting this request out to a couple of experienced admins to see if someone can explain it better than I have been doing. I can't seem to get the point across clearly. Could I impose on you to consider commenting at Talk:Bee's knees? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Rossami. I've been away, and so have rather missed the boat on your request, I fear. Still, things look pretty quiet over there now, so I guess I'll let sleeping dogs lie. Though I will probably have nightmares about that tag it's got on it. I'm pretty sure it is self-contradictory on that particular article! Anyway, hope you're well. Splash - tk 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad you're back. While you were gone we basically lost the semi-protection fight. Hundreds of pages are now semi-protected semi-permanently and semi-invisibly. [1] Haukur 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that is unfortunate. I see, though, that we now have expiring (semi-)protection, which should at least lower the future rate of forgotten protections. Also encouragingly, we have a log somewhere that tells us what's protected at the moment. I wonder to myself whether my writing the original sprotection policy has been a net good or a net harm, though.

I wonder if we might look at some sort of rational, apolitical, but firm method for scrutinising the surviving protections as a matter of course rather than coincidence. I wonder what scope, and support, there is for some sort of WikiProject Protection to seek some body of people who'll offer to look at a few every day when they can, and maybe set 24 hour expiries on those they think should be released or something. Or perhaps that would just result in 24 hour trials-by-fire. Splash - tk 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite true, the expiring feature is a positive step. I hope we can foster a culture where (semi)-protections with indefinite expiration are the exception and not the rule. And changing an indefinite protection to a time-limited one is a nice soft way of getting rid of protection with less risk of offending the admin who applied it. I hadn't thought of that. Haukur 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony

Hello Doctor :),

The day after I finally surrender, and mournfully add your name to WP:MW, you return! :) If I had known cosmic forces would so operate, I would have added you months ago! :) Admiringly, Xoloz 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about that, coincidence it is indeed. For double irony, I opted to edit today having recently lost my home internet connection for some not yet determined period! Glad to see you're around. Splash - tk 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Glad to see a familiar face around. You've missed quite a bit... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well spoken

Your User_talk:Durin entry that referenced 28 Days Later (faster way to let you know which one I meant than finding the diff.. grin) was very profound and well spoken. It ought to be incorporated into one of the many essays on what it means to be an admin if you ask me... Thanks for sharing. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lar, I'm glad you liked it. I think an alternative reaction is to view at as a little anti-egalitarian (can't non-admins do nearly all that stuff too?), but I think that, to admins, it probably has at least a grain of truth in it. If you think it useful as a thought, then you are probably better placed to find a home for it; I'm likely rather behind on my reading! Splash - tk 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For now: [2] till I find a better home, so it's not lost. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question

I have replied to your question on my RFA. Cheers, – Chacor 13:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist stuff

Sorry for the delay, I've been a bit busy in RL. I don't know about that page in your watchlist; as far as I know, PovWatch is not enabled or anything like that. It could be the server barfing as well, as there have been a few issues with data corruption lately. As for page creations; yes, they are now available to users on their watchlists. You can go delete some pages at CAT:CSD, and when you click on the delete tab, you'll see there's a "watch this page" link under the delete reason. That's relatively new. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple-input multiple-output communications

Hi there. Could you maybe take a look at this article and fix it up? It appears to have been rewritten completely and then vandalized. I know next to nothing about the subject and can't figure out which version is better, or which parts from the versions should be merged together to fix this article. Note that the external link appears to have been lost in the whole process. Thanks! Lupo 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow. Looks like I will finally have to do something about this... thanks for pointing it out. Splash - tk 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Suicide_City. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tornfalk 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

St. mary school massillon ohio

You removed the speedy delete tag saying that db-group doesn't apply to schools- well, db-school has gone; can we not speedy delete schools any more? I am pretty certain it does apply. In any case, your reason for a prod, "ultra-sparse info" is far, far worse than my tagging- being a stub is NOT a criteria for deletion. J Milburn 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there is basically no more information than is already in the article. If you disagree with the deletion under PROD, then you can remove the tag. Speedy deletion does not apply to schools, as the deletion of the tag you mention makes clear. It's basically impossible to delete a school article that is even half-way to being on the road towards locating viability. For more information, there's useful discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 9#Template:Db-school, where the closure statement is particularly informative. Splash - tk 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And please don't replace the tag again. Splash - tk 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have consulted with other editors (User:Snowolf and User:ScorpO) and they both agree with me that a school could fall under a7. Think about it- it is a group, and this group does not assert notability. I find it rather ironic that you are nitpicking with my choice of tags, when you insist that your prod reason is grounds for deletion. I am not going to retag as a speedy, but I request that you stick to decent reasoning for the prod, as is on it now. J Milburn 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that both are wrong. Schools have been added and removed from the criterion at least once, and their specialised template deleted. Many things are explicitly listed in the criterion; schools are not among them. I don't care what reasoning the prod tag uses. Splash - tk 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wiire

I am the one that tagged the article for CSD. I was more doing on the basis of web notability and I put it in during the middle of the edit war (bad timing I guess). From what I can gather, this edit war largely began because the parties all have some interest in the article topic, thewiire.com, and disagree on the representations presented in the article. In general, I think it doesn't qualify for web-notability at all and there seems to be a general feeling of just wanting to delete the article altogether amongst the warring parties, see the recent messages on the talk page. Just my two cents on the subject. Thanks for stepping in though, it was getting messy. Good luck with dealing with it. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in [3], I broadly agree with you. Splash - tk 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The natives are starting to get a bit restless on Talk:The Wiire. It may be time to remove the protect so there can be an AfD. Thanks! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I'll unprotect it now and then you can write the AfD tag when you pick this message up. (Posting this to make sure you see it). Splash - tk 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I took a nap and when I got back, it was deleted already...I'm guessing someone speedied it, haha. Oh well. Hopefully no one will be creating it again any time soon. Thanks. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well...let's see what happens. Splash - tk 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shumil

It's not the correct use of the {{db-histmerge}} tag, but basically the article was deleted as an uncontested prod, and recreated. Basically, I'm asking for the old history to be restored, and I can't really find another appropriate tag for that. --Sigma 7 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update; history undeletion done. Splash - tk 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unforgivable Trilogy

As far as I know the last delete was a speedy, so it's probably good to do the AfD this time around like you said. I just tend to do {{db-repost}} instead of AfDs on the second creations of deleted articles...possibly because I think the AfD nomination is lengthy and annoying:-P. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Aluminij

A tag has been placed on Aluminij, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jdchamp31 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jdchamp31 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as an admin deciding that it is not a valid speedy. Please take the matter to AfD. Let's just dismiss the suggestion that I'm a vandal shall we? Splash - tk 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Im not saying your a vandal im saying that the article has no relevance to wikipedia. One more revert and you will have violated the 3RR I am going to bring in a mediator to discuss this unless we can work it out. Just becasue your an admin doesnt mean you can revert my edits. Jdchamp31 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you misunderstand both the 3RR and how speedy deletion works. Speedy deletion tags do not demand that an admin deletes: they are a request for review, and this time it's the case that the relevant admin does not agree that it is sufficient to satisfy the relevant policy at WP:CSD. We can 'work it out' by you using WP:AfD instead of escalating threats. This is not a matter for mediation, I'm sorry to tell you. (Why can you revert my edits if I can't revert yours?)Splash - tk 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We will see if it is a matter for mediation I will consult the other admins.
      • Oh for goodness sake, just nominate it at WP:AFD and I'll produce a long list of reasons why it isn't going to be deleted. Splash - tk 18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Years of the 14th century in Ireland

My Hero,

Every so often, I still encounter questions that make me want to scream for help, and here's one. A longtime editor (User:Ardfern) is adding sourced, but minimal, stubs for every year in Irish history. Several were tagged for speedies, which they obviously weren't, so I redirected to the year in question. The editor asks nicely to allowed to continue his work -- do we have a precedent (RfC or something?) addressing the question of X in Y, where X is a series of years; and Y, a country? The approach seems excessively granular to me, but the editor has put at least a month's wiki-labor into this. Seeking your wisdom, Xoloz 17:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't recall an RfC (and looking there I find there is no archival system), but we do have the somewhat distressing Category:Years by country, which includes gems such as Category:Years in Wallis and Futuna, whose contents is solely Category:2007 in Wallis and Futuna whose contents is solely one article about the election they had last week. Splash - tk 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm thankful simply to have learned of these islands, Wallis and Futuna! :) It appears that "Years by Country" have been around for at least two years now, and I'd despise valuing some countries over others, so I'm not inclined to challenge the warren of articles and categories now established. Still, I wonder if anyone ever considered questioning this classification nightmare before it matured to its present state? Worshipfully, Xoloz 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Splish splash

Good to see you on my watchlist again. Marskell 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

..and splosh. Good to see you on my talk page again! Splash - tk 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good to see you back. I removed you from WP:MW. [4] hbdragon88 04:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya! Hope things are easier after your siesta. Splash - tk 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

St Legend's college - why delete?

Why do you want to delete the St Legend's College Invitational XI page? It is certainly not junk. How do I discuss this in the proposed for deletion link? I couldn't see it.

Looks like you've found the relevant place now. I would like it to be deleted because, whilst probably entertaining in the middle of Michaelmas Term, I'm quite sure it will fade away into the sunshine of Easter Term, and be long forgotten by the time the next academic year rolls around. Such ephemera are not encyclopedic, and Wikipedia does try to be. Splash - tk 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter term

With exams looming, I would enjoy nothing more than a spot of football on the backs. However, very diligently you spotted that football is not played in the easter term. But, let that stop us not. The page is soon to gain it's sister team, the St Legend's college internation X Cricket team. As multi-talented sports men (and women - all for equality) there is a cricket team starting up. The team has its place firmly stamped in the college's history, and is well known throughout the students of the university. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambs Parnell (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Mail

I just sent you an e-mail. Haukur 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it

Yes, please delete my userpage. hbdragon88 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! hbdragon88 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Splash - tk 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Libraries

I have the list already userified, as i could see where the discussion was heading. But before i do further work on it, I want to ask you if you think it would be politic/permissible to do some part of it as a list, eg the US. There certainly weren't enough elsewhere to justify it, but the US list included entries and branch libraries that might never get a full article. Or do you consider redoing that part as deleted content? I haven't definitely decided that is what I want to do , in any case, nor have I yet heard from others interested.04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)DGG 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there was some additional effort made to make it not just the deleted content, then I think it wouldn't be a speedy. I'm thinking some usefully granular structure (is there any brief commentary that can be made about certain universities?) and, to help it survive, no redlinks (they scream "delete me"!), ie. the ones without articles could just be left unlinked until written though this is up to you and I'm not imposing rules. No guarantees someone won't nominate the new article(s) at AfD, of course. You have still to contend with standard not a mere list of internal links, of course. (NB. If you do reuse the content, let me know because you'll need the article history for GFDL purposes (probably)). Splash - tk 12:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

hm?

Glad I could help. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah that would be because I really can't tell the difference between birth and death. They are almost spelt the same, well the last two letters are the same. Oh, I'm so embarrassed now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

China Multimedia Mobile Broadcasting

Hello. I recently requested China Multimedia Mobile Broadcasting's speedy deletion from Wikipedia because it did not assert the importance of said corporation. You removed the speedy deletion tag saying, "no, the source is fine," when the source was never a problem, even though I noticed it does not properly cite its sources, according to WP:CITE. I would like for you to please explain this action. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a company. It's a standard developed by the state administration in China. There is no speedy criterion for this kind of thing. Moreover, if it's a communications standard specified by the Chinese state, it is inherently encyclopedic since it affects several billion people, and will influence international corporations for years to come. Note that it is referenced, since the second of the external link explicitly states the same facts as in the article right at the top of the page. Splash - tk 14:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

It seems that these changes were never proposed or discussed before they were made. There have been quite a few editors who have requested that they be removed. Rather than edit warring over them, let's discuss it on the talk page... CMummert · talk 15:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I already am, you mean? Splash - tk 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that I'm not planning to revert your edit. I moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date formats in cite templates. CMummert · talk 15:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would really like you to revert your change you made at the cite web template. I don't think you should be saying "tough luck" when there is no consensus for a change. --- RockMFR 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say there is no consensus for a change? Why would you not want to make the change? (Reply/ies to the pump, rather than here would be better). Splash - tk 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind coming back to the pump and discussing this further? --- RockMFR 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The pump appears to have held itself a little vote among the four people who agree with each other and then concluded that this is a mandate for an immediate revert. That seems considerably obstructionist to me ("I don't want this so I shall find a means to make it impossible"), and I'm not going to give such an approach the benefit of oxygen. Splash - tk 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of publications in philosophy

Hi,

Can you retrieve for me the content of "List of publications in philosophy"? Thanks, APH 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Epigram

Is there not supposed to be a deletion debate before you simply delete/redirect, as you did with Epigram (newspaper)? Tim (Xevious) 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question - I'm not sure of policy here, but there should at least be a discussion on the talk page before redirecting, if not a full blown AfD. MrBeast 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect are not the same thing at all - AfD does not need to be used for simple redirects. The article was excessive detail on a minor point about the University (it's not like Epigram has actually ever done anything famous outside the Uni). It bears a brief mention in the main article, and no more. Splash - tk 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Backslash-apostrophe inserting IPs

Hello, I noticed your comment on User_talk:204.10.79.34 and was wondering if you could explain the situation with proxies causing backslash insertion because I have a similar problem on my own mediawiki installation, at [5] and would like to allow a user (in China) to post from behind a proxy, but every time he does he fills the pages with backslashes. I assume the backslash is inserted as an escape character. My question is by what, and can it be avoided? If not, has anyone written a bot for this that you know of? -Halidecyphon 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Splash - tk 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A parlous situation

I noticed this and I find myself becoming cross at the dismissive attitude. There's got to be some balance between "Wikipedia is too dumbed-down" and "Wikipedia is too intellectual": my personal opinion is that adding more articles until we get a nice mixture is probably the best way. Is there somewhere that people like you (who obviously know a great deal about "articles with lots of equals signs") and myself (enthusiastic but woefully ignorant) can collaborate to get articles on subjects like tensors into a state where a wider audience could appreciate them? I take that article as an example because it's a subject which I have long felt that I could understand if only I could be taken through it in small steps; sadly the only information I have been able to find is rather indigestible. I note that said article has no link across to Wikibooks: when I looked there I was directed to wikibooks:General relativity/Introduction to Tensors which frankly gives me the willies. Is there scope for something a little less scary and more general? or am I just on a hiding to nothing? Regardless of that specific example, is there already a place to cooperate in bringing articles like this up to featured article status where people like myself could be of help? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be make you cross.

Not cross at you: cross at the attitude that any article on a subject which requires a load of "hieroglyphics" could never become a featured article, as if there were some sort of inherent barrier to such a thing. I'm finding myself more and more of the opinion that what we need is more articles which are short, sharp and to-the-point—about "a page worth"—rather than huge screeds of waffling with more citations than a PhD thesis. If this means carving up long articles into bite-size chunks, then so be it: it's always possible to read several articles at a time and get the bigger picture, whereas reading just part of a huge article is almost bound to result in missing some vital point. HappyCamper's point about templates and clusters of articles is well made. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And certainly tensor makes for pretty impenetrable reading right off the bat, with the wikibooks offering not being a great deal more help (and you want to be careful of asking for something more general; the word makes mathematicians eyes light up and their vocabulary soar into the stratosphere!). Anyway, I suppose this sort of boils down to the age-old question of whether an article should be generally self contained, or whether bluelinks do the job, if a reader new to the topic is prepared to drill down through enough of them, and then build back up. Me, I'm of the opinion that bluelinks for the most part are fine, unless the link is to a topic that would not normally be familiar to someone from the article's relevant discipline(s), but that's mainly received wisdom from those who over the years have taught me 'how' to write. I'm also of the mind that there will come a point in most technical articles (of whatever topic) where the lay reader will have to change trains; and I'm not an enormous fan of 'summary style' precisely because it inevitably implies the devolution of 'equals signs' away from the polished surface of Wikipedia into articles that will be unappreciated and certainly not featured.

So taking the drill-down and build-up philosophy for now, I think that one collaborative route must be to ask on a talk page what the articles one should read are to find a chink in the armour of the mind-bending article in question. Keep going until we find the first level that we do understand. Make that article good, and fully accessible, and preferably concise. Addition, for example (though probably further drilled down than would generally be necessary), is about as fundamental as we get. It may or not bear improvement in its own right. That done to the collection of lowest articles, write a series of quasi-tutorial articles; in engineering I think I'm meaning applications articles like Motion graphs and derivatives (which would need to be drilled beneath, I suspect), which take the concepts of (in this case) graphical work, kinematics, differentiation and integration and give them some more tangible meaning in a particular context. Non-equals-signs-specialists ought to be able to do that with editorial and tutorial help from others to make sure things knit together accurately (though inevitably if I know nothing about a topic I wish to work on, I'm going to have some self-education to conduct first, as wp:not wikiversity!).

Build up, in collaboration, such collections of tutorials, and eventually we arrive back at the impenetrable article which by now should be much better connected to things mere mortals can actually comprehend over a cup of coffee, or five. That's no excuse for having impenetrable writing in the first place, but the much more comprehensive grounding Wikipedia now possesses should facilitate the re-writing of the article to be more discursive as it approaches the real bones of the topic, and there is, despite my criticism of them, a place for summary-style spun-out articles too.

That's no small piece of work, and so far as I know there is no WikiProject to offer moral support along the way. Splash - tk 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Query on an old action

I happened to be looking over the DRV logs from when I temporarily became the regular closer of DRVs. And I noticed that you deleted Vanishing Point (alternate reality game), citing in the deletion log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanishing Point (alternate reality game). Is that an error in citation? It was originally closed as no consensus (by a hair on the edit conflict), and reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7, with the request withdrawn for further review in a month or two. GRBerry 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanishing Point (alternate reality game) (2nd nomination). See Special:Whatlinkshere/Vanishing Point (alternate reality game) as a first check for this kind of thing, generally. Splash - tk 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Query on an old action 2

Just wondering why you made this edit [6] to make it read that I would make a disruptive edit to my own page. BabuBhatt 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that viewing an old diff does not show you how the templates on the page appeared at the time. On June 19 2006, {{usertalk-sprotected}} looked like this which, while not ideal was better than categorising your userpage as a protected article and very different to its current phrasing. I am disappointed that you've left your userpage protected for more than a year. Splash - tk 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not protect the page, someone else did. Why does it disappoint you? BabuBhatt 18:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You enjoy editing a wiki because you can. But when people look at your userpage, as the curious are bound to do eventually, they find that you'd prefer them not to edit that, even as you go benefitting from the ability to edit almost anything you like. To me, it's like saying "no, don't edit here, please, edit over there out of my way", and it's not really compatible with being free and open. Splash - tk 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't put it there. Why don't you remove it? BabuBhatt 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's your userpage, and it's up to you whether it is protected or not. Probably it was originally protected, quite reasonably, since it was suffering from vandalism at the time. If you would like it unprotected, I'll do that for you, but it's not such a big deal. Splash - tk 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood and soil Deletion article

I tried to find a template that I have seen once or twice on wikipedia that can be placed on the discussion page of an article notifying users that a Deletion Review and Discusssion was done, its date, and the link to the archived debate. The best I could find was this for Templates: {{tfdend}}. I think it would be good to have one for Blood and soil at the top of the Discussion page. Can you apply one or direct me to the proper template. Thanks,--Mikerussell 23:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a similar one for articles, {{afdoldfull}}. But I really don't like the enormous quantity of tags that encumber the top of so many talk pages and so I've never used that one, either. Instead, I put a message at the end of the talk page (this being what talk pages are for!) instead, in the same way I did in this case [7]. But feel free to add the template also if you would like to. Splash - tk 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Query re: List of songs whose title includes personal names

I'm curious regarding your no consensus closure of the List of songs whose title includes personal names AFD, given that there was greater numerical support for deletion and that, by your observations, the deletion argument was more strongly based in policy. Basically, I am wondering where you expect this list to go from here. Do you foresee some means by which it can be made more compliant with list policy? As it stands, I can only envision that it will make its way to AFD again someday after the intangible "relisting" timer expires, but I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks! Serpent's Choice 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Both arguments were based in policy; my opinion was that the deleters case was better made. The keepers argued that the list was well defined, with barriers to entry and thus implicitly maintainable and by various means encyclopedic and this too is based in policy. The numerical count isn't the key factor in deciding an AfD, as I'm sure you know. The question is: has the deletion case be made so well that there is a rough consensus among participants that those arguments made for keeping have little weight or have been successfully deconstructed. The debate did not persuade me of those points; although the keep arguments were examined to some degree the flow of the debate clearly did not manage to persuade people that they were wrong. It's for editors of the article to determine where the article goes from here. You seem to be asking me questions as if I had stated a 'keep' opinion when I did not actually participate in the debate at all and did not even close the debate with a 'keep' decision. In terms of relisting, well, this is just as usual: if noone makes a decent effort to improve the article beyond the deletion threshold of editors, and a better argued and more persuasive case for deletion can be made than was this time then an AfD nomination will succeed in future. If, on the other hand, the articles are improved in the eyes of those who would delete, then any future nomination would also likely fail. Splash - tk 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood and appreciated. I've found that these large lists are difficult to reach any true consensus on regardless of their merits. They have, over time, accrued a substantial body of editors who support their work and often do not respond directly to the deletion arguments. Even more so than with typical articles, it is hard to "persuade people they were wrong." But, in any case, I won't quibble further, and certainly won't be raising this at DRV as was done with a certain other list. Your response provided the insight I was looking for. I'll keep watch on this content and see where it goes. Hopefully, an effort will be made to provide some context to the topic. And, if all else fails, it can be revisited a few months down the road. Happy editing! Serpent's Choice 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that reaching a true consensus, in either direction, on these lists is difficult. In terms of the 'persuasion' thing, I see this in two ways: i) are some editors originally opposed to a point-of-view persuaded over to it? (hard) and ii) are later editors to the debate persuaded by the arguments made previously by either side? ii) in particular is a good indication of a persuasive argument having been made since these later editors are frequently those who arrive without an immediate vested interest and who are thus amenable to persuasion from both sides. Typically, this manifests as a split debate early on, followed by a cogently argued point or points, followed by a decisive level of support for that point, whether or not the earlier editors are persuaded (since they often don't revisit the debate). Naturally there are shades of this, and I suppose that's what's makes AfD a rather subtle creature at times. Splash - tk 13:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, I guess I spoke too soon about the DRV listing. I wasn't involved, but perhaps I'll see you there. Serpent's Choice 13:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs whose title includes personal names. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 13:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry if I offended, I'm well aware that you are experienced. :) Just one thing. I would appreciate some form of direct answer about how far off you considered this from reaching an actionable consensus to delete. I suspect that you try not to count votes: I also try not to count votes initially, but to read the comments instead and get a feel for the strength of the arguments... but then, I always look at the count. So, how close? I'd be very comfortable basing a decision on a 10-6 majority, but if that's not quite enough for you, what is? (Yes, obviously, it matters what these hypothetical extra votes would say, but assume they were of the "per nom" or "per (other guy)" type, ie, adding nothing new.) I'm imagining in my head that you thought it was close to enough of a majority... but if that's the case, why not leave the debate open a little longer in the interests of clarifying the consensus? But maybe you didn't think it was close, but then I wonder what your standards are for a supermajority. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, Mangojuice. I agree that it is possible to base a decision on a numerical balance of the kind in the debate to hand, since it is possible that one side really does make far the better argument, either with or without actual engagement of the other. Indeed, I've closed debates in the past with a numerical minority for deletion, and there's been not a whisper of a DRV. (It's all in the closure note; I clearly didn't reach my usual standards in the present case, and will learn from it.) Likewise, I've closed as keep (actual keep) debates where a numerical majority would have deleted. There isn't a 'close enough', really, and I'm not just being glib on the Altar of Consensus. Does one side demolish the other, despite a numerical strength? Is one side making a point but without any actual basis? Is there one shining comment that is obviously right and settles the issue regardless? However, perhaps a point doens't gain any traction and fails to influence the closure in their direction; this would begin to look like a numerical-based closure, but the question is sensing whether a position has gained a flow of support or not and is meeting with general acclaim. In this debate, the keepers didn't articulate their case so well, but they were clearly saying that the article was 'policy compliant' since it had barriers to entry and was maintained; ergo it was i) maintainable and ii) not indiscriminate and this iii) not over the WP:NOT line that people in the DRV are glibly using in only direction. This is the value of genuinely reading and analysing a debate. See my comment further down about BLP for more. Splash - tk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The question about what if there's a bunch of 'per X' on both sides of the debate is interesting. I don't agree with WP:ATA on the point (the page has a number of problems like that), since one way to demonstrate a consensus is by having a bunch of people agree with it! This doesn't make them necessarily in control, of course, if they've formulated a consensus to retain a copyright infringing article, or any of the other standard examples. It would have to depend on the strength of the points that were being 'perred' [sic]. I don't see any value in concretising my thinking in advance of seeing a debate, and again that's not just glibness. It allows AfD the flexibility to on the one hand do an unexpected but necessary thing and the closing admin to step into a morass and fish out a thread toward making a better closing choice if they need to. Splash - tk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To the leaving open option, well, I don't see it very likely that 5+ days down the line there'll be any further activity, and relisting was unnecessary as I said, since the debate was not so insipid that it was not possible even to determine continuing uncertainty over the immediate disposition of the article. There is no hurry on this article, and I do sense that the BLP thing is handing too much power to admins who like to do things at great hurricane speed just because they can. It's infecting the natural proceeding of entirely dull AfDs like this one and people think there must be a deletion now because it's really important. It isn't, of course in quite literally 99% of cases. This isn't such an article, so there's easy time to actually find a self-forming consensus, rather than a manufactured one. Splash - tk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To your final sentence: I do not have and will not be guided into setting myself a standard for supermajority-based closure; in any case I would only find myself unhelpfully held to it in future. I can do better than that. An admin who can't should steer clear of AfD closure since it behaves in any number of different ways every day and needs to be treated with a large number of elastic bands as a result. Splash - tk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Extreme cleanup

Your message on WT:CSD made me chuckle rather a lot yesterday (I rather like the idea of "extreme cleanup"), so I had to come here and leave you this. It's definitely staying in my sandbox forever! (Don't worry, it's not serious)

Have a good day! - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

...best done whilst on top of mountains, like extreme ironing! Splash - tk 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reaction to not not semi-protecting RBD discography

It is mainly one IP adress that is changing everything to a color, putting fake peak positions and overexxagerating sales in the named article, being 201.13.108.55. But there are more IPs doing the same things in other articles related to RBD. But it's the named IP that keeps on reverting our edits, can we somehow block him? Luigi-ish 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter to me how the colors are, it's Wiki that puts a standard of how it looks like right and that that is the way it is supposed to be, without decorations. That was the main reason the template tablabonita was deprecated. Just like wiki wants Spanish titled songs in lower case. I also believe he changes his IP adress constantly, 'cause now there's an 'other' one (201.13.43.251) that reverted my edits and put back the ones 201.13.108.55 did. And before that, 201.42.206.107 made the same edits I keep reverting. I don't think it's a coincidende that all IP adresses are from Brazil (check out the IP info) and all disagree of how the discography should look like. That is why I requested a temporary lockdown cause he can keep changing his IP adresss and keep capitalizing, adding colors and more vandalism. Luigi-ish 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added something to the talk page. Do you agree with what's written there? And if, despite that message, the IPs keep on -i call it- vandalizing, will it be protected in any way then? I have checked some wiki standards and I've also found out covers shouldn't be on discography pages, so I removed those too. -- Luigi-ish 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Source of Matlab plots

First of all thanks for all the good plots you made for Phase-shift keying. They are really useful for the article, but I have seen they are all low-quality small PNGs. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, it would be better to make them in SVG. If you can provide the Matlab source code of the plots you have made, I'll take care of creating some SVGs. Moreover, if you publish the source, it can be used as a model for other users who want to make something similar. Alessio Damato 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded SVG versions of the error-rate curves. I'll make the timing diagrams another time. I'm not going to wiki the MATLAB code since I did most of those diagrams from the command line, there was also some non-MATLAB work involved (Powerpoint at the time), it's as much work to email it as to just do it myself, and some of it uses code that I do not intend to make publically available. Thanks for motivating me to do this, though — I've been meaning to for ages. Splash - tk 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for best User page

• "This strikes me as another "you're not working hard enough on the encyclopedia! Ya! Ya! Move! Move!" nomination."

I ran across this, and just wanted to say you made me smile : ) - jc37 08:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, MfD was going through a bit of a phase. :) Splash - tk 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For thinking before typing, resulting in excellent comments at WT:RFA. James086Talk | Email 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! Nice to know someone is reading them. Splash - tk 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barnyard_poster.jpg

{{Missing rationale}} MER-C 08:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it did, in fact, include a fair-use rationale. Nevertheless, I have added a long, boring one to go with it. I do wonder why instead of tagdumping people don't actually go rationale-writing instead. Splash - tk 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)