User talk:Floydian/Archive/pre-2010

This page contains my talk page archives from 2003 until the end of 2009

2003

Welcome

Hello there Fizscy46, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. Don't worry about making mistakes, that is part of the fun of Wikipedia, seeing that others are helping pages you start grow. Keep working on that Pickering nuclear power plant article and if you like you can list yourself on the Canadian Wikipedians page. Alex756 03:25, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I figured out how to post a comment

Thanks.

Never saw anything about canadian wikipedians.

I've also got the page about the 407 and Coboconk to myself :(

Heh, I've started a Talk:Highway 407 page where we can discuss updates. Take care! Snickerdo

test

testing for dynamic TOC

test again

I'm sorry to read about your dog. I thought I was going to have to put my cat down two weeks ago. It was very traumatic. RickK 03:34, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

another test

even more testing

more test

It either needs more than three, or you can't have the line across the page, I'm not sure which, but now you can see it. RickK 03:34, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, about the dog and getting that thing to go.

The downfall to pets, you love them, then they die 50 years before you and it destroys you

On the Subject of Dumbasses (re:Blackout)

As it is a title, it should be capitalized, and the other redirect to it. However, due to the fact that it really doesn't make a fucking difference, they should both be blocked from editting it if possible.

Dumbass can have a limit, and that would be approaching it

Thanks for that. It needed to be said. Though truth be told, dumbasses have no limit. -- Tlotoxl 19:42, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once they get dumb enough, then you can consider them developmentally handicapped

No personal attacks

I'm sorry your dog died, but please don't take it out on others. Not here, anyway.

Calling people dumbass or turd is not allowed here. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not. My dog died a month ago. This is over the huge edit war on the blackout. They are creating tonnes of redirecting pages over whether or not a 'b' is capitalized or not. They truly are dumbasses -Fizscy46 15:12, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I want you to avoid saying so out loud - at least on talk pages other than this. Please say you'll oblige me. --Uncle Ed 15:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once I look up oblige, I will see. Of course, with the number of redirects, going through the maze to it will leave few people that actually find it.

OK, I will edit it to remove the insults, but the general gist of the post is staying, because its getting annoying with them moving it daily. -Fizscy46

Pink Floyd

read any good books on Pink Floyd? ;-) Andy Mabbett 15:24, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not unless you count the album sleeves as books. Haven't even seen a Pink Floyd book around. How did you edit my user page but not make it show in my watchlist? -Fizscy46 03:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Have you just not seen any, or do you know that the ones out there aren't good? I haven't read any myself, but I'd like to. I'd imagine Nick Mason's book must be pretty damned good. -Theaterfreak64 04:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

2004

Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance

please come vote! Jack 11:06, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Image

The Roger Waters image looks fine. Try refreshing your cache. RickK 00:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did, deleted the file from my temp. Int. Files, its still big. Usually refreshing would fix it. The image itself is fine... Just huge - Fizscy46 00:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But it isn't. It looks fine. It just seems to be something in your memory that's causing it. RickK 00:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There it goes... Computer's a shitbox when it comes to memory - Fizscy46 00:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

CN vs. Ostankino

• I have searched the Internet and have found no evidence that an extra forty meters was added to the Ostankino Tower in 2003. The site you pointed me to, the World Federation of Great Towers, still states the CN Tower is the world's tallest free standing structure. Every other site still list the tower as the world's second tallest (e.g. [1]), even Pravda and the tower's own site still have it at 540 meters. - SimonP 03:49, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Huh... Then why is the stuff about a fire on the towers page?.. Doesn't seem like any normal vandalism effort.

It being russia, they could have disavowed any info on a fire to keep the government image perfect...

Lets use a meter stick.

• From what I can see the fire did occur, but the 40 meter extension did not. - SimonP 00:58, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with SimonP. I've checked three relevant websites and none states that the Ostankino Tower is taller than the CN Tower by 40 meters. The closest I came to something like that was that there was a fire and repairs have been made in 2004. The World Federation of Great Towers states here that it is still 540 meters, as does the tower's own page here as well as what used to be called Skyscrapers.com here. Due to the lack of evidence for the 40 meter extension, the affected Wikipages should be reverted back to their previous status. TimothyPilgrim 20:16, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking and Dilbert

As far as I know, you're right - it was a poor impersonation of SH in Dilbert. I'll reword my contribution to make that clearer. -- Kwekubo 19:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Username change

Hi Floydian. Your username has been changed from Fizscy46 to Floydian as requested. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 10:28, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Thank ya - Floydian 03:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Come join the AIW

You are currently listed as an honorary member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. We encourage you to become a full-fledged member, by listing yourself as such on the AIW page. Posiduck 04:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

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:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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)

2005

Unverified images of Roger Waters

Hi. You uploaded three images of Roger Waters but have not provided any source information. These images could be deleted in the future unless this information is provided on the description pages for these images:

• Image:Waters1.jpg
• Image:Waters2.jpg
• Image:Youngwaters.jpg

See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Thanks. RedWolf 17:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Weight

I strongly disagree. It's a teenth, not an eighth. Why do you think otherwise? --SqueakBox 15:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) BTW my own 9 year old dog died on November 13th 2003, and broke my heart. See here.--SqueakBox 15:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

A second opinion agrees with me. --SqueakBox 17:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I took a second look and it seems I was mistaken. Its more zoomed in than I'd thought. Yes, thats definately a gram.

Undelete

Your opinion is desired good sir: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Universist_Movement Universist 03:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD help

Please, help at VfD of Ivan Cherevko. -- Mykola Petrenko 10:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

2006–2008 (inactive)

b:Drugs:Fact and Fiction

Thank you for your comments regarding this Wikibook. Still, there is much that needs to be done to have this book treated seriously, and turning it into a drug experimentation guide is not something that is going to be acceptable.

You claim that national governments are deliberately publishing patently false information about some drug use. Fine, point out contrary studies if you can find them and point out factual information about drug usage. This is indeed information that needs to be legitimately offered to medical personnel and pre-med students as they study up on this very important aspect of modern society, even if these are sometimes illegal substances. --Robert Horning 07:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pink Floyd Relics 1996.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pink Floyd Relics 1996.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2009

Rumination Syndrome

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rumination Syndrome, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Rumination (eating disorder). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Move of Rumination Syndrome

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Rumination (eating disorder) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Rumination Syndrome. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Intelligentsium 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Rumination Syndrome. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I have re-blanked the page and tagged it as a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Karmakanic

A tag has been placed on Karmakanic 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. ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the page has already been deleted, hence the band page did not meet the criteria for WP:BAND. However, if you feel that I was being a bit harsh (I'm guessing you do :/) you can still go to the admin who deleted it and ask for it to be restored. ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Karmakanic

I have restored this article for you to work on. I trust you recognise that, at present, it fulfils NO aspect of WP:MUSIC, or WP:BAND. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I will not take further part in the creation or otherwise of your article. May I suggest that you add a {{underconstruction}} template while you work on it? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI re Canada and the red one

Thanks for your query. It was answered here. I removed it afterwards, so as to not give anyone any bright ideas, if you know what I mean =) best, –xeno^talk 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'Urban Legends about Illegal drugs'

Good evening.. Further to the comment you left on the talk page of Urban legends about illegal drugs, I have replied.

In short, Wikipedia rules state all unsourced material should be deleted on sight, with immediate effect. 'Citation needed' markers should be used very sparingly - and it is up to those who added the material to put a source down for it. Wiki is not a soapbox for personal agendas - your comment made it very clear you are biased in one direction.

Many thanks... Dvmedis (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Tl

Hi, just letting you know that I changed your comment at User talk:Ajayprasad7 to use the {{Tl}} template. Maybe you already knew about it, but changed to make so that the user talk page doesn't have a hangon on it :). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually wasn't aware of that... I did notice the big burly thing in his talk page, but had no idea how to prevent it from parsing. Thanks for the info :) -- Floydian ^τ _γ 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Stefano LaSalle

Hi Floydian! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Stefano LaSalle- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ElectricSineWave.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:ElectricSineWave.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:ElectricSineWave.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:ElectricSineWave.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rockfang (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Stray voltage" refers to electricity showing up where it is not expected or wanted. A typical example is a dairy farm, where even 1 volt from the milking equipment to the ground the cows stand oon causes discomfort and a drop in milk production, which can put the farmer out of business. The extra fuzziness on the waveform is more extreme than what i have sen in a typical utility waveform, and looks like higher harmonics. Harmonics can come from power system equipment, due to unbalanced loads or grounding issues, or from customer equipment such as arc welding. Edison (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely! What you described is one form of pollution (Which is defined as [An] "Undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities"[2]) caused by electricity. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Medical citations

Most commonly medical citations are added with diberris tool. You just have to insert the pubmed number of an article and a ref that you can simply paste in the article is added. It would be great for your article on rumiation to do it with all citations you already have. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Removed speedy deletion tag: Dayton Gems (2009-)

Hi Floydian! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Dayton Gems (2009-)- because: the page is not a test, it is a redirect left from a page move If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the page obviously isn't a test page (these are pages created by new users who are "testing" out (or seeing how things work when) creating new pages. The user who created/moved this page was an admin, so somehow I doubt that the page was a test. If you think that it's an unsuitable redirect. Then try WP:RfD, CSD R3, or discuss it with the user who moved the page. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Dominic Fumusa

Hi Floydian! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Dominic Fumusa- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Eastleigh and Romsey

In the indroduction I am trying to show, that there are two different lists. Do you have any suggestions to what I can link the page? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And how can I make a template? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of a page, that has a similar template I could base on? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney GAR notification

As someone who has been actively involved in the reorganization discussions you should know that Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Alexandra Adler

Hi Floydian! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Alexandra Adler- because: While the article did not make an explicit claim of importance or significance, a reference to a reliable source which makes several such claims should also be taken into consideration when deciding whether the article is eligible for A7 If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Pink Floyd

I'm a member of The Australian Pink Floyd Show It's not that it wasn't 'relevant' we've run into a few copyright issues of late, and I didn't want to mention that as the reason for the edit. Roger isn't happy as he's touring The Wall himself this year and doesn't want the competition.We have to respect that! Sorry for the confusionBandcorrection (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the inclusion of the photo would cause any issues with copyright and as the photo is released under the GNU license then the band is not itself responsible for any problems if Mr Waters did object-which I think would be highly unlikely. The removal of the Ian Cattel link is consistent with WP:EL and if every single member and any one associated with the act were to include a personal website in the link section then the EL section could become long and unwieldy and since Wikipedia is not a directory, removal of such links is consistent with official wikipedia policies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotandslobbered (talk • contribs) 10:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 'hotandslobbered' the section would become long and unwieldy adding every band member or persons associated with the bands personal websites.From what I've seen of the others personal sites barring one exception they are all what you might call 'relevant' to the band in some form or another.However these sites are to 'freelance' their skills to others outside of 'The Australian Pink Show' and for this reason I don't deem them necessary to the bands page on wikipedia.I think only links to webistes that concern the band only,like their myspace page is appropriate.There a few people who seem to agree with this also(Tapgsozfan (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Further to this I'd like to add that any band members who want their links making public have links to them from the main bands website.These can be found by navigating from the Wiki page to the main site and so on.So why add unnecessary links that clutter up what is otherwise a very informative and well written page.Alas, I see this turning into a bit of circus if the inclusion of one band employees site opens the way for every person associated with the band to have theirs included on here by others.All of the personal sites lay reference to tapfs,and therefore if this precident was set then anyone wishing to add an external link to a personal site with 'some' mention of tapfs,could make a perfectly justifiable claim,therefore back to the mention of 'circus' I just don't see the need to go against wiki policy for external links for this.(Tapgsozfan (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

List of scientists opposing the APS position on global warming

You have helped to sway the decision on this article to "delete". Per group recommendation I have tried to add a single truly notable person (Nobel laureate in physics) from the list to the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. As I have predicted, my addition was swiftly reversed by William M. Connolley. This is just to let you know that while discussing the deletion you were misled (or misleading me). I am not going to challenge the deletion or argue with WMC, I do not even expect an answer to this message. I just hope that next time you will take a more weighted position on some other issue. Dimawik (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My Passion

Can you elaborate? —Gendralman (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The article doesn't indicate (According to the criteria of WP:MUSIC) why the subject is notable. Also, references should be reliable third-party publications. First party publications (In other words, of the band's own doing) should be left at external links if there is a third party reference available. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources = notable. —Gendralman (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Will leave for another editor to make that judgment. Personally I think a source isn't reliable when its wikipedia article is filled with tags concerning reliability, considering I do not know of either magazine mentioned. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but CSD A7 is only for articles that don't claim notability. If there are multiple sources cited it doesn't apply. You can still take it to AFD, which is better because other editors can weigh in. —Gendralman (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario

On August 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy Politics

A move to permanently ban DanaUllman is being recommended by certain members of the Homeopathy editing community here. If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No homo

Hi Floydian, I reverted your closure of this AfD. While I agree it looks like it is headed for a decision of keep, it was closed very early, and since you voted in it, it was inappropriate for you to close it at all. LadyofShalott 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know I wasn't able to do it if I voted. My bad - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK :) LadyofShalott 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman

As you have participated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gull River (Balsam Lake)

On August 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gull River (Balsam Lake), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disconnected comment

I tried to refactor something which you entered on the Talk:Beate Eriksen page. But perhaps it was submitted in error and whould be deleted? __meco (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Was supposed to be a quote of what Protonk said earlier. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Still looks pretty confusing, imho. I can suggest using a quotation template. We have a bunch of them. I won't harp on the matter any further though. __meco (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the code for them? I didn't know such templates existed, I've been using the code or blockquote tags all this time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out {{Quote}} and checking its categories you find a number of other variations as well. __meco (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beate Eriksen

Hello! Your submission of Beate Eriksen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for St. Mary's, Kawartha Lakes, Ontario

On August 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Mary's, Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 10:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warrior4321 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Detriment of Fasting

Looking to the definition of eating disorder, it’s applicable to the fasting case. It does not implicate psychopathic symptoms, but just common beliefs. These detriments are part of the sacrifice, or else fasting wouldn’t have big sense if it was an easy thing to do. People fasting wouldn’t change their minds if they know about these detriments, yet people have the right to know in order to well protect themselves from these symptoms. And everyone would agree that anyone showing pathologic symptoms is allowed to stop his fasting in order to protect his health, as it’s the case of fasting inapplicability for sick people. With knowledge you treat the causes not the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wassfila (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Provide sources, otherwise you are making your own research. WP:NOR forbids that. Fasting has never been considered an eating disorder, as it is a tradition that is performed under a strict set of rules, and not an individual losing control of ones eating habits. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of FLC

Hi, I just noticed that you archived the FLC for List of Chicago Cubs managers. I'm not quite sure what this means. Does this mean you have closed the nomination process and it did not pass? --Torsodog^Talk 03:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

T'was not I my friend... If I did, it was by accident when I added mine... But I'm not sure how I could have done that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, read the history list wrong! Sorry! --Torsodog^Talk 13:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Beate Eriksen

On 24 August, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beate Eriksen, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive1

I reverted your edit. The page serves as an archive and thus shouldn't be edited. I understand that you withdrew the nomination yourself, but it is conventional to close withdrawn nom as "not promoted". Please see other withdrawn noms for example. Thanks—Chris! _ct 04:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave that for archival purposes, but I would like the "Failed featured list candidate" tag off the article as I both made and withdrew the nomination, as well as making the only material contributions to the article thus far. I see no reason why it should even be considered as a nomination if it was withdrawn on the grounds of not being up-to-snuff with the criteria. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you remove the ArticleHistory, that messes up the bot on future nominations. I might remind you that while you are the sole contributor, nobody owns the article. Keeping the ArticleHistory on there allows others to see the record of the article. Please do not remove it again or edit archived nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but thats a record I do not wish to keep. While I do not own the article, I can claim ownership to the textual contributions I made and remove them back to my userspace and delete the article. I won't, but I still do not understand why I can't undo this nomination outright and come back at a later date with a fresh nomination. -

Been there, done that. It's a bugger, but it happens. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KL Road Map.svg

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Take your creative talents to Knol

Dear Floydian:

After being crapped on by Wikipedia repeatedly, I finally went to Knol and it is a breath of fresh air.

No endless fighting with cliques etc.

You can lock your page that nobody can touch or delete or "improve" or whatever the heck the sadistic editors at Wikipedia do at a whim. No "notable" arguments about whether you are good enough to submit stuff.

I'm not shilling for Knol ... just saying if you want to spend time creating instead of defending ... there is another home for you.

Thank you!

oracle2universe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oracle2universe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Music

Yeah, it's pretty cool that you're into Nektar as well. I should listen to them more. Also, I do enjoy the band Between the Buried and Me. Thank you for noticing that it's not on my list. I'll put it on there once I'm done with this message. I own their album The Silent Circus.

Also, I'm sorry, but I couldn't tell you if there was a Bibb's Barbeque in Naples, Florida or not. I was born there, but it says elsewhere on that article that I have grown up in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I moved there when I was two-and-a-half, in February 1995. Sorry I didn't make that more obvious; that one's my fault. I'll edit that into my user page as well. However, I do hear that Florida, especially Tampa, has a very active metal scene, so that's something I would like to check out in the future.

Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 02:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain...

...why you cited this reversion as undoing vandalism. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see something of an explanation on the talk page. Yeah, that's not vandalism -- it's in keeping with the local consensus that laundry lists of, "Hey, look at that guy in a red shirt" are trivial and unencyclopedic. Please be more mindful of policy and the Twinkle buttons. --EEMIV (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion != consensus. Your edits have been reverted. Theres a difference between "That guy has a red shirt and he died a token death" and a show that is directly parodying Redshirts without a doubt. If the fan movie stays, the Family guy reference stays. Take your pick. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Time is the Key

I did it as requested. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

green links

Thank you for joining the discussion about the orange and green links proposal. I have started a more modest proposal. Any comments would be greatly appreciated there. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusations and the like

I'm willing to take you seriously at Talk:Colloidal silver. I think there's probably some common ground to be found which would improve the article. On the other hand, I'm not willing to engage in "dialog" with someone who spouts off like this. I'm not going to whine about your unwillingness to assume good faith, but the facts speak for themselves. DHawker is a single-purpose agenda account - which I suppose is fine up to a point, if not optimal. But s/he is also an inveterate edit-warrior, as her block log demonstrates (and that's only the tip of the iceberg). It's not "silencing" someone to ask that they respect this site's behavioral policies. There probably ought to be limits on what editors who actually respect this site's policies should have to put up with. When you excuse repeated violations of this site's most basic policies, and accuse editors who respect those policies of attempting to "silence" an ostensibly constructive account, then it's hard to take you seriously as anything other than a partisan. Which is unfortunate. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between vandalous 3RR and back and forth POV pushing. Both of you strive to convince the other of their POV, while disavowing the other's. When you both are engaging in such behaviour, I find it rather childish to go and tell the teacher, essentially, that the other kid took your toy. Call me a partisan if you wish, that's is your take. I just feel DHawker is being victimized here as he has made some very clear points, and edits to the article reflecting those points. The subsequent reversions were in part from users who have had no participation on the talk page but are declaring their opinions and subsequently editing the article without input from others to insert said opinions. This block seems like it was a spring-loaded trap, waiting for the possibility to strike down at the moment of weakness. Yes, DHawker did revert 3 times. No, DHawker isn't an SPA dedicated to edit warring, as he has been accused of. His block evasion to edit the talk page, while indeed an invasion of the block, was not vandalous. He did not edit the article, and he only contributed to the discussion which he has now been shuttered out of. This is hardly grounds for indefinite bans. And no, I don't care what policy says because policy isn't the end all be all of existence at wikipedia which must be followed with complete disregard for the situation at hand.

I'm tired of the way fringe theory articles are treated. They are watched like a hawk by several users who stonewall any attempts to give any light to those subjects and paint them as anything but "blatent and complete quackery". These users have experience and policy on their side, and use it venomously to silence the opoosition as soon as it becomes possible to do so. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that there is a difference between vandalism and POV-pushing, but I'd submit that POV-pushing is actually more corrosive to the encyclopedia. Vandalism is a minor irritation by comparison, easily identified and easily dealt with.

Obviously, I don't feel that DHawker and I are engaging in equivalent behavior. I've refrained repeatedly from reverting, even when I consider edits completely unjustified or worse, because I don't want to be involved in an edit war. I haven't observed DHawker having any such compunctions. I can't grasp your total asbolution of any responsibility on the part of DHawker for his own actions - what "spring-loaded trap"? You're saying it's my fault, or someone else's, that DHawker can't refrain from edit-warring despite numerous reminders and blocks? Yet everyone else somehow manages, despite provocation?

I'll stand by both "single-purpose account" (see Special:Contributions/DHawker and identify any interest in this project beyond using it to promote colloidal silver), and "dedicated to edit-warring", as DHawker has repeatedly been directed towards our means of dispute resolution and instead keeps racking up 3RR blocks.

I understand your perspective that fringe articles are heavily patrolled by editors who jump on violations by others. Consider my perspective. The article should represent the current state of expert knowledge on colloidal silver, not the state of knowledge 100 years ago or the state of knowledge as we might like it to be based on our personal reading of the literature. DHawker is not the first, nor will s/he be the last, account dedicated to promoting one side of a single alternative-medical issue. Like I said, those opinions are tolerable and even valuable, but they don't absolve an editor of the responsibility of adhering to at least our most basic behavioral policies. I make an effort to avoid edit-warring, to solicit outside input to break deadlocks, and to stay a civil as possible. Should I be expected to put up endlessly with accusations, edit-warring, block evasion, and ignorance of this site's mission and content policies? Or would you expect my patience to have some limit, as does everyone's? When I reach the point of frustration with an editor who refuses to abide by this site's policies, then I can either a) solicit outside administrative review, or b) carry on until I get frustrated, uncivil, or abusive myself. I prefer option a), which you characterize as "venomously silencing" a poor, defenseless editor. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I very strongly believe that DHawker, while certainly an SPA, isn't devoted to making colloidal silver seem like it isn't. His edit warring is over points he feels are valid that uninvolved editors who stubbornly refuse any information that gives a positive light to a fringe theory. Ban him from the article itself for 3RR, but don't use that as an excuse to ban him from the talk page, where he has been nothing but civil.

I fully agree with your POV on the article. Keep in mind that history is important, and that the substance was used for a long time in the past for the purpose he is trying to give more light to in the article... That is its anti-bacterial effects in vitro. This use is(was?) a fact, and very significant in the big picture of colloidal silver. How useful and reliable it was remains to be determined. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell your 'holier than thou' attitude would be funny if I wasn't on the wrong end of it. You continually accuse me of edit-warring, and promoting, etc. but the history of the article does not support that. I've never removed anyones contributions (even the negative ones) that were reasonable or sourced. At worst I've suggested or provided rewording that I consider is more balanced. In contrast I'm continually having to revert my own contributions that are just totally slashed by you and your allies. Your own actions belie your claims of operating in good faith. For example you successfully introduced that woeful study of the single internet bottle, claiming its a 'major study'. (According to WP the reliable sourcing rules are meant to be applied with some 'common sense'.) And at 04:11, 3 September 2009 you made a major revert of my contribution and claimed in a misleading edit summary that you were just removing one citation. But interestingly it was me who was chastised for the same indiscretion by another administrator when I reinstated the paras. You must have been rolling on the floor at that one. (DHawker.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.108.3 (talk)

Note

I've added your proposal with my set to avoid confusing 1, 2 and 5, which would be easier interpreted as 1, 2, 3, and 4. Please adjust your comment accordingly. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

coloured links for stubs

Hi Floydian.

You seemed in favour of coloured links for stubs. May I ask you to express your opinion in the newly created poll? (Please reread the proposal, many of the deatails have changed.) Best, GeometryGirl (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Civility

Might I convince you to refactor or remove this edit? It is a bit rude and does not advance discussion. These issues are generally even more sensitive on Talk:Homeopathy than on Talk:Colloidal silver. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you had something else on your clipboard and you were referring to my sharpie remark on talk:homeopathy. I have reworded it... Though I feel editors should be a little less stiff in enforcing their view of a subject... Or at the least lighten up a bit and laugh at themselves and others. It's wikipedia, we aren't trying to clamor for the nobel peace prize. The usual group on there will never go through a study looking for positive connotations. They always pull the negative and then leverage those points to supercede the positive points (If they even took 2 seconds to notice them, probably not). Hence, red sharpie crew. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops - yes, that is the one I intended (link corrected). Good movie, though - a very Vonnegut feel. And your new wording looks fine, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by the "red sharpie" comment. I'm actually a bit offended at your assertion that I go around looking for negative material. I looked, extensively, through the medical literature for anything, positive or negative, about colloidal silver. I've not seen others on that talk page make a similar commitment to actually substantiating the article with sources, for all their bluster. It's not my fault that the medical literature contains little or nothing positive about colloidal silver, and if I seem to be the messenger, it's only because I feel like I'm one of the few people who actually looked at the existing reliable sources.

I'm open to new sources, and I appreciate that you're going that route. But I also need to look at those sources critically - do they actually discuss colloidal silver? Or do they just contain the words "silver" and "antimicrobial effect"? That's where I'm coming from. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the crew over at Homeopathy. I agree that you do take a more neutral look at sources despite being outspoken against these fringe sciences. More editors should follow your lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoot... I'm sorry. I realized my mistake after I looked again at Talk:Colloidal silver. I apologize. I saw the "red sharpie" line and I assumed it was a continuation of our discussion on colloidal silver. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - my fault for not double-checking my assumptions before posting. Carry on, then. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Pink Floyd Show 'Band Members' section

Moved to talk page so that others can see this discussion and not argue the changes

Roads

I'll have a look at it later tonight - in about six or seven hours time, probably. I'm away for my tea/supper/dinner/whatever now :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, but don't have the time for an in-depth study right now; sorry. I will return to it, but it might take me a week or so. I think we still have a problem with this section:

Prior to 1998, the now dissolved Victoria County contained 11 King's Highways. As part of a province-wide "downloading" of highways to municipal governments, 6 were given new Victoria County designations following the prior Victoria County numbering system (with the exception of Highway 35A which was renumbered Victoria County Road 8).

Prior to 1998, the now dissolved Victoria County contained 11 King's Highways. okay

As part of a province-wide "downloading" of highways to municipal governments when was the downloading done? 1998?, 6 were given new Victoria County designations following the prior Victoria County numbering system the italics is where I think I get confused ... what do we mean by prior Victoria County? Prior to 1998 they had a provincial numbering system, I guess. Do we not mean "prior provincial designations"? (with the exception of Highway 35A which was renumbered Victoria County Road 8).

more when I can. Some good changes in there, notably the icons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're right on that one. I typed Victoria County in that paragraph so many times that it just became a habit to type it every other word :P I've made the fixes. Are there any comments in the tables which you feel should have better citation? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wondering if you could help me out

Overall, the list looks fairly good but there are a few improvements that should be made if you plan on taking this to FL. First of all, everything in the article should be referenced to reliable sources. I noticed the article heavily relies on Google Maps as a source. In recent times, I have found Google to be somewhat unreliable as they have a a lot of cartographic errors in their maps. I only usually use it to reference what physical surroundings a route passes through. In addition, reference 4 appears to be a WP:SPS and may not be reliable. Better sources that could help in this list is a official highway map of the area as well as government documents. An example of this in the U.S. state of New Jersey is the straight-line diagrams, which list every numbered road in the state and includes every intersection with mileposts. Also, try looking for more secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, that describe the highways. For some examples of FL articles in the U.S. see Category:FL-Class U.S. road transport articles. Dough4872 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that unline the US, Canada doesn't keep tabs on all its roadways in such depth. What I've used google maps for is to calculate exact distances between two points. I used a mapart atlas (Which is the big map making company here) to figure out where start and end points are, and then referenced that in Google Maps, rather then relying on where google decides routes start and end. The Kings Highways site is the only one of its kind, but its managed by an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, so I'm hoping I can slip it past as reliable. I'm going to try and find more official sources though, were I can. Thank you! :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Laughing Buddha

(This is in reply to an old comment you wrote on my talk page.) Alright, but I do not see what is wrong with doing a stub article... I guess it should have a certain amount of information. I created User:Dchmelik/Jeremey_van_Kampen, sinmce he uses other aliases. Is this article any better?--Dchmelik (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What you want to read into is WP:NOTABILITY (General notability guidelines) and WP:Notability_(people) (Notability requirements for articles on people). This will give you an idea of what an article requires to be kept. Articles on living persons (Biographies) are much more strict, as the person needs to be notable in some way, as set out in those guidelines.

I'd definitely try to find references to back up your article. As it stands, I cannot see anything notable about Jeremey van Kampen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The info is all from autobiography. Maybe I forgot some details of what is notable, but I guess whether it is or not also depends on how many Goa trance articles people want. There is a Cosmosis article, but that group has disbanded and Jeremy van Kampen is one of the former members who continues to produce music under other names. I do not think they have to be extraordinarily famous: the article would be relevant for people wanting to read about Cosmosis and finding out that it had disbanded.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me the names and pages of those autobiographies, the names of the publisher and author, and the year, and I'll show you how to make a citation. :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

van Kampen, Jeremy. 'About Laughing Buddha.' Myspace. 2009. Myspace.com. 28 Sept. 2009. <http://www.myspace.com/laughing_buddha>.--Dchmelik (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately MySpace is not a reliable source. Also, notability isn't about being one of the few bands in an obscure genre, it's about achieving something, or being part of something that has achieved something remarkable. Have any of his songs made it on a national chart?

Anyways, if you look at how I've done this when you edit, you'll see how to do a citation.

van Kampen, Jeremy (2009), About Laughing Buddha, retrieved 2009-09-29

ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he seems to not have any other autobiographies (maybe he does on an album, but I do not have one.) Not that I like Myspace, but one (or someone one knows) could go to one of the shows mentioned on his page and see how reliable that is. AFAIK several of his tunes in Cosmosis have been on national charts (there is a Cosmosis article, but it is obsolete.) However that does not matter as much as how remarkable the tunes are. As for your citation it looks like one of the newer fad ones instead of one recommended by a UK university.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are Harvard style citations. If you want to use your method and just enclose that within <ref> </ref> tags, that would work as well.

If Cosmosis has charted nationally, that is indeed important, and perhaps enough to make Jeremy notable. If you can find out what charted where then put that into the Cosmosis article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Harvard style citations are considered traditional; I am just not an expert on citations and have not used them lately. I am not 100% sure Cosmosis did get on a national chart, but I still do not think that is important. They were on the oldest Goa trance internet charts and IIRC have been played by some famous DJs: Cosmosis was one of the oldest and most well-known Goa trance groups, and they got onto general mainstream techno/trance compilations in Europe. Even that is irrelevant: the Cosmosis article is about a dead group, and if it was notable then it seems updated articles should be created, but if it is not notable why is it there?--Dchmelik (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it seems Cosmosis still is a group (either they did not release for a long time, or I thought 'it is not a group anymore' because it only had one person.) I guess I have some research to do--Dchmelik (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IIRC Cosmosis was only ever two people. Jeremy worked on tracks that became popular enough to be on the Cosmosis article, though I have not found evidence of them being on the charts in the UK, where Bill (all of Cosmosis now) lives. I would search Germany, Israel, etc. charts, but am not sure how. Here is a quote that I think would make the article notable: 'Cosmosis (with Jez Van Kampen) were also one of the original artists that, along with Total Eclipse, Hallucinogen, Man With No Name and Astral Projection, pioneered the Goa and Psy-trance sound in the early nineties.'--http://www.cosmosis.co.uk/ . I have been listening to these styles since the early 90s and making it since the mid-90s, so I know how significant Cosmosis is, though Goa started in the late 80s. I bet there are a few newer Goa producers mentioned on Wikipedia that I have not even heard of or have not got around to listening to much--Dchmelik (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Two words

Nassim Haramein. —Whig (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The crazy theorist guy? I'm confused... ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't think he deserves an article? —Whig (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking him up, I'm getting tonnes of results of his, but nothing in the way of reliable third party publications saying "Hey check out this guy". Still, he seems notable at a glace, and surely could make an interesting article - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm...looks like there was an article at one time and it was deleted. Odd. Might make it politically difficult to start a new one. —Whig (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikinfo appears to have more or less the original Wikipedia article. —Whig (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the afd discussion (Which was a good year ago), the main reason to delete it is that he is not a notable academic. However, a unified article on him and his theory could very well be marked as a pseudoscience article and not a strict BLP. Would have to be carefully written. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the AFD discussion, can you link me to it? He's really out there in terms of conventional thinking, but brilliant if you actually listen to him. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to get Wikipedia to take him seriously, there seems to be a desire on the part of some to exclude anything unconventional. But in terms of his theories being "crazy" as you called them -- well, I don't agree. It's about as crazy as believing that homeopathic potencies over 12C have a physical basis. ;) —Whig (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I use crazy as in complicated, not as ridiculous or insane. Here's ze discussion for the afd. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha. One of the comments on the AFD discussion summed it up so well, "If this theory were truly significant, it would be discussed in mainstream peer-reviewed publications." That is precious. Okay, I won't try to get an article restarted because it would get shot down by these people very quickly. —Whig (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Supposing we used that theory of notability for other subject domains, Wikipedia would be nothing but a summary of mainstream peer review on everything. What a project! :) —Whig (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike that view of what is notable, because the "mainstream assessment" is just a caucus of scientists that have all agreed with one another. Its friggen politics, and we've all seen political caucus' that are a bunch of yes men united behind one person that makes decisions (its amazing the similarities between science and religion). The example of colloidal silver being labeled as "not working" when no studies have actually been done just goes to show that they'll say what they want to say. Too much politics. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely political, and religious as well. In fact, one thing that Nassim points out is that the Vatican owns most of the solar observatories. Something I hadn't known. :) —Whig (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Somehow it wouldn't surprise me to see on the news one day, "The Hubble space telescope has now confirmed that the Earth is indeed the centre of the universe, and that everything rotates around it." Anyways, can we find some notable guy talking about this person or some other source that would deem him notability? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Hubble isn't a solar observatory. :) I'm inclined not to waste my time on trying to start this article since it's been killed twice. But this is a serious, serious problem in Wikipedia. If the subject matter is not claimed to be scientific we can write in great detail about many subjects, but if the subject matter is claimed to relate to something scientific in any way then the suppression of any and all information seems to be the rule. It's easier to write about religion! I think Wikipedia is broken. The standard should not be "scientific notability" but general notability. —Whig (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

World Domination update

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: The DAB page - one line - can use a cleanup. I couldn't do it. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Don't understand why you Reverted the #Redirect. See the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

assimilation, which is the domination of one culture upon another...

Was that you? It's unsigned. So I cannot tell. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. My bad, and thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order (disambiguation)

FUI: I Just started this stub. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at Dekimasu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - Talk - Delay in reply

Re Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Relevent_Papers: Sorry, won't be in a position to reply to your latest reply in earnest for probably a couple of days. --papageno (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problemo, take your time :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith

I don't believe that I am adding in bad faith. The deleted genres that I added were those best sourced for those albums. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

• I assure you that I am not trying to start a fight. Attributing my changes to an undo of your edit was merely a lapse in judgment, not an attempt to fight with you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Hawkwind subject

Please see Hawkwinds talk page. Rockgenre (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Enhanced CD Corporal Clegg Thunderstick Innervision Bike (song) Rush Weston Road Fly Hagersville, Ontario Blue Orchid Biograph (album) Scugog River Keele Street Bad Acid Trip Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway Clarington, Ontario Bittersweet Motel Impresario Yes Remixes

Cleanup John Dolmayan Aerials (song) Mimulus Merge Electroacoustic music Binge eating disorder Conformist Add Sources Question! Tony Kaye (musician) Cozy Powell Wikify Peter Banks Max Graham Log home Expand Jeff Berlin Đorđe Balašević Falling into Infinity

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

colloidal silver

Floydian, actually there are a few "colloidal" articles: [3]. But, I agree with you that the topic of colloidal silver strictly in the technical sense of the word probably wouldn't stand alone as an article. The only reason I suggested creating a separate article is because I'm tired of the conflicting reasons given for adding material and reverting. I don't know how many times that anything about ionic silver has been reverted because the article is about "colloidal silver". The narrow sense of the term to revert any research about silver ions, then the use the broad alternative term to include any accounts of adverse reactions. My opinion is it can't be both ways. If they are going to include any aspect of the alternative use of colloidal silver, then all aspects of colloidal silver should be ok. stmrlbs|talk 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colloidal silver. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are engaging the edit war, and I am reverting to the status quo. Don't try and use scare tactics to stop me, that's a scum move on your part. Stop vandalously removing valid sources or I will happily bring this to ANI, as I mentioned on the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the above, please see WP:AN3. Verbal chat 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, you did breach 3RR and personally attacked Verbal, Floydian. That's unacceptable. Keep it up and you'll be blocked.

Consider this a final warning. If you edit-war again, regardless of the reason, I'm blocking you. Please reach a consensus with Eubulides instead. Thanks, Master of Puppets 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In sheer number, yes. The attack was not indended to be personal (and reading the sentences you can see that I am not calling him names), only emphasis of my declaration for him to discuss the topic. I feel a simple warning is necessary, I am clearly not a single purpose account and have a clean contribution history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a warning, you have now reverted this article 4 times today against consensus. This violates WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr is reverting the same thing repeatedly. I have made several different edits, and using 3RR against me is yet another attempt to grab at straws rather than answer my clearly presented points, which have been repeatedly ignored in favour of just brute forcing the information into the article by bring in a bunch of people with the same POV. This is bullshit, and I'd be happy to take this shit to the arbitration committee if thats what it would take to get it through peoples heads that you can't just come in and change everything. I'm not a single purpose account, but I'm sure everybody will jump at the instant they can get me banned from that talk page, because then they won't have to answer my arguments and they can do whatever they want to. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Err... please read WP:3RR more carefully: "...a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately" says nothing about "the same thing". Proceed with caution. In addition, your accusations of "cabalism" and other uncivil comments are a problem. I'd suggest redacting those comments and apologizing. To be blunt: were I not involved, I would personally block your account. Back off a bit and take a voluntary break before you are given one. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, I would strongly encourage you to discuss any problematic edits with those who you disagree with rather than removing them. Edit warring (regardless of how quickly or slowly it occurs) is not productive, and gets in the way of discussion. Prodego ^talk 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to them. I'm discussing, they are removing the status quo and giving horribly flawed arguments, often that completely ignore the point or just address me as "personally attacking" editors, or don't discuss the changes at all - They just make them, then when I contest them call in for backup. See File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vsmith, at least you discussed your changes on the talk page. The other editors didn't bother - just flew in and reverted without regard for past discussions or current editors. stmrlbs|talk 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My warning wasn't the first warning. Also, I'm not sure what you would like me to reply to; I can't revert to another version (as that would be preferring a single version). I was only ensuring that edit warring stopped; however, if you want me to take a more active role in mediation, I won't be able to administrate in relation to that page anymore. Master of Puppets 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the first warning, as the one above was posted after I made the first revert, and you came and gave me a final warning after I was actually reported after the third revert.

It's not preferring a version to reinstate the version that had consensus, its preferring a version to lock the current article that is heavily contested. Give those editors a reason to discuss, as I guarantee most of them will not come back. The article can always be changed back to this version at the end of it all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't reinstate your preferred revision just to create discussion. That wouldn't even work, because people would be jumping down my throat more than looking at the article itself. Anyway, consensus here is clearly disputed, so it's best to leave it as it was when I locked. I hope this makes sense. Master of Puppets 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I will trust your decision. Hopefully the article can stay locked for a bit and allow additions or changes to be discussed to consensus before being implemented. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your trust. Hopefully you guys figure something out. If you need me at any point, you know where to find me. :) Master of Puppets 11:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Helpdesk Reply

	Hello Floydian. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:VAND

I would not call that edit you reverted at Homeopathy vandalism, just an unencyclopedic comment in need of removal. Sometimes people are picky about how edits are labeled, so please consider this just a friendly heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I know there are picky editors, but that's why we can look at the changes made in addition to the summary. Personally I think if its something that's clearly an off the wall remark that it can constitute vandalism as well. Really just matters who you ask for the definition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Junction

Template:Junction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

CKL Roads or whatever you want to call them

I don't want this to get nasty or violating WP:3RR, so I'll talk to you here. I will admit I've never even been to Canada. That being said, I did a quick Google search and was able to find that document, produced by the City, that says Kawartha Lakes roads are abbreviated CKL Road #. Now, I believe you when you say you're right, that the road signs say otherwise. But, you can't cite yourself and say "I live here therefore you're wrong." That's against WP:OR. Until there's another document that clearly shows Kawartha Lakes roads are not abbreviated CKL Road #, I will continue to revert. I'll be watching this page, so you can reply here if necessary.--Fredddie™ 06:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick check on Google will show you that both are used.[4] For the purposes of the reason I will be using the Ontario templates, for Kawartha Lakes, considering that I am the only contributor active for that area, I should be able to set a better style. Please discontinue reverting, this is counterproductive. I will simply stop using the template if that's what needs to be done, but I would prefer being able to customize it slightly to perform the task that I need. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to take action on this myself, but [5] is not a valid use of rollback. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia makes the undo button disappear sometimes, so I rollback, then edit and add a space so that I can put in an edit summary.

Anyways, I found a source on the (official) Kawartha Lakes tourism website that makes use of abbreviations. They use KL Road.[6] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is for reverting vandalism only. Not for whatever you are using it for. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

disruptive refactoring

Floydian, The policy on Refactoring is stated quite clearly here: WP:Refactoring: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Verbal is out of line doing this, imo. stmrlbs|talk 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, and thank you for your support through-out this. Per usual, things are getting completely ignored. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is well aware of this policy, as I've had a previous run in with him and BullRangifer on this very same thing [[7]]. stmrlbs|talk 23:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about how hatting should be used (and not be used) on a talk page here: Template_talk:Hidden_archive_top stmrlbs|talk 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jcon

Template:Jcon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver

Please note that a mediation has been requested for Medical uses of silver at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-23/Medical_uses_of_silver#Discussion. Wdford (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RFPP/SOAD protection comment

In case you don't see it, I commented on your request/query at RFPP. I'd be happy to discuss it more, though I'd prefer to do so here or on my talk page (RFPP isn't the best place for longish discussions). tedder (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war, Biting Newcomers, and OWNing articles

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on System of a Down ‎ . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, you appear to be WP:OWNing the article and edit warring to defend your control and WP:BITEing newcomers. Please stop all of that. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My friend, please read in depth before you speak. Ibaranoff is the one to look at for ownership issues. I've worked with several editors on the page to reach consensus on issues (including Ibaranoff), and have not been any of the things you assume me to be. I don't bite the newcomers, as you can see I warned the user very nicely at first (This was after making two revisions over three days, and first mentioning in the revision summaries that such changes should be discussed first). I have never reverted System more than 3 times in 24 hours, but I will absolutely ignore 3RR when it comes to vandalism, no matter who tries to threaten me otherwise. Admin or not. You are presenting a bureaucratic argument - that I committed a crime - even though the opposite party is in the wrong. Please stop being counter-productive in order to uphold rules word for word, as that is not the point. Please unprotect Ed Unitsky so that I can make it not be a collection of external links and a perfect example of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Protecting it until December 22nd serves no useful purpose.

The current status of System of a Down was reached by consensus, not by random IP's repeatedly asserting their edit until they get their way. If you think the opposite should be true, then you are not performing your duties as an administrator - to cleanup and protect the encyclopedia. Genre trolls get banned all the time, its part of maintaining the encyclopedia and not making regular contributors leave (because they can't fight the trolls that have the upperhand because of this BS bureaucracy). Please correctly warn the IP address that consistently rearranges links if I have not done so yet, so that when they ignore it, and make the edit anyways, they can be blocked. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've said on ANI and AIV, this is not reverting vandalism. You need to actually read WP:Vandalism. It is not what you think it is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the formal definition, I consider vandalism to be the defecation of an article against the consensus of its editors, despite an honest and friendly initial approach on the matter. When you revert, and point the user to discussion, and they ignore that repeatedly to do the edit anyways, I consider that vandalism, or at the very least an edit in bad faith. In order to uphold the encyclopedia, I will revert such editing on sight with no regard for the 3RR, as I am very clearly not in the wrong - I just refuse to wait for another editor to wander past and do the revert that I could just as easily do. That way, the article doesn't sit there for several hours or days in an incorrect state. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FROM WP:VANDALISM: "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.", in other word, edits made in bad faith ARE vandalism. It is a conflict of interest for you to argue with me and then remove my rollback rights because I don't share YOUR interpretation of a policy. You repeatedly assert that I'm involved in two edit wars, but you are clearly mistaken and abusing your powers as an admin. - 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I'm not arguing with you and I have not reverted or undone any of your edits. We have no conflict of interest. I have however intervened as an uninvolved admin seeing your erroneous report on ANI and AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No but you did remove my rollback rights, didn't inform me that you had (obviously a sneaky move), and continue to accuse me of edit warring even though I have not, and will continue to assert that I have not. Behavior like that will allow the vandals to one day reign supreme on wikipedia. I'm writing a report for ANI, I will direct you to it when I am done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rollback

I have declined your request. You should go to WP:ANI as was advised at the helpdesk. Requestng at WP:PERM looks like forum shopping in a way. Requesting in an aggressive manor also does not help to be honest. And this was not vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the first time it wasn't vandalism, the second time, it may have not been vandalism. By the third time, it was vandalism - That is, an edit in bad faith. I posted at the rollback forum first, but I agree that the issue should be dealt with first. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it was not simple vandalism and you should have used WP:UNDO or similar and leave an informative edit summary. I make no comment about the removal of the tool by Toddst1, but I'm not going to regrant without more eyes and I'd oppose any admin regranting until further talk. Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - not vandalism. That was an edit war over a content dispute. Toddst1 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because none of you are the editors that built the consensus on the talk page over several weeks. The IP is in the wrong to continually bring back the content, and I should not have to be the one that sits back and lets it happen because of a technicality - The IP has the burden, not me. Otherwise, this is bullshit, and a step in the opposite direction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why I removed rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to keep this here, and off ANI, and as a neutral thrid party I'm suprised you lifted rollback without any warning Toddst1? Or is there more than meets my first review? I'm certainly not disputing the removal but I'd be keen to find a middle ground. From the limited interaction I've had with Floydian (mostle seeing talk comments) he/she has struck me as a fairly solid editor? Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But you are pursuing the technicalities instead of the issue. I'm sorry, but if IP's can add whatever they want, and editors may not break 3RR to remove it (yet the IP can as many times as they wish), then this project is doomed to fail with time. I want the correct version of the article to show to readers, and I'm not going to let a messed up version sit while I wait for another user to come by. Because, face it, that other user would have the EXACT same opinion as I (ya, so they may not label it as vandalism, but they would revert it). I'm not walking around the red tape, I'm cutting it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're cuttig the red tape with a chain-saw when you should have used a small pocket knife and left a decent speech afterwards. I'm not going to pursue this further I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did use a bigger tool than I needed for the job. However, I'm sure you've lost your patience with ignorant editors before. It takes a while to undo 5 edits, and only a second to roll them back. Leaving the same explanation multiple times would not serve any further purpose, the IP clearly has no intention of responding or listening. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I stepped in to the edit war you were having on Ed Unitsky and did a major cleanup to remove a bunch of self-promotion and unsourced information. I see you've undone some of my removal of unsourced material from Ed Unitsky. You need to cite a reliable source if you're going to add that info back. Please self-revert if you have no sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will add sources in time. There is no deadline on wikipedia, and you need to stop acting like a robot. When you have ANY knowledge on the subject that you are talking about, then come and talk to me. I have sources: 1) DPRP lists Ed Unitsky as the cover artist for 75% of the bands listed 2) the CD covers for the albums in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor (I'm here following a question on the Help Desk), I'd agree with you that "there is no deadline on Wikipedia" - but I would argue that it follows that the same applies to you.

I would suggest leaving out the unsourced material until you have sources - then add it. That way, everyone is happy: you get to included your material, and Toddst1 sees that it is sourced and can be kept in.

I assume that DPRP refers to the 'Dutch Progressive Rock Page' website - I don't know how reliable the site is, so I can't refer to that - but I do see that their FAQ that they don't require formal professional experience to write for them ("he/she should have experience in writing (fluent) English texts about the genre. Substantial knowledge about progressive rock is of course a must").

I hope this puts an outside perspective on the issue, and if there's anything I can help you with (without taking sides!) then please feel free to contact me -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You do bring to light a potential issue with DPRP (it is that website, you are correct). However, unlike rap, pop, and rock, progressive music doesn't enjoy mainstream coverage. This isn't to say they aren't notable, its just to say that the music industry is a business. DPRP provides the closest thing to reliable information on artists that are ignored by the mainstream media, and is often the only thing besides a myspace page. The editors at WP:PROGROCK (which I am involved in) consider DPRP a notability indicator for progressive rock.

However, the reason I brought up deadline is because this has all happened in about 12 hours, and I do not have consistent access to wikipedia in order to make all the changes at once in good time. With a day or two, I can convert this article into something worthy, rather than the mess it is. Toddst is less concerned with this however, and more concerned about my "edit war" with Ed Unitsky, who Toddst proceeded to ban. I just don't get it... I'm fighting the vandalismeditors-that-go-against-consensus,-guidlines-and-policy-and-logic-and-reasoning,-who-ignore-warnings-and-press-on-anyways, but being punished because I didn't do it the bureaucratic wikipedia way in 650,000 steps. Screw beaurocracy, screw drama, I'm here to write a good encyclopedia! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your desire to write a good encyclopedia - but the policies and guidelines do clearly mention that unsourced material can be removed. I am not going to get involved any further at the moment, as there is an open WP:ANI case at the moment - although I may comment there tomorrow (food is on its way, and I want to spend some time with my partner and parents-in-law!). My advice would be to get your sources - then you can add information to the article with sources. Even if that means waiting, and adding one fact per time, then that would be the best way forward to keep in line with the policies and guidelines. As I said, I'll comment further tomorrow, dependending on the state of play at ANI. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, as an in-between, I will move the unsourced info to a sandbox of the article, and reintroduce it over time. I too am taking off for the day to let the dust settle. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ed Unitsky/sandbox

The article Ed Unitsky/sandbox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Change namespace

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Raziman T V (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a human written response, thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw that the page had the /sandbox name in title. So I thought that you were currently planning to keep it for test edits. The prod template that was kept on the page was with the intention that the page be moved to your userspace (Say User:Floydian/Ed Unitsky/sandbox or something like that) and the existing link be removed - just to change the namespace from Main to User. Thanks -- Raziman T V (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its temporary (2 days maybe) to cleanup a big chunk of unsourced information from a BLP. I'd be happy to leave it prodded, as I should be finished by the time 7 days are up. If not, I'll move it over to my userspace. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw your edit summary only now. I haven't yet seen any article that has a /sandbox subpage. If it is all right to have such a subpage for articles, then move is not required. I do most of my editing on mlwiki and sandboxes are kept in the user subspace there. That is why i gave the move request -- Raziman T V (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually they are kept in the userspace here too. From time to time they appear in the mainspace when the article already exists, as a temporary work area. I'm not sure what the rules are when it comes to this, however, I restored the prod tag. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Khalsa Darbar

Please read and re-evaluate your nomination. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for doing that! Bearian (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  No prob. Given the new facts you brought up, and the cleanup of the article, its certainly worthy of a keep. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: About the Golden Horseshoe Road Project

Hey there!

Good to know someone is still interested in the project... The project became semi-inactive because it seems like I'm the only one who's interested, but great! now we have another contributor, and that's always good news... We have so much work to do, actually, for roads in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area...

Nice to see you working on the numbered roads in Durham... One of the first projects that I started on Wikipedia was the list of roads in York Region, maybe you want to check it out? Here's the link: List of York Regional Roads. If you don't mind, I'll start working on your article right now...

Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unitsky/SOAD

Unsolicited opinion here, and if I -am- wearing my admin hat, it's turned to the wrong side: As much as I ALSO loathe bureaucracy, sometimes, in order to get rid of a disruption, you have to go through every...single...solitary....agonizing.....torturous....step in (what feels like a ridiculous) process. The point of it really, honest-to-God is NOT to make you prematurely insane; the point of it is so that when that disrupter comes back driving his WAAAAAAAAHHHmbulance, talking about some "You didn't give me a fair deal and this is seventeen reasons why, and so I have every right to ...." and so on, that we can point to the process and say "Well, yeah, we actually did. Now begone." Furthermore, there are always, always, absolutely ALWAYS going to be one or two crap-stirrers who will take the disrupter's side--not because they actually believe the disrupter was RIGHT, but because it leads to an exciting crap-storm, in which their charming little oppositional personalities can flourish. And those ppl will take a hold of any tiny infinitesimal straw they can grasp at: "Well, in my (pompous and totally irrelevant) opinion, User:IAmAnExtraBigTool must be unbanned, as he/she/it was subject to OMG ADMIN ABUSE!~!!!! because he/she/it was only given the level FOUR warning, instead of the preferred Level Four-Point-0ne Sooper-Dooper Ultra Badass Warning Which We REALLY Mean This Time...." So if we follow the (painful, soul-killing, agonizingly lame) details of process down to the very last letter, we deny those delightful souls a toehold from which they can climb. Now, whilst this all may seem like something worth objecting to (yeah, it seems that way to me too sometimes), the thing you have to remember is this: If you report a problem, but then object to the processes needed to solve that problem through the accepted channels, then in the eyes of people who have already accepted the routine above, you yourself become a new, different problem. (Actually that's true of most stupid processes, but I digress.) And if they perceive your way of dealing with issues as an issue itself, sooner or later there will be hell to pay. As I have discovered in my entirely-too-many years of living, ppl who make and respect processes--especially when those processes, in general, work reasonably well--don't take too well to people who want the same RESULT, but don't want to go through all the steps to get there.

(Short-form summary: Sometimes, it is best to hate things quietly.)GJC 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A well made summary, I had a laugh reading it, and its true of so much in the world, not just wikipedia, because for some reason we are obligated to be nice to people that are jackass'. I too would like to sweep this under the carpet, but some people in particular like to haunt editors and point out every miniscule thing they do that is against some guideline that they've chosen to hold over others. I would just like toddst1 to go back to AIV and leave me to go back to S.O.A.D. and stop giving me hell about System of a Down. I've essentially been given no option; these edits are somehow not considered vandalism, and so I cannot go to AIV. What do I do, except allow them to have their way with the article? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have we solved this?

Floyd, It's really unfortunate that we've had such a major drama play out here. It's clear to me (and I believe most others) that you're here to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia and have been a stalwart contributor. Unfortunately, it's also clear that you've had a pretty large misunderstanding of what WP:Vandalism is. I hope that with the folks chiming in on ANI, you realize that is the case and that the removal of rollback was justified - you really were (unintentionally, I believe) misusing it.

All that being said, it's clear that your editing intentions are the best. I'll be glad to restore your rollback privilege if you assure me that you now understand the problem and will use rollback correctly going forward.

I bear you no malice and would like to do what I can to ensure you remain a highly productive editor. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you toddst1. I do understand what vandalism is according to wikipedia and I promise only to use rollback for true vandalism. However, I still must insist on using undo for the daily edits of people who change genres or instruments on band bios against the reliable sources. You really must look through the history, as it has been happening for months, well before I showed up to the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Look - we can't have a rollbacker edit warring - even if you're not using the rollback tools. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but with the privilege comes the responsibility to seek dispute resolution.

I have the same situation. I see folks changing things that I feel are right on articles I've contributed to but I have to work it out without edit warring - and if I have a dispute, I can't use my admin privs in the situation. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand why this user has to be patted on the back, yet we ban genre trolls all the time. I will try to find another method of dealing with it. However, this IP will eventually be banned, and a new IP will come back and make the exact same edit, every single day, as they have for several months now. Seemingly my only solution is to get more editors to watch the article to change it from an edit war, to one IP repeatedly inserting their personal preference. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to beat a dead horse, the user appeared to be (stubbornly) contributing in good faith, as did you. That's about the long and the short of it.

I've restored rollback and noted that you now understand WP:RBK and corrected misunderstanding of WP:VAN, pledge not to WP:EW in the rights log. Please use it carefully. Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Constitutional Act 1791.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Constitutional Act 1791.pdf. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

MV Danny F II

GT, NRT and DWT were already linked in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed that now. It may be better to spell them out for the first usage in the prose, as most people are not going to be familiar with the abbreviations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumination

Hi Floydian,

I saw your article on rumination. I suffer from this for 30 years now. In Germany where I come from, rumination is absolutely unknown among internists (at least among those I went to). As you seem to be familiar with this illness, I would like to contact you (but not via a public page). I would also like to contribute some information.

I have never contributed to Wikipedia, so I do not know how this usually functions. Would be nice to hear from you. Kind regards, Patricia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.148.153.149 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Patricia If you'd like you can contact my by email at justin.kw.oneill (at) gmail.com As for contributing, all you have to do is press the edit button at the top of a page and start typing. Give Wikipedia:Introduction a read (if it isn't vandalized when you look at it), it covers most of what you need to know to get started. Most editors are also happy to lend you a hand wherever you may need it.

Hope to hear back, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Junction template

Floydian, I am not sure what you are trying to do with the {{junction}}, but maybe if you can show me what the standard jct generates in your case, and what you want it to generate, I can help you. No promises, but I have done a little work with templates on Wikipedia. stmrlbs|talk 03:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I had made the modifications to the Jct template to do what I wanted (which was to make it work for Kawartha Lakes Roads). The issue those editors are raising is using "CKL Road #" instead of "Kawartha Lakes Road #", based on a single sentence of WP:ELG that says a "common abbreviation" should be used. However, I can produce better tables that draw in the readers attention by avoiding the abbreviations. They insisted that "Jct uses abbreviations and thats how its gonna stay", so I made a new template that is essentially a duplication of Jct. I know that I have a valid case of WP:IAR here.

However, if you're good with complicated multi-level templates, I'm trying to get Template:Infobox road to take a new variable (browse_size) and pass that down to the template that makes the images for the previous route / next route be 20x25px. That way, I can make the icons slightly bigger (35x32 or something) and the number in them slightly more readable (I imagine if you were to go to Kawartha Lakes Road 8, that you have to squint to see the numbers at the bottom of the infobox). I expect I will get a fight along the way though, even though all it is adding is customize-ability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll take a look at it this week. I work full time(with a long commute), so I might not have a lot of time until next weekend, but I will see if I have any ideas on how to do this. In the meantime, why don't you save a copy of your template in your user space, in case it does get deleted. You can call the template from your user space until we come up with something better. ok? stmrlbs|talk 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

1st mod

well, I thought I would try this first _ I copied just one instance of the jct template and called inner templates to my user space so I don't affect anyone else. I modified the template:jct/shield to add a check for ONRR and to change the size to 50 px (yes - I know it is too big, but I wanted to see the change) 32 px. Here is what it looks like :
{{User:Stmrlbs/Template/Jct|state=ON|RR|county1=KL|36|name1=East Street}}
If you take a look at User:Stmrlbs/Template/Jct/shield, you can see what I did. However, I do not know if adding a case for ONRR will take care of your problem with your pages. Nor do I know if it will interfere with other calls.. so, I don't know if this is ok. But, it was just a small change to one template.

I will try to add a size parameter.. but tomorrow, if I have some time. It is late here. Going to hit the sack. Feel free to change that template if you wish.. I can always restore it to my version if I need it later. stmrlbs|talk 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now is this for the junction template or the Infobox road? I only need custom sizes for the icons at the bottom of the infobox (Previous_route, browse_route and next_route)... I made a version of Junction specifically for Ontario at Template:Jcon that makes things nice and convenient. For the same image as above, I only need half the code:

{{Jcon|KL|36|East Street|size=32px}}

equals

 Road 36 (East Street)

Gets rid of typing all the parameter names out, or specifying between Highway and rural/county route. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think both jct and infobox use the jct/shield. So, making this change would affect both (I think). But let me make sure about that, as I was tired when I tried this as just a quick thing after I drilled down the jct template to see what it did. Actually, now that I think about it, I will look to see how the previous route, browse_route, and next_route are created. That's the part at the very end of the infobox, right? Floydian, are all the signs on these roads for ON,RR of this type, though? If not, then unless they are ok being magnified to 32px, then this might not be ok. I am not familiar enough with your area to know. I'm not even sure how to find out.

The other thing that I was wondering about is if it would be more user friendly if a person could click on the little road icon and have it expand to a larger size (like 100px) if they wanted to see the road sign better? stmrlbs|talk 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the reason I wanted to insert this browse_size parameter, so that I don't have to worry about affecting current infoboxes. All of the rural roads in Ontario use the same symbol (the trapezoid sign).

The previous/next route part is at the very bottom of the infobox. The whole template is so intricate that I cannot figure out what becomes part of what sub template.

I think if wikipedia didn't focus on compatability with the 0.0002% of users not using semi-up-to-date versions of Internet Explorer/Chrome/Safari/Firefox/Opera, then AJAX features would make an awesome addition to the site. But hey, lynx needs lovin' too. :p - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia software in general is rather creaky, and cumbersome. And some of that is by choice, I was surprised to learn. But, I guess when you have everything being maintained by volunteers, you can't expect the latest and greatest. Wikipedia in general is not very user friendly. In fact, I would say it is quite user-unfriendly. And I've always wondered if this has some type of "filter" effect on the type of users that persist and stay. I've had a couple of friends that tried editing a few articles and decided it wasn't worth the effort. I'm not talking about the unfriendliness towards new editors that seems to becoming more prevalent, I'm just talking about the time involved in figuring out where to put a change in all the wikipedia formatting and reference codes in the text. I've often wondered why wikipedia decided to reinvent the wheel when there are so many much more user friendly text editing products, and so much forum software already out there. It is crazy. Why am I here? HAHA.. must be masochistic.

anyway, back to what you were saying, yes I agree, being able to pass down a size would be a safer way to do it. It is just that you have to keep passing the size down to each inner template call.. which is cumbersome. But.. it is already being done with all the other parameters, isn't it? so, I guess adding one more parameter shouldn't hurt, I would think. It is just passing it in the right places. Well, I will look at it again. However, it looks to me like you are getting pretty handy with the templates yourself! You are a quick study. stmrlbs|talk 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the problem with people. They can never agree to a single form of progress, and so the status-quo just becomes further engraved.

The other problem with the template is that a select few icons are shaped differently, so there are different default sizes. I am starting to get the hang of it... A few weeks ago I cursed the name of parser functions, but I'm starting to see the light (though I still think its stupid to make a language almost entirely centric around the { and | as it quickly becomes a jumbled mess of brackets). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd mod size

Floydian, if you look at the first instance of the Kawartha Lakes infobox road in my sandbox [8], you will see the 2 big signs at the bottom of that first infobox. I didn't do the middle sign (tomorrow). I passed the size down.. but, I have to tell you, you have to pass that size parameter down several levels.. After looking at it.. I think perhaps if there are enough differences with the roads in Canada and how you present them, it would be safer for you to create a Canadian version of the infobox road. Anyway, it is late and I will talk to you tomorrow. stmrlbs|talk 09:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to get them to let a Canadian version of jct fly first. Thanks for all your help though :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, I added the size parameter to the jct and infobox road templates in my user space. Here is an example where I created your infobox road with all different sizes (which is why it looks a little crazy) User:Stmrlbs/sandbox#with_size. and here are 2 calls of Jct with 2 different sizes: User:Stmrlbs/sandbox#jct.

However, I had to change a lot of inner templates to do this.. which with as many pages that use these templates is worrisome, since there is no way to do any kind of real testing. Unfortunately, as I explained here, this is because of the limitations of wikipedia template language -which I can do nothing about. So, personally, if I were you, I would try to really define what you want out of your versions of this template, what you would put in if you could put in everything you want, and think about making a more limited, but simpler version. My opinion. Even though in theory, I agree with the idea of one template with a different parameters to take care of a lot of different situations in a uniform manner, the template software for wikipedia is just too limited to do this with any complexity - and therefore, I think it is better to create a simpler template more user friendly template that you can use for your area with the caveat that you document the differences. Then if they ever add some basic programming capabilities to the templating language, then your template can be integrated at that time. stmrlbs|talk 05:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, now that you can play with the sizes, why don't you determine what size you want these shield icons to be? stmrlbs|talk 08:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

30px seems to make the difference. They are definitely far more readable. The question is, will this be able to be integrated without messing up roads which do not follow the default 20x25px (Such as some wide interstate shields)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of where this happens? what are the wide interstate shields and where are they used? Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 03:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, did you have some examples in mind that I can test? stmrlbs|talk 04:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

bump so this doesn't get archived

Sorry, lost track of this. I haven't seen any examples that I can think of, but I imagine there are some cases for some state turnpikes, or perhaps the business and loop signs that are added to New York and New Jersey routes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - mea culpa

Excuse me for adding cite templates to the article links you previously added to Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#The_hypersensitivity_is_NOT_to_EM_radiation_per_se. I admit I find it easier to view article references this way, but I believe it will also prove useful for other WP users. Also, I note I did not reply to your last comments at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Relevent_Papers as promised, which I regret. I will do so. Having just added a lengthy epistle to the page, it will not be immediately. --papageno (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Take all the time you need. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Kawartha Lakes sign size problem still there?

Floydian, in looking at our previous discussion, I see that Kawartha Lakes Road 36 still has the size problems for the Kawartha road signs. I have some extra time at the moment, so I think I will go ahead and incorporate the size parameter modification that I tested for infobox road on my user space. Let me know if you have a problem with this. stmrlbs|talk 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it a shot. If it causes problems in other articles it'll be caught and we can work on it from there. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, I did put the changes in, and even though the roads that broke before worked with my changes, it broke some other road displays. But.. now I can get the break to happen, so I can test it to see what is happening. The changes weren't in long (because I was watching) - 30 minutes, but.. they did break some displays. Rschen7754 used this as an excuse to protect all the infobox road templates from any changes except by administrators. However, now that I know something that breaks, I think I can figure out how to fix it. I will look at it when I have time, and when I get a fix for it, I will get back to you. Then we can make a request. I do think you have a valid point, in that some of your signs are practically unreadable when they are displayed by the standard infobox road template. Let me know what you think. stmrlbs|talk 05:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured out what the problem was and fixed it, but I think I would like to discuss with you where you are before I venture into trying to get consensus for this change. stmrlbs|talk 07:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

you did a very nice job! :) Floydian, if you want to look at some templates from someone that, imo, is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia templates (much more than I am), and who is very helpful - takes time to explain, ask User_talk:Davidgothberg. He lists templates that he has worked on on his user page. Nice to know about as examples of how to set up a template so that it doesn't look like spaghetti code. stmrlbs|talk 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm right behind you. I haven't been editing the roads as much as of late (waiting for the holidays to pass to renominate my list that got swept under the carpet), but I'm still here. The signs are almost entirely unreadable on my macbook. Don't have as much trouble on my compaq, but its a 17" @ 1024x768, so that's no surprise. I think Rschen's move was kinda weaselly, as its almost impossible to test code changes on such a complicated template without some trial and error.

Just let me know if you need some help, because I can be am clueless at times. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, Rschen's move was out of proportion - heavy-handed, and doesn't address the problem of how to test such a heavily used template. He protected all the JCT and INFOBOX ROAD templates so that only administrators - such as Rschen - can make changes. He also protected templates that I never touched, and that haven't been touched by anyone for a while. However, this just gives more fuel to the argument that once a template reaches a certain level of complexity and heavy use, then the solution of forking (creating an alternative template) to cover the needs of a subset becomes more feasible. In a real production environment with full macro language, this wouldn't be necessary as there would be better ways of testing changes and the templates (macros) would be simpler. But.. we are working in Wikipedia with no way to test well, and a very restricted macro language. So, it is a different environment. One thing that would help me is if you could code up a Kawartha Lakes infobox (make one up if you need to), in your sandbox, that just uses the standard infobox and jct templates. I think the problem would be more visible to the readers that are not regulars on the wiki road project. stmrlbs|talk 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I had one up for a bit, but deleted it thinking it was a sandbox article I was done with. I've requested its undeletion, so it should be back up in a short while. Jct versus Jcon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, did you get the undelete? It would be nice to have an example when I post my request in which I will talk about the size problem. Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 18:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

btw, I meant to mention this earlier, but you did a very nice job of documenting your JCON template, not only through the standard documentation template, but internally. Very nice - sure makes it easier to understand. And, believe me, if you go to add something 6 months down the road and can't remember exactly what you did, you will really be glad you put in the time. Very nice - original Jct internal view and your new template Jcon internal view. stmrlbs|talk 18:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I started to make it bigger I realized it was looking more and more like jct. I wanted to make sure it remains simple so that if another roadgeek happens by, they won't be overwhelmed in trying to add new features or places. I'm glad to hear that from a legitimate programmer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Coboconk, Ontario

On December 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coboconk, Ontario, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Coboconk - careful. You totally misrepresented the Bob Edmonds case by describing him as the convenience store operator. DS (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad, that was something I missed from the old part of the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)