Jump to content

User talk:Edison/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

please be careful with scattered conversations

In this edit, you're replying to me and to User:TenOfAllTrades at the same time, and addressing us both as "you". (Or perhaps you've confused the two of us.) Please don't do that. I'd urge you to adopt the style of keeping one conversation on one talk page, rather than splitting it across two (or three). —Steve Summit (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Above, you apparently associated your views with his by saying "Oh, and we're not shunning, we're RBI'ing." Edison (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. So my point was just, it would have been less confusing if you had replied here, rather than over on my talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood. I agree. Thanks! Edison (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk archiving interval

There's a discussion running on the RD talk page about decreasing the archiving and transclusion thresholds to reduce the page size, perhaps to as few as four days. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to make sure any consensus includes input from some long-time regulars, so I'm dropping this note on the talk pages of a few that pop to mind. (I hope no one feels this is improper canvassing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

English wikipedia

Hi Edison,

My correspondense with Flayer didn't take part recently.--Gilisa (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Hassan Shooting

Thanks for your support on the talk page vis-a-vis the pregnancy issue. --Dpr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.194.50 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of Talk Page content

Hi, Can you explain this? [1] Leaky Caldron 11:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. It looks like a simple edit conflict with my edited sandwiched between 2 of yours. Leaky Caldron 14:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) Merge Proposals

I've proposed editing and merging One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase into the respective sections of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please feel free to comment here. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Heat lamps

The article on incandescent light bulbs is already quite long and I didn't think one more instance of heat lamp applications was critical to the article. Incandescent light bulb is mostly about bulbs for general illumination; the place to describe heat lamps is in the infrared heating article. Wikipedia articles often trend toward exhaustive lists of minutia instead of an overview, which I think would be more encyclopediac. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Some coverage of the benefits of the heat output seems appropriate to provide NPOV in an article which goes on at length about how incandescent bulbs are bad because they produce heat. Edison (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why there's a section at infrared heating. Don't drive me off Wikipedia again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would be very sorry if my having any view about an article on technology which differs in any way from yours "drives you off Wikipedia,"since you are very well informed and do many good edits. But you cannot gain exclusive ownership of articles by such a statement, so that every article has to read exactly the way you want it to, and no one else can have any input. We are supposed to work together. I am not moved by someone else's threat to leave the project if I edit articles I am interested in. You are not the only person with training and experience in electricity. Edison (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked at current and old versions of a list of the 4000 accounts with highest edit counts and found that a good percentage have not changed edit counts since April of this year. Maybe the editors concerned have started new accounts? Or maybe they're just gone. Compared to the usual run of Wiki contributors on electrical articles I feel like a professor and I'm acutely aware of my own limitations as a scholar. I don't blow the credentials horn, I have none of note except plenty of free time and some literacy in English. Since the Essjay affair no-one believes any credentials cited on Wikpedia anyway. If we don't keep good editors, technical articles will dwindle away in quality until they are unusable. I'm getting very tired of arguments with annonymous people especially when they are clearly clueless and can't even read the references they cite ( see the pitable waste of human life span at All American Five for examples...thankfully not quite as bad as the pit at SPeed of light).
Wiki articles get encrusted with synonyms, alternate spellings, deep fringe theories, exhaustive enumerations of train-spotting information, obscure Eastern European inventors, and such barnacles until the opening paragraph is completely unintelligible. I've spent a lot of time in the last 5 years throwing out vast chunks of articles and I'm pleased to see that no-one has had the energy to defend the cruft I've removed. I really don't mind that you don't care if any one editor remains with the project - all the stuff I write on Wikipedia is for my own entertainment anyway since I doubt anyone actually reads or trusts any of this stuff.
I see someone has encrufted the light bulb article with yet another heat lamp application. Should I leave it and watch the article become a summary of the total of scientific knowledge to date, or dare I prune it out even though it's a perfectly Wiki-verifiable fact? Does anyone flipping care? We have a list of every minor steam engine ever to crawl out of a roundhouse but not any explanation as to WHY there were 4095 different kinds of steam engine. We've got a 50K plus article on incandescent light bulbs and not one word on WHY anyone wanted incandescent bulbs. We have, the Odd Gods of the Galaxy help us, individual articles on asteroids for which the sum total of human knowledge on each one could be written on a 3 x 5 postcard with enough space left for the Gettysburg Address. I often feel Wikipedia is written by a bunch of Asperger's kids.

--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to: light bulbs - people had been making light from electricity for decades before Edison. The difference was Edison made money from making light from electricity - that's why he gets the points. Lab demos or secret experiments are by and large useless ( but much loved of some Wikipedia editors). --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Reference desk barnstar awarded

The Reference Desk Barnstar
Thank you for your very helpful reply to my 'Ball and chain' question! :) œ™ 13:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chicagoland Vampires (series)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chicagoland Vampires (series), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicagoland Vampires (series). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 14:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do I need to rewrite what WHO's Dr. Nikki Shindo has said?

For starters, she has a medical degree and I don't. Then we could add that she has spent a lot more time on influenza than I have . . .

Edison, Man, this is Cool Nerd. Perhaps I'm the most wild-eyed radical on all of wikipedia. I don't feel that way! My thinking is that why do I need to stand between the parent, or anyone concerned with their health but parents are likely to be our most demanding readers, and the information.

Why can't we just excerpt WHO updates? Why do we instead need to practice the school skills of 'rewriting' and 'summarizing'? (obviously I don't think there's a good answer. Best answer is don't change horses in mid stream. That is, we have our ways of doing things. We need to roll with them. But, that should not preclude experimentation.)

With news articles, it might be a little bit dicey in terms of copyright, but even there fair use provides more lattitude than most people tend to think (it's either 250 words or 500, not as an absolute principle, but as one of several factors that the case can lean in one direction on another) and another is educational, and the fact that we're trying to get out information and potentially . . . potentially . . . save some lives, that would lean very much in our favor.

To me, 2009 flu pandemic just lays flat. It's so garbled with formality that it's of marginal use.

I have started Swine Flu, Current Situation. And, oh yeah, I'm getting opposition, of course I am. People don't tend to help each other out, but boy we're ready to jump in there and fight. A long way from a collaborative intellectual project.

If there is any way you could help me out on this and be with me, I certainly would appreciate it very much. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu H1N1, WHO Recommendations New page, no news items for now. Previous page, already deleted! Boy, they move quick. Don't move quick on updating information, but sure move quick on deletions. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Welcome

Hi, sorry about that, I'm using the pywikipediabot welcome.py, I didn't know who is a vandal and who is not. My apologies. --MisterWiki talking! :-D (SIGN!!!) - 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable malls

Hello, Edison, I recently stumbled across Quintard_Mall and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quintard_Mall (deleted in 2007, deleted twice in last week). It seems to be another mall article that could be made notable like a few I've worked on recently, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere Discount Mall. If there's anything usuable, can you userify the article for me? Thanks. --Milowent (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, transcript for this week's WHO press conference available

Hi Edison,

The audio and transcript for this week's (Dec. 3) WHO virtual press conference is now available.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/swineflupressbriefings/en/index.html

Cool Nerd (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Taking a Recess from Wikipedia

Per [2]. Edison (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's a short recess, but I understand why you're taking it. Your contributions on RD/S are outstanding. -- Scray (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Take it easy. "Remember the good times and forget about the rest." Hopefully we will see you soon. Nimur (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Back to it after a delightful Wikibreak spent in the Real World. Edison (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination)

You participated in the AfD discussion of Bloviate in July 2008. A year and five months after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination) was closed as keep, the article has been renominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Saga of the Skolian Empire

See this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I once revised all articles related to the Saga of the Skolian Empire, but I am the type who makes usually minor edits: a wikignome. Although I have undertaken a few bigger projects as well. I, for example, would have merged Rhon, Psion (Saga of the Skolian Empire) and Kyle Web into one article (Rhon psion). Debresser (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No dead horses

Wow, I'm truly impressed that you are stepping up in Steve's defense here! That's really noble! If even you say so, then I have to admit that I might be wrong, too. — Sebastian 03:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Edison / personal opinion

I removed the link to Hart's personal opinion about Edison's "rank". Then User:Edison reverted my edit, saying: It was a published book, not just someone's "personal opinion." Well, it's a personal opinion in a published book. Nothing is easier than publishing a book. Being on Hart's questionable list certainly is not an "award" or "honor", as the section title indicates. It is more like the opposite of an honor to those who think Edison should rank higher. But I won't revert your edit this time since in this particular case a few alternative (and less personal) lists by other US sources (LIFE and the TV series) are mentioned as well. Gimmemoretime (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Thanks for your contribution to Calvary Baptist Church (Manhattan, New York)

Just checked the article, which I originated, and it appears that your extensive and excellent work adding sources has saved it from the Deletion Bin. Thanks so much for the good work! paul klenk talk 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

CHANGE RANDON II TO GOUVERNEUR DU DAUPHINE'

Please this article was a very hard work for me, so don't delete it .understand me my friend edison. sincerely. prince elvis mozart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince elvis mozart (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Inventor of Milkshakes article

He's re-created it...thought I'd let you know so that he didn't get templated by more than one person! Frmatt (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Slobodan Lalović is now sourced. Wikipedia rejoices.

Join me in the fun of restoring articles about eastern european cabinent ministers! :-) --Milowent (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note! I am working from User:Apoc2400/Deletion list (a list of the articles deleted in the recent purge), this one happened to be Serbian.--Milowent (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

On the mass removal of "unsourced" BLPS

I just spent 4 hours looking at some of the supposedly "unsourced" biographies of living persons from a few months in early 2007. Many either HAD references already, or it was easy to find coverage of the subject is reliable sources via Google News archive, Google Books, or Google scholar. There should be no automated mass removal of bio articles just because an old "unsourced BLP" tag has been left on it. Any mass prodding of such articles is not helpful to the encyclopedia, because it is so easy to find numerous books or news articles about the subjects. It took me 4 hours of hard work to "save" 17 articles. This is not to say that I did as extensive a job of researching and referencing as I would do to "save" the article in an AFD, or as thorough a job as when I create a biography article. For the latter, I go to libraries and use both print and extensive online databases. Here I just looked for free online reliable sources, where most article require a payment to view. So one experienced editor, working 40 hours a week, could "save" only 170 or so out of the thousands of articles on the chopping block. From my experiment, I feel that a good 25% of the articles in the category Unsourced BLPs are easily sourceable, or already have references. Edison (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Current question

Hey, I saw your response to the question about the use of I as a symbol for electric current on WP:RD/S. Just dropped in to say that you gave a damn near perfect answer, and that I'm impressed. You're setting a standard we all should be striving to meet at the Desks. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

eusday

Whatever your opinion of Dr hursday (and I stopped reading the talk page threads directed against him because they were making me too bad tempered), I don't think the comment was helpful in a reply to a legitimate question. DuncanHill (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your help i am new here i appericate it (Dr hursday (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for the tip about the experiment at a statistician's conference!

At the science reference-desk you (User:Edison) gave me a very interesting tip (about some erring statisticians), in your answer to my question: "How common is the lack of understanding of the probability concept?" (Your timestamp:" 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "). Those statisticians sure fell for the (erroneous) "Law of averages"!

(My follow-up question, below, is slightly edited --compared to how it appeared at the WP:Reference_desk/Science).

I would really like to get my hands on that report! It would be very useful to me!
Could you please try to think of any further clues to help me find it?

  1. (Where/)In what kind of publication might you have read about it? (scientific journal, newspaper, a book?).
  2. If it was in a Newspaper: Could you remember anything about (the wording) how they punch-line-ized the heading? (I apologize for my lacking eloquence here).
  3. Approximately how many years ago did you read about this?
  4. Had the conference just endedd, at that time, or had it happened years earlier?
  5. In which country did the conference take place?
  6. Names of participants?
  7. Anything! else?

(I am repeating this follow-up question, here at your talk page, because I am afraid that it was drowned out by all the voluminous replies to my initial question).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You answered "perhaps in the 1970's, give or take a few years." (to the above follow-up question)
Thank you! That is useful! :-)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

eusday

Hi Mr eusday. You told me that "Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mojo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted." - I fail to see why reminding people that a Mojo was a 1 penny sweet did not to be constructive. It was factually correct. Can you explain further please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighmullin (talk • contribs)

Hi Mr eusday. Thank you for your correction. Maybe I was a bit hasty with the recommendation of Mr Stuart Wright. However, I think he stands up to your definition of verifiability. But leaving that aside, you assert you cannot find reference to 'candy' of that name, whatever 'candy' means (please explain as it's not a verifiable term I understand). I think you might find some reference to said sweety here http://www.sweetheaven-online.co.uk/acatalog/Candy.html?gclid=CIX4grG2_58CFZAA4wodgkdNkQ

Hi Mr eusday. I feel you're not taking this seriously. I can vouch for millions of UK residents that have chewed this sweet. Moreover, do you not have better subjects to be 'monitoring' rather than Mojo Sweets? I'm starting to feel like i'm back in 1940's Germany here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighmullin (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kind regards. - L —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighmullin (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

I threw out my father's popcorn

[3]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben Mercer recreation

Hi there. The article above, deleted per AfD, has been recreated by the original author; I thought I'd let you know as you participated in the original AfD that I've relisted it here per the WP:RPDA policy. Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at WP:RD/H.
Message added 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Sark

I respect your views, however, Wikipedia policy is decided on a broader basis than on what you "see the point" – and for the record, Sark and the micronations are infinitely more encyclopedic than the Mayors of rural towns, and than Aldermen of local government areas, because they have been the subject of so much research, scholarship and news coverage. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 08:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you ask, two obvious examples of scholarly coverage alone include [4] and [5] – ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/930 Fifth Avenue

Things have changed a little since you've voted on this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Frikipedia

I don't know about translating from foreign wikis. Might want to ask at the help desk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ETA: Here is your answer. The Spanish-language article has a huge trivia section in the middle (listing the in-jokes), but the bottom half (where all the sources are) could easily be translated or paraphrased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

DYK for George Fielding Eliot

Updated DYK query On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Fielding Eliot, 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.

Calmer Waters 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

AfD nomination of Richard Thornton (politician)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Richard Thornton (politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Thornton (politician). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I'm wondering if possibly you know more about this topic than I do; I noticed you've just added a reference. To me, a post in a fraternal organization doesn't confer notability, but it may well be that my assessment of that is based on too little knowledge. I'm always prepared to change my mind if I get better information; if I've mis-assessed the potential for notability here, please do let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment on refdesk

Hi, I noticed you deleted my comment on the Science Desk. I assume it was inadvertent, and no big deal; I just wanted to let you know. --Sean 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at ShadowRangerRIT's talk page.
Message added 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I could kiss you!!!!

I've been searching for a copy of this book [6] for months. Many thanks. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent revert of my edit

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, the reason why I have applied the wording that I did was because not everybody (especially new editors) will know what the word "purging" means in Wikipedia jargon, plus, people who are inexperienced with the technical concepts behind computers may not fully understand about the page cache either. The wording "Click here to update this page" is far more universal. If you still believe that the older wording is better, please explain your revert in more detail, otherwise, please let me know if you now agree. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at IRP's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 20:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just informing you that you have a reply to your most recent message on my talk page. -- IRP ☎ 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to your message regarding the "Keeper of the Page". -- IRP ☎ 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Radio Station Notability

Please see this for my bare bones version of the guidelines we could bring to WP:N or others.

A side note, I apologize for snapping at you last night on the WMCN AfD. I was called out by an IP on an unrelated TfD and was threatened with legal action and then insulted when I was told I didn't care for people with disabilities (I have Aspergers). When I seen your post, I unleashed on you...the wrong person. That was in poor judgement and bad character of me. I apologize and I will work hard not to let it happen again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I expanded on it and posted it below yours here. I have included some of your sections (with credit) but focused on radio for now. The television portions of yours could be added in at anytime. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Peacock and Weasel

Here's a vote for the images of the Peacock and Weasel (sounds like a great pub). Edison (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL!! It's perfect, though it would need banks of computers for its Wikipedian customers. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A message from the Cabal

It has come to our attention that you are speaking of a so-called Ministry of Truth. Please be advised that the correct name is the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 16:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I need an opinion on this matter. Please issue to me a correct one, so that I can express it. Thanks! Edison (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Gee, thanks

Thanks for reverting the personal attack on my talk page and issuing a swift warning. I had logged in just moments before, and was really confused at what was going on—but your reverted right before my eyes! Good stuff. Cheers! —Mono·nomic 03:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Paramount Television Network

Hi Edison,

I have nominated Paramount Television Network as a Featured Article. I've seen you at FAC before, I know you have an interest in the history of television, I trust your judgment, and would appreciate your feedback on the article. The discussion is here. Please take a moment to weigh in at the FAC. Even a strong oppose with a rationale is better than the non-existent reviews the article has received during the last week. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Ipad and how it is terrible

I agree that the article was terrible. I did not see a CSD category allowing speedy deletion, and was in the process of posting a PROD on the basis that it was a content fork of iPad, violating Wikipedia:Content forking. Help me out here: what is the CSD category allowing speedy deletion of an "opinion piece" which is the basis for your action deleting this opinion piece? Was it just WP:IAR? Thanks. Edison (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could try and swipe them under the G10 carpet as a libelous page or tag it as A10 as it was a duplicate. Personally i just threw a snowball at the page as the outcome of the deletion process was certain (Though A10 would apply just fine). The page was Unsourced Libelous Original research based upon a personal opinion which forked from another page as well. No need to waste a lot of time on article's such as this one :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. A10 looks like a winner for such as this, where the subject is the same and the info is unreferenced and does not improve the existing article, or g10 if a company or its gadget is a "person" or "entity." Some of the others are good for PROD or AFD but not so clear as CSD. Edison (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: What is the point?

The edit that I imported from October 2001 was not in the page history before the import. The edit that shows the import is a null edit, and at no time did I change the article to a version from 2001; see this diff, and note that the "one intermediate revision not shown" is the edit from October 2001, and is mentioned in the diff because the diff system works by revision ID, not date/time.

After the import, I history merged the September 2001 edit by Magnus Manske from the title "AntoineLavoisier", to fix this cut-and-paste move. Graham87 04:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Goof night and G10

Can you take a look at the text Libertcat keeps re-adding to Goof night? I've sent the article up for AfD, so I don't think it's appropriate that I tag it for speedy deletion under G10 and blank the page. However, since you've recommended that option at the AfD page, I don't think it's out of line to ask you to look at the page and take that step, if you think it's warranted—or just delete the page outright. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Anya Verkhovskaya

In light of the superb job done by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), I am considering withdrawing my nomination to delete Anya Verkhovskaya. Since you were the only other person to !vote delete, I thought it best to ask your opinion before I actually withdraw the nomination. Astronaut (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Anya Verkhovskaya

Thanks for this and even more for the improvements here. An extra set of eyes is always appreciated. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). –xenotalk 17:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Shaytard

Why did you remove the Shaytard page? I came here looking for it, as a reader, and I also happen to be a once-in-a-rare-while Wikipedia editor.

The Shaytards is a top Youtube "channel", and has been since 2008. Given Youtube's current Five Year celebration, a number of the more popular channels are being featured.

Right now, if you visit Youtube.com and click on BROWSE, then CHANNELS, you'll see that the current ranking for top channels puts them in position number 18, with 7 million clicks listed for just this month alone. That puts them ahead of the professionally-produced IGN (number 19), the Associated Press channel (28), the NBA, and even Google's own channel.

Their channel has almost a half million registered subscribers, according to Youtube.com.

I'd say that ranks at least some consideration for Wikipedia. Can you restore the page please?

Skere789 (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) skere789

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Shaytard, follow up

Thanks for your response regarding the Shaytard page. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll respectfully suggest that (a) the definition of what constitutes a "credible source" is subjective at best, and (b) it's a bit ironic that a cutting-edge site such as Wikipedia seems to place - in general - more of an emphasis on traditional media than new media when it comes to defining what a "credible source" can be. I believe that history will soon show that Youtube is more of a credible source now than most people realize. That Shaytard "channel" currently shows as having over 120 million "views" on Youtube's self-published metric (keeping in mind that Google owns Youtube), and while I believe that does not necessarily represent unique user views, I nevertheless believe it implies a significant enough number of unique user views to merit a Wiki page. Regardless, thank you for your offer to transfer the page to me, frankly I'm not that motivated on this particular issue, as I'm only a once-in-a-rare-while Wikipedia contributor. But I suggest that perhaps the definition of "credible source" needs to be constantly reevaluated and treated as a work-in-progress.

Skere789 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)skere789

Mary Benedict Cushing

You might want to revisit this one--she seems to have been really prominent, as NY society goes--her marriage got an incredibly detailed article in the NYT. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Cooper Nott, Jr. (2nd nomination)

Could you please return to this deletion debate? PleaseStand (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please say who suggested/told/asked you to nominate this page for deletion. I suggest you consider the implications of answering erroniously before you do so. Oh and this one as well [7] and [8] ASAP please.I already know the answer and have prooof, so I suggest you tell the truth.  Giacomo  18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Metania

The section entitled Criticism found at Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes seems pure POV directed against YSEE and which seems to bear a strong likeness to the POV found in the article Metania that you have nominatied for deletion. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


WMEJ

Since you voted on the AfD, I bring this to your attention. The AfD for WMEJ has been reopened, primarily by Guy, but also User:Stifle. Guy has also gone to AfD Review (see here). This is clearly an admin wasting the community's time and ignoring clear consensus and notability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

User:Bearian/Standards#High_schools

Good ideas; I changed it slightly. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Paul Hutchens

Apologies if I ended up cross editing that article with you. Was just massaging the references because it was on my Watchlist (and I am fiddling with the The Sugar Creek Gang also). I'll keep out of your way for a bit :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

AfD nomination of List of 1974 Macropædia articles

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of 1974 Macropædia articles, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1974 Macropædia articles (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I notified everyone who commented on the previous AfD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My template notice wasn't exactly correctly worded, though, was it?  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Humanities

Hello, Edison. I removed a subthread including one of your posts diff, because it was started by blocked Sockpuppet of a banned editor, while adding nothing to the question (and, personally, I found the sockpuppet's post puerile and offensive). If you feel it is worth restoring, I won't remove it again. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Gibberish

Thank you for your crass comment Pandaplodder (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Remark you made at Sven70 ban discussion at ANI

Your views at 04:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) are OK in that that's what you feel, and it's expressed clearly in that manner without being personal. However, there is a problem with the comment that you made at 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC). For the reasons I stated here, please consider modifying it (or if that's too much work, replace it with the same comment you made at 04:07). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the words 'disruptive troll' or 'his claimed disability' - it was just the way it was said in that particular sentence. But the modification and qualification you made at 20:35 has fully resolved my concerns. Thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My essay

I made no assertions that my essay was policy. It is clearly labelled as an essay and I am not forbidding anyone to edit it. It is clearly a user essay. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Dow Medical College

Actually I am not the author of the page, Dow Medical College - I just recreated it after it was wrongly moved. Did not actually read every piece since I was only moving it. It seems that the history somehow got deleted during the move. Rzafar (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I removed the redirect which wrongly showed that the College was now Dow University of Health Sciences. The University page has the history. Rzafar (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

This just ain't my day...

Something as unsourced as that individual claiming to be related to Kevin Federline came off as a hoax. No problem putting it back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Grey-collar

Hey, could u plz fix the AfD of Grey-collar, something odd happened after twinkle malfunction. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Vinyl Addiction

Hello Edison. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Vinyl Addiction to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. As you know, A7 applies in very limited circumstances (real people, businesses and organizations, bands, and web content), and I wasn't able to find "college radio programs" on the list. That's why I converted the speedy deletion request into a PROD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chang

Re your message: Something is going on. See the AfD again. A CU and various emails seem to be going around. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your message: Hard to say. There was a CU done and it was passed along. What that results in, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
A pile of accounts got blocked, the AfD closed and blanked, so I guess that was the result. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Re your message: Yeah, I know what you mean, especially when it comes with AfDs, though that tends to be the worse place for sockpuppets/meatpuppets to appear. It is a fine line and I understand your hesitancy as I felt the same way. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

JC - no, not him...

Is that a serious question? I've been dropping hints from the time I copied those five clones from the talk page. Someone is very desperate to get that article up. I'm wondering what is at stake... Peridon (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Wikiquette alert

Just letting you know, I posted a thread on User:Dr. Blofeld at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and I mentioned your name in that he had accused you of "cruelty". StAnselm (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you can see now that it is not a list of any party member that ever existed and that we have removed many from the list who were non notable Nazis even though they are notable people who just happened to be a member of the party. Sorry we didn't see eye to eye and that I reacted strongly, it hasn't helped that I've had some serious health issues the last week or two which is making me feel irritable anyway so this ordeal has really not come at a good time. I've been in pain for the last two weeks with pressure on my brain caused by problems with my sternumwhatever the tube is which connects your nose to your ear.... I really have not been feeling good. No I shouldn't take it out on anybody on here at all but some of the comments made which appeared not what I intended with the lists really wound me up. It certainly didn't help the other day when I returned from the doctors and found the AFD reopened, a report about me and image deletion warnings on my talk page all at the same time. Everybody is free to vote delete at AFDs but I think a lot of things could be sorted through discussion which I believe would and should have been done on the article talk page without any conflict if it wasn't for the AFD. The concerns about red links and unsourced entries were very valid, but I don't think an AFD was needed to achieve this. I just personally think a sourced list is better than unreferenced categories for such an important topic as Nazis. You can slap a Nazi category on any German biography and given the lack of contibutors working German subjects most would go unnoticed. Take care. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support merging the lists. Off to bed now though...♦ Dr. Blofeld 01:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

William Kelly (inventor)

You posted a brief comment on Talk:William Kelly (inventor). I stumbled on this biography of William Kelly (inventor) and find him fascinating, worthy of far more respect than apparently he ever received. I made some minor improvements to the article, but it needs more work. Can you help? --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

DYK for Phonomotor

-- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

World Wireless System

What is the above system that you linked to in recent edits? Something from the mind of Tesla? Something new? Edison (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern,

Folks are presently linking to the article Wardenclyffe Tower that, it has been suggested, should be split to more narrowly focus on the theories of operation the Tesla wireless system, i.e., the World Wireless System.

See http://www.teslaradio.com/pages/wireless_102.htm and http://www.teslaradio.com/pages/wireless_101.htm for additional words on the subject.

Thanks for asking.

Regards,
GaryPeterson (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Edision,

I notice that you are a Wikipedia Administrator. A problem is developing with the Wireless energy transfer article. Can you advise me on the best way to proceed?

Regards,
GaryPeterson (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Peter Golden

I have Peter Golden as a professor. (You may too, seeing where you reside) I cant really find much about him beyond his Rutgers profile. I found one NY Times article that mentions him briefly. He is not even mentioned once in the Daily Targum (altho maybe he is in the Newark campus paper). While he is a pre-eminent professor in the field that has contributed truckloads of info, I agree that notability is lacking right now. On top of that, he seemed a bit uncomfortable with having an article (not that that is grounds for deletion). Im usually an inclusionist, but I think youd have my backing here for deletion. Theres just nothing out there to build an article.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wireless Energy Transfer Article

Earlier you communicated with me about some edits that I made to the Wireless energy transfer article and a question about the World Wireless System (see above.

Subsequently I mentioned a problem that is developing with the Wireless energy transfer article. To be more specific, major editing is now taking place by individuals whom appear not to have extensive expertise in the fields about which they are writing.

I do not wish to engage in a battle with these people in order to maintain the article in an uncompromised state. I really do require your assistance understanding Wikipedia editing guidelines and advice on how to proceed.

I'm even uncertain as to communication protocols between individual Wikipedia Administrators and Editors in general. Is there a mechanism for alerting correspondents via e-mail of unread replies, to this message for example? GaryPeterson (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

notability

Hello.

I've undone this edit because in the edit history I find that nearly all of the work on the article by respected mathematicians whose names I know (I've met two of them). Michael Hardy (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Speedy deletion declined: List of Tallest Buildings in Plano

Hello Edison. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of Tallest Buildings in Plano, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this doesn't fit A1 - you can tell what it's about, though it doesn't seem a very useful article at the moment. Consider PROD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me just in case

I felt as if I irritated you in my sincere questions and long replies about certain cable outlets. However, thank you for your answers to my questions concerning how certain media outlets work like MSNBC. If you have anything else you would like to add, you can do it here. Willminator (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the 1926 in jazz article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you try to expand 1924 in jazz further. I've made a good start. There some dates and info here Somebody at the AFD is trying to say the article wa snot valid that's all and should be directed to List of jazz standards in the 1920s. I need some help to prove otherwise..It should qualify for a joint DYK actually..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey (dog)‎‎

I have withdrawn the nomination and redirected the article to Human-animal marriage per your suggestion.  -- Lear's Fool 05:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You Have it Backwards

Regarding your comment below:

Delete per nom, and for failing notability and verifiability. Lacks reliable sources needed to verify claims. Still, I agree that a list is better than individual articles. Sources other than GRG are needed. There is a very long track record in the world of spurious claims of longevity, the more so when birth records and other documentation the individual is really that old are lacking. Edison (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was started, and founded, on the idea that there should be a list of "verified" supercentenarians. The GRG has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, etc. and has been accepted as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia ArbCom. Not only that, it is the main source for Guinness World Records "oldest persons" cases. Since 2001, all but one of the Guinness "oldest person" cases have come from the GRG, including for the top-ten lists.

The point of the article, however, was a matrix: a cross between "verified longevity" and "geography" that purports to show that the longevity records worldwide are fairly similar when standards of documentation are maintained.

It should be noted that JJBulten is a religious anti-science crusader who believes that humans live to 950 (ask him if he believes that...he won't deny it). His aim/goal is to delete all material on supercentenarians that is based on the scientific, mainstream position that says that age verification is essential to produce quality data. Remember, he wants to not just believe his mythology, but to mis-educate other readers as well. It's like trying to force "creationism" in school textbooks, while saying that "evolution is only a theory."

A lot of experts (the "elite") don't have the time to constantly guard Wiki articles against this kind of attack. It is important that regular Wiki editors such as yourself be made aware of this.

There is also a difference between the need for upgrading sources and whether an article is a good idea. Last I checked, the idea of "Africa" as a geographic region was still in vogue. The future will see this article re-instated, whether in a week or a year or a decade.

Ryoung122 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Fu

From what you wrote, at least, yours the first time around is better than the nominator's this time around. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC

Hey, thanks for your replying on my talk page. I actually used most of the sources that were used and cited on the MSNBC Wikipedia article, including the right-wing Human Events one. You can blame the other administrators and Wikipedia users for citing those sources in the article. However, I see nothing wrong using those sources; whether right wing, center wing, or left wing, only in a question, argument, etc. though as everyone is entitled to their opinions. Willminator (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bro for responding again on my talk page. My latest post on my talk page: "Sorry I just thought that since sources like the Human Events one (See cite number 61 here for example) was cited, I thought I could cite it in my questions. Do you want me to take out that citation from the MSNBC Wikipedia article and some others I may have used that have an opinion? Willminator (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks again for your post on my talk page. You can post just final thing there if you wish to. I forgot to tell you by the way that I did mention in my questions you saw on the Miscelaneous Reference Desk that MSNBC is beating both CNN and HLN. I already knew that before you pointed it out to me, but thanks. Regards to you too. Willminator (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois)

Thank you for your work and effort on improving this article. I really hate using AfD as a method to get an article to improve but sometimes landing on the AfD page is the trick necessary to improve the article. As I still consider the notability marginal I will ammend my AfD nomination and let it move forward. Hasteur (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

As someone who has nominated or commented on one of the current candidates, a couple of which are getting very old, you are invited to comment at this discussion to see if we can tidy up the FSC page before Christmas (and / or one or more of the nominations). Thank you. BencherliteTalk 19:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, one's been promoted tonight, and some more attention has been paid to the FSC page as a whole, which is nice. However, I'm not sure I understand the rationale of your oppose vote at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (my nomination) so I've left something there for you to respond to, when you get the chance. Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone has pointed out at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sergei Rachmaninoff that you've supported and opposed, so perhaps you could clarify which is your final view and strike out the other. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Bomb Iran

Please note that I have heavily rewritten this article, so please reconsider your "delete" recommendation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomb Iran. Thanks, DHowell (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Oliver Hazard Perry

Your edit summary said "Graham's Magazine, 1843, p269, Vols 22-23", but there was no reference put in. I don't know your intentions. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

I'm kinda anal retentive about this stuff. I agree it's noncontroversial (at least with me). But I source almost everything, and I'll add it.
I also know that the purists don't like Find a grave, as it is 'just a wiki' like us. However, they often have good info, particularly pictures (not just of the grave but of the cemetery). I use it as something cumulative, and if it appears in a reference it is only because it is there instead of an external link. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan
I enjoyed your career-ending tale. Good thing that they kept Chester A. Nimitz around. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan
The photoshop worry/criticism could equally be applied to anything, including Wiki Commons. I understand your position, but I think it is overblown. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

AfD Template

Hi Edison, there is a problem with the AfD that you listed, the template is not displaying correctly. I had a look, but was unsure of the problem or how to correct it. Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_12 Regards, Jørdan 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Carlina White kidnapping

No problem, another editor suggested I look at this. I hope it looks good for DYK. KimChee (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Highland View Academy listed for deletion

I have listed Highland View Academy for deletion. I noticed you had participated in previous AfDs of high schools and thought you might participate. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland View Academy. WikiManOne (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests

tough call. but further protests could count as a new day. its just that the crux of the reason mubarak came on tv (and al jazeera is reporting not me) is that it was because of the protests today, not the preceding days where the analyst said he decided to come today and not any of the other days. perhaps the new few hours can determine when we actually have something then, because the fall would be a subsection of the events which is deceptie as this came first.

how would that layout work then. i suppose go ahead and put yours and we can review tomorrow.although i ask you say it was a reason of 28 and just happened after midnight(Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

DYK for Carlina White kidnapping

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Highlands Elementary School (2nd nomination)

Hi Edison, thank you for chiming in and demonstrating a perfect and exceptionally well phrased knowledge of the exception we practice for schools - many other admins are not even aware of this. We regularly get 3 or 4 such AfD a week, mainly raised in GF of course, but by less experienced editors and NPPers who are not aware of WP:WPSCH/AG. We could use your expertise more often! There is also soon going to be another RfC attempt to get consensus to have these practices more firmly anchored in notability policy. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Micheal fitzgerald

Hi, the article has been updated, substatiated and references. Please advise whether the Speedy deletion nomination of Micheal fitzgerald can be removed. Thanks in AdvanceHunterscarlett(talk) 00:07, 01 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Request for advice

Edison, I don't think that you and I have ever interacted, but I need advice on something, and you are familiar with the situation. See User_talk:Sphilbrick#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FUser:Alexandra_Marie_Weber for the requests.

I've never done a devdel before, so not fully comfortable with what qualifies and what does not. In my opinion, the edit appears so absurd that no one is likely to take it seriously. I don't see a need for revdel, but looking for your opinion.

Regarding the proposed block, I think that is over-reaction. I'm a big fan of warnings first (with some exceptions) but don't see this as an exception. I think she bears watching, but I don't feel that the very odd edit rises to the level of an immediate block. What do you think?--SPhilbrickT 13:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

(Speedy deleted per CSD A10, LAPEADO was a recently created article that duplicated an existing topic. using TW)

In regards to:

02:55, 2 February 2011 Edison (talk | contribs) deleted "Lapeado" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD A10, was a recently created article that duplicated an existing topic. using TW)

Your explanation of why this article was deleted makes little sense to me.... According to you, it already had a "duplicated" English version of it (Lapping), thus "Lapeado" as in the spanish version could not exist (or wasn't necessary).

Well..., the very reason I've took upon to create an Spanish version for Lapeado was because it's counter-process HONING English (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honing) DOES have a spanish version HONEADO, see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeado.

If that is the case, how do you justify denying the creation of Lapeado? I leave now in Mexico, run a business that cater to that process and there is really no readily good information in Spanish available...

Regards, Robinson Fonseca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diesel-doctors (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi,

Just in case you are wondering why I'm always so particular about sourcing: 1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp is a well-written hoax that has been around for almost 3 months. If you look at Google you get a whopping 5760 hits for this fictitious stamp, all based on Wikipedia's article. Travelbird (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

re: Justin Massera

Just wondering why the note about creating this wound up on my talk page... the only edits seem to have been by User:Mr. BonesX2

- J Greb (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pages I Would Like You To Took At

I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.

This is plainly a bad articleStefon from SNL --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 will respond much more timelyIf you respond on his talkpage!    03:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Plain White T's, Edward Wong, David Turnbull, Columbia Revolt, Year of the Lash ,David Garrow,Nell Irvin Painter and Jheri Curls Have improved, but still needs a lot of help. --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC) PHASE 2 Thomas Latimer Matt Bai are better articles now, because of wikipedians like you who have improved articles. -Stubs- Hans Raastad-- an article I created Ryan Belal Pea enation mosaic virus The Grays (band) Gingivectomy Tom Karsch I have revised this list again. We need to edit and spread the word about these articles to make Wikipedia better. Even edd to this list all the articles you think need help (don't forget to timestamp). Adding references, information, and correcting grammar all really help.--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

These stubs are getting better, but needs more work. Professor Mike Donovan Michael Curtis (TV producer) 

--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spread the word!--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Your vote

Hello Edison, I added a new information to Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen including, but not limited info about the episode run on PBS in 2008. The story has gotten a continues coverage from 2005 to 2010. With accordance of new information I added may I please ask you to consider revising your vote? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

List of Hutus List of Tutsis

Hi. Will look into it but am plagued down with a lot of work at the moment. So much needs sorting out/writing properly and starting on here... I doubt either list would be deleted though, looking at the current turnout, but I agree such lists need to be sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Re: AFD left hanging: Planking

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)

If you might take a look at the work performed on Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) and revist the AFD discussion, I believe a redirect and partial (and now sourcable) merge be done to the Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations... the one place where film adaptations of this children's tale have a reason to be mentioned in context. I also suggest a redirect of the film title to A) prevent a premature recreation and B) save the history so the redirect might be reverted and the article sourced if RS DVD reviews are found. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How do I edit this template:SI prefixes or whatever it is?

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  09:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 05:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

"Of course Pops toms, but he toms from the heart."

I'd like to find the source for this, and the context. I found it shocking when I read it today. Dlabtot (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

re [9], ok, it's a valid RS, but it doesn't provide the context I was looking for. I will try to look at the source for that source when I have the energy. Dlabtot (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tornado

The problem with mach number, is unlike converting knots to mph or km/h, it is not a simple conversion, but is also dependent on other factors such as altitude, temperature etc. As the sources don't state an altitude that the 800 knot speed is valid for, then it isn't appropriate to quote a mach number - for example at using [10] a clibrated airspeed of 800 knots gives Mach 1.2 at sea level and Mach 2.2 at 34,000 ft (which corresponds to Jane's Mach 2.2 at altitude).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Assertions about my "mindset" and "lamentable unwillingness" are completely unnecessary. If you disagree with my points, fine. But ridiculing me simply because we disagree is a personal attack and should stop. Msnicki (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your templated warning is inappropriate and very ironic, considering your lack of civility in the AFD in question. My comment at the AFD was in fact an effort to get you to read and respond to several references which I had cited early in the debate. You were hung up on there only being "one reference from IEEE." Another editor in the AFD had already pointed out your Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point" in as an example of "Lala--can't hear you," with the same argument repeated over and over, and another had complained of your mocking tone. Please come to the realization that an AFD is not a contest between you and the "bad guys" which you have to "win" by ridiculing others and repeating the same incorrect argument over and over. Edison (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Earl

I saw your question at MilborneOne's talk page. Are you in the UK? If you have a library card, you should be able to access The Times Digital Archive through your library's website free of charge. Otherwise, it is a subscription site. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in the UK, and the Times is not on the list of papers my library has access to electronically. In the past I have sometimes asked the library to get microfilm of such a paper via interlibrary loan, but I do not want to bust their budget too badly. Edison (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

regarding your comments on proposed deletion of Dwight Eisenhower's Rolex Watch

Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwight_Eisenhower%27s_Rolex_Watch

How much independent attestation (other than the collector himself) is needed to inherit notability? (if such an inheritance is actually possible. Don't certain items have an inherent notability, at least to some degree?) Additionally, as items age do they not gain notoriety? The watch was unique in that it is the only one with Eisenhower's initials on it, and five stars as well (to signify his status as a five-star general). I'm really frustrated, because I can't understand HOW this doesn't meet the notability requirements? In the interests of time and the time I'm spending on research, could you at least tell me what KINDS of things would give this item notability, were that already the case? Raw4815 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw4815 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:N? I will be happy to try and answer any specific question about notability. Or you could ask on the talk page of WP:N. Things do not become notable, in Wikipedia's usage of the term, because they have "aged" to 60 years old or whenever Ike acquired the watch, or because they have this or that decoration on them. Read the guideline and you will understand better what we mean by notability. As I said in the AFD it is NOT inherited. Notability comes from being noted, that is, from having multiple reliable and independent sources have significant coverage. Some collector having a website is not independent, nor is a press release from the manufacturer of the watch talking about how wonderful it is and how anyone with several thousand dollars can own one like it. A personal blog is generally not a reliable source. Edison (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read WP:N, and honestly I'm left with more questions than answers after reading it. Based on those guidelines, more things should be included than actually are. If what has been commented on my two articles is true, then the page Raleigh DeGeer Amyx should be deleted also, yet that page still works fine and the only message on it is that it is orphaned. This is not about selling his items, it is about the history of their significance as it relates to certain events and institutions in America (such as the Olympics, former presidents, and the like). Thank you for your comments, and your time. Raw4815 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There are over 1000 articles added each day to the existing 3.6 million, compared to about 120 discussed at AFD. The process of finding and removing articles about nonnotable subjects cannot keep up with the addition of unencyclopedic articles. Fewer people are interested in removing unencyclopedic articles than there are interested in promoting their favorite nonnotable band, book, cartoon character, club, company, theory, relative, or hobby. The fact that an article exists does not mean that it should exist, or that it would survive AFD. Edison (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Siegfrieds Funeral March and Finale‎

I found the information that you requested at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Siegfrieds Funeral March and Finale‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Schools

Hi Edison/Archive 4. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities.
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of United States death row inmates

You have been working on the article, and the manner in which you've done so leads me to believe that you think it will be kept despite the understandable objections: the article is a honeypot for BLP vandals, the inclusion of any unsentenced person would be, in and of itself, a BLP violation. In my opinion, it should have at least semi-protection once reasonably up to date. There are already articles of Capital punishment in (U.S. state of foo), which I've looked through and they seem stable. The list need not be kept up-to-the-minute, and actually has less turnover/upkeep than many, although exonerations and commutations would ideally be immediate. Please review my contributions and let me know if you have any feedback. I started with Idaho and have now moved to the bottom of the quantity list, working up. Dru of Id (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Kindly Advise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#I_have_a_point-and-shoot_digital_camera

It seems that Msniki also has made up her (?) mind about ChucK; granted this is not something as well-known as 2N3055. I guess I should just wait for other editors to opine because trying to convince her of anything seems a pointless exercise. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Dinah Shore

WP:NALBUMS is the guideline you're looking for:

"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

Per WP:OUTCOMES, though, compilations are far less likely to be notable unless they charted and/or were extensively reviewed; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult album). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Question at DrV for you.

Here. Thanks in advance! Hobit (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Inquiry on AfDs

Hi Edison, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Elite Pedro

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I'm just letting you know that I deleted the above page as a G3 blatant hoax, not A1 as you tagged it. When tagging pages, it pays to read the text, and check the page log to see if it was previously deleted. For more information on tagging pages, please read WP:NPP. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

OOps

Oops, apologies, my finger slipped. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Software

Do you know if there has been any discussion anywhere about whether Lifehacker is considered a reliable source for software? I created the stub Any Video Converter using it as a reference. Even without it, there are several pages about it in two magazines but I have come across the argument so many times that there needs to be three or more reliable sources. If it's not considered reliable, I will probably move it to my userspace until I find another source. Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally asked you because you are an experienced administrator that seems to know his stuff. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Nicolas Savin

Hello! Concerning your stance in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_Savin, might you reconsider? I have found a number of additional sources concerning this man and have begun revising the article accordingly. Please note that he is also covered in international sources that I have not yet cited. In German, for example, see Historische Zeitschrift: Volume 113 (1968): "dem nach 1812 in Sara- tow angesiedelten und 1894 im Alter von 126 Jahren verstorbenen Nicolas Savin..." In French, for example, see Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine: Volume 19 (1970): "Il s'agit de Nicolas Savin, né en 1768, officier de hussards à la Grande Armée, fait prisonnier à la Bérézina..." And still other English language sources exist, such as History today: Volume 22 (1962): "He was a French hussar, Nicolas Savin, who was taken prisoner by the cossacks of Platoff at the Berezina and who is..." That he is written about in multiple published sources in French, English, and German in both the 1800s and 1900s and even got the notice of the Tsar seems sufficiently notable. I do not know if you watch list AfDs, hence why I am messaging you here with this update. Thank you for your time and consideration. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Edit conflict

What you thought spam was an inquiry question about a news-source... Jon Ascton  (talk)

Answered on your talk page. Looks like it might contain malware. Not appropriate to post such a link in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that these are interactive sites and automatically insert the places name from where one is reading it ....?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

.....It doesn't take long to figure out a site is not legitimate news when it describes some highly lucrative "business opportunity" and inserts ones own town as the location where someone else got rich. News stories do not do that. Then it started popping up click boxes which made it difficult to exit. I hope my malware filter is up to date. If a questionable site did in fact insert malware, it would be a disservice to keep it where numerous unsuspecting Wikipedians would click on it. If there were a site for such a posting, it would be the Computing Ref Desk, and only with ample warning about possible malware. As for questionable news sites, you weren;t planning to use it as a reference for an article, were you? If so then there would be a considerable objection to treating it as a reliable source. Edison (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. As from my PC they were giving no popping click boxes. I merely got suspicious because they were talking in terms of dollars, the people's name and picture showed white and it was Ludhiana, Punjab, India where there are no white people ! Here is a snapshot of the site. Please note the underlined name of place. Where they same from where you did see them ? No, I certainly don't request you to reopen that site as you think they could damage your computer, but you can answer from your memory of what you saw for first time, where the names of place Ludhiana and Punjab ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it was definitely the name of my town in the US. Otherwise it seemed the same story. They get the IP address you use and look up the location. Edison (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles Chips

Good finds in the sources, now add them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 06:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pontificalibus (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Sioux Uprising

It's been more than two weeks since you started the discussion at Article title should be moved back to Dakota War of 1862. It looks like there's consensus to change it back. How long do we need to wait? Also, I assume this would also apply to the campaignbox name change and subsequent addition of Dakota Territory battles after the end of the Sioux Uprising. It was also changed in the "partof=" fields in many Infoboxes and fixing them will get more difficult as time passes and subsequent edits are made. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like time enough has passed without any argument for the new title, so the discussion should be closed and the move made. Would you be able to do the necessary changes? Edison (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm headed out the door shortly, but I'll give it a shot when I get back if nobody else has done it. I've never done a page move before, so I guess I'll read WP:Move#How to move a page — unless you want to do the move and save me the trouble. I can probably track down the rest of it when I get home — infobox changes, change the campaignbox name back and put the proper campaignboxes on the additional Dakota Territory conflicts that were added to this campaignbox. Mojoworker (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't do the move — apparently because the current redirect Dakota War of 1862 has two lines in the page history. Mojoworker (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell‎ did the move, so I'll get started on the rest of it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
We need to make sure and keep any beneficial edits done around the time of or since the earlier move. Edison (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm moving slowly and methodically and not making much use of undo or TW restore version. Mojoworker (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I got everything. Mojoworker (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much! Edison (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Leonard Falcone

I saw your note in the discussion for Leonard Falcone. If you know a wiki-proper format for phonetic pronunciation as a portion of a biographical lead, I hope you will add it. Please see my corresponding comment on that talk page.--Rwberndt (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your most appreciated help in editing the Matthew Walker, Sr., M.D. item

Edison: Again, may I offer my deepest thanks for your having helped me with the editing of the Matthew Walker, Sr., M.D. page. At the bottom of Dr. Walker's page, I see that Dr. Walker's category is listed as LIVING PEOPLE. This is erroneous!!! Dr. Walker died in the year 1978 on July 15th.

As you will soon note, I sent an email with some more book references instead of the website references. For sake of repetition, those books (magazines) are "The Spirit of a Place Called Meharry: The Strength of Its Past to Shape the Future by Charles W. Johnson, Sr., M.D.; The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society - Spring 2003, and A Century of Black Surgeons: The U.S.A. Experience Edited by Claude H. Organ, Jr.,M.D., F.A.C.S. and Margaret M. Kosiba, R.N.

If my article is really accepted, I would like to put some pictures of Dr. Walker there. How many would be allowed, or is there no minimum.

I wrote this at the urging of Dr.George Simpson, an 86 year old gentleman fro Florida who, with his wife, Dr. Dazelle Dean Simpson, was one of Dr. Walker's most outstanding (his wife was most outstanding as well) medical residents at Meharry. He, Dr. Simpson, lamented the fact that Dr. Walker could not be found on Wikipedia. You will note that Dr. Dorothy Lavinia Brown is noted there (she mentions Dr. Walker as a Black surgeon teacher who did not hesitate to allow Dr. Brown to be one of his first female residents.) Thank you again, for your amazing patience, Edison. Warmest regards, Maxine Walker GiddingsMaxigee (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RD/S lightbulb sockets

Nice to see User:Edison railing against the Edison base :) DMacks (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not pay a dollar extra on a new LED light fixture for the ability to unscrew the bulb in 20 or 40 years. By then there may be iluminating paint for ceilings and light fixtures may be obsolete. Edison (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

A question

I just undid a change where User:$1LENCE D00600D changed the battle name in Campaignbox Sioux Wars from "Dakota War of 1862" to "Dakota War" again. I then looked at some other recent edits by User:$1LENCE D00600D and noticed several changes similar to this diff where New Mexico Territory (USA) and the present day location (Arizona) were removed leaving only "Arizona Territory" WikiLinked to Confederate Arizona. Now that makes some sense since it did involve Confederate forces against the Apaches, however, it could cause some confusion by simply calling it "Arizona Territory" since Arizona Territory USA wasn't created until 1863. This whole issue can be confusing since the CSA claims overlaped the southern half of what are now Arizona and New Mexico and at the time was the southern half of New Mexico Territory USA. The First Battle of Dragoon Springs article still has it the way it used to be on the Second Battle of Dragoon Springs.

I had recently asked User:Kirill Lokshin about a similar issue on Dakota Territory vs. North Dakota when I noticed some inconsistencies while I was editing some articles that are part of the "Operations Against the Sioux in North Dakota" campaignbox. He replied that there really isn't a standard on whether to use present-day or at-the-time locations and his thought was to include both locations in that situation.

So, do you think I should change the "place=" parameter values back on the relevant articles? Discuss it on the talk pages of the articles? Seek consensus somewhere (and if so, where)? Other thoughts you might have?

Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Carrier pigeon

Hi Edison. I was contacted privately to inform you that you have an e-mail from Tom (I'm presuming you know more than I do). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hudson Valley

The referenced text that was deleted was done so at the request of the users on the delete request talk page, look it up. It is not vandalism if the Refimprove tag and citation needed tags were in place since 2008 - which they were - you can look that up, too. I was asked to removed unverifiable and non-impartial text, which I did. Look it up. Usnetizen (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the refimprove tag was there since 2008. Again, I removed what I was asked to remove. AND - if these "facts" are so "easily referenced", why weren't they? Why didn't YOU reference them? The material deserved to be removed and it will be removed. People that keep unverified material on these articles are the reason Wikipedia can never be an authoritative source for educational research. If things were to continue the way you want, I could make up anything on any article and claim it to be the truth and just complain to keep in there - just like you are doing. It's not how it works if there is any hope of maintaining any sense of credibility on Wikipedia. Usnetizen (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usnetizen (talk • contribs)

Sam Goundar

What are you guys talking about?

Stop behaving like you own Wikipedia ... look at the guidelines:

You are contravening Wikipedia's guidelines ...

Wikipedia’s Notability Requirements for Academics [from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)]

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. YES Sam Goundar’s research has been published in United Nation’s publications, IEEE Journals [highest ranked IT journal], and other refereed journals and publications. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. YES Sam Goundar has been selected as an Emerging Leader of the Digital World and was invited to be a panellist for the m-Education conference. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE). YES Sam Goundar has an IEEE publication and has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society. 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. YES Sam Goundar has been conducting research at The University of the South Pacific, The University of Fiji, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and for the Attorney General of Fiji ... 5. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. YES Sam Goundar has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society 6. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. YES Sam Goundar has reviewed and edited research papers for acceptance at DEIT 2011 Conference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.67.129 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Misc ref desk

You didn't need to delete this: [11] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Since you already commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of South Azerbaijan, have you noticed the invasion of the WP:SPAs and possible socks "voting" there? I tried to put a comment under all the suspicious "votes", but what else can be done about this? I'm worried that this might escape the attention of the closing admin. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Was this really necessary?

"Is there a Userbox for the user pages of editors who insist on spelling non-Latin-alphabet words in a transliteration other than the commonly used one? Then other editors could take a quick look at someone's user page and understand why he was using odd spellings on talk pages. Like if someone pointedly asked question at the Reference Desk about "Peiping," "Bombay," or "Mahomet." Many words in English were originated in other languages with different alphabets, and many words which came from the precursors of modern English were once spelled differently (. This would save volunteers on Ref Desk from doing Google Book searches or other research with spellings which are not used in references which might contain the information the OP says he wants. Or the editor could just refrain from trolling in the form of using idiosyncratic spellings. Edison (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)"

I don't really see why it was necessary to accuse me of trolling especially when I wikilink in the first sentence and the spelling I used is actually found in every American English dictionary (Which I have now linked in the thread for the benefit of you all). It would have been better to ask about the spelling that simply accuse me of pointy behaviour and trolling. Especially when I have not exhibited nor have I been accused of behaviour in the past which could count as trolling. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11 Tishrei 5772 04:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Hello Edison! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Les Golden AFD

Not posting this there as it is not about the article. I don't know what makes you think there is anything like the Salem witch trials going on here, but engaging in such obviously ridiculous hyperbole can't possibly be helpful, or intended to be helpful for that matter. I had nothing to do with reporting the suspected sock you mentioned who turned out to be unrelated, and I have done nothing to suggest you are a sock. First you call my assertions asinine because you weren't able to understand them. Then you say I did not mention something that I had already mentioned twice. Then you commented that another user was right that the socking was not the issue, while at the same time trying to chastise me for not bringing it up, which I had anyway right in my nomination. If you take the time to actually read others remarks and try to comprehend them before making a bunch of unfounded accusations you may find that you won't constantly be putting your foot in your mouth as you have been during this debate. I hope that is clear enough for you because I am not interested in explaining the meaning of every single word I have written any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawn Gibbons

I noticed that you blocked User:Dawn Gibbons as result of her edits to the Dawn Gibbons article and I wanted to let you know about a previous incident involving that article just in case it might be related. Last February, I noticed that the article had been edited by the similarly-named User:Tdawngibbons, and reported my concerns regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to an administrator, User:WereSpielChequers who issued a warning for a possible violation of the conflict-of-interest policy. While I am not 100% sure the two incidents are connected, I think further investigation by an administrator is warranted. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Coconut Creek

Someone found sources. You might want to revisit the The Promenade at Coconut Creek AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

AFD

You can always ask nicely for me to expand an article. As long as its one at a time I'm happy to do it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty certain there are several more books which would cover it not yet covered in google books. Remember so far they only scanned about 12 million out of 130 million... I would also imagine newspaper and magazine coverage of the films at the time in Argentina but are unlikely to ever make it onto the web and are probably lost. Honestly if I thought it was an independent definitely not notable film I wouldn't try to keep it. Agreed though on the copyright thing, they go a long way to helping article quality. I hate seeing articles on films devoid of images like Fight Club (film).♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally Edison you come across as a decent, rationally minded person in the few conversations we've had. however your comments like "If this thread is closed, what venue is appropriate to start discussion toward compelling him to include the source as a reference when he mass-creates articles?" really don't do you any favours and you come across as a bit of an a-hole who thinks there is some sort of war going on. And you should be the first person to realise that bringing up posts about me on community forums is the worst thing you could possibly do to get me to do something. If you want me to do something or expand an article please apporach me personally and avoid forums like the plague. If something is bothering you and you suspect an article is no notable ask me. It is most infuriating that you feel that you cannot address me and think it appropriate to talk about me like some jury convicting a criminal. I get the impression you either really grossly underestimate my level of intelligence or you have difficulty in conversing with editors personally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I found the article interesting. One question some may have is whether the article is a dictionary definition, in light of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That guide says "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." The key here is "otium" is a concept. Non-English words should have an IPA pronunciation guide. I suppose it sounds like "Oh-tee-oom?" Or is it "Aw-tee-oom" (in American English), not IPA. Or does the "t" get a "ts" pronunciation like "deprecationem?" Church Latin differs from Classical Latin, etc. See [12], for instance. Found a supposed Latin IPA pronunciation here:[13]. Edison (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for input.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A-hole

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


I don't know how to use this, but anyway, sorry, I wasn't trying to impersonate anyone. I don't know how to edit wikipedia past getting to these pages. So I copy/pasted and inserted my opinion. Anyway, I think you should keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.73.165 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

AFD

Is there really a time limit as to how soon the next AFD can be opened? I essentially got all the policy explanations as to why it should be deleted, the objections are mostly made up on the spot and never prepared in advance, since in initial afds, logically, its the nominator of the AFD whose prepared his arguments while the keep proponents who have to answer on the spot, since they would never be aware when an AFD is coming..Bunser (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

I am not sure that Fram is the best judge of what is always a difficult distinction. He cited: "One of the largest food recalls in United States history." v. "one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history" as infringement and is using it as my most an egregious example. A Google search of the exact phrase "one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history" in quotations gives 3,660 results in Google with 14 in GNews. Some of my earlier contributions from 2005 and 2006 used larger chunks of attributed material and may have relied on too few sources. I agree that his deleting articles based on his narrow concept of fair-use of attributed material v. copyright-infringement is not helpful. He loses the categories and the lede and any research I performed to find a middle name or date of birth and name of parents from passport applications and from ships manifests and from draft registrations. We also lose the link to the image and once orphaned the image will be deleted by the orphan bot. When someone feels that the wording has the same look-and-feel so that it risks being a derivative-work, it is much easier to give a second round of rewording instead of deleting the entire article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for talking behind my back. Please provide a diff where I list it as your most egregious example, since I did nothing even close to it. My full text was "Just today, i.e. after the CCI started, you made this edit: [7]. Your full text: "One of the largest food recalls in United States history.". The sources text: "one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history". That doesn't give me any confidence that you really understand (or care about) the problem at all. Fram (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)" Please don't spread lies about me. Fram (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You called for me to be blocked over that edit. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not. Please indicate where in this diff[14] (or in any directly related to it) did I ask for you to be blocked over that edit? Please retract your false claims or provide evidence for it. Fram (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Less than 10 hours before that diff, in this diff you had said "I don't believe that an editor who creates dozens (hundreds?) of copyright violations over five years or more, even continuing after a CCI is opened for his images, and who gives no indication at all of caring about the problem and of being willing to work on it (reactively and proactively), should be left around any longer. If someone believes strict mentoring has a chance and volunteers for it (and Richard Arthur Norton accepts), then that might be a solution. Otherwise, I suggest an indefinite block (not a time-limited one, as long as there is no indication that this will stop)." Your later posting is hard to read as anything but further argument in favor of blocking. Edison (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's easy to read in another light, if you are willing to. The block call was before he responded, and because he didn't respond at all (in words or in actions). At the time of the post under discussion, the circumstances were changed, and the reasoning for my first post there no longer fully applied. You could just as easily read my later post as support for a topic ban or another solution, if you were willing to assume good faith instead of reading things into posts that were never there. Fram (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It does not indicate on your part any belief that "the circumstances were changed" when you wrote "That doesn't give me any confidence that you really understand (or care about) the problem at all" as a followup to your call 10 hours earlier for an indef block. "Assume good faith" does not require me to assume something other than the plain text of what you posted on ANI. If you intended to post that you thought an indef block was no longer called for, you could have expressed that view more clearly, and you are still welcome to edit the comments at ANI to make your new view clearer. Edison (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

Do you have an opinion on whether the link to Findagrave is reliable in the article Francis William Edmonds? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#User-submitted contents. There is no good reason why this article would be one of the rare exceptions where findagrave would be a good source. Fram (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Information someone posts at Findagrave is a great starting point for anyone to search for reliable sources. It is similar to unreferenced bio information people post in genealogical websites, which is also a great starting point to be followed up by a researcher who gets census returns, death certificates, wedding registrations, military service documents, wills, obituaries, newspaper articles, etc. (Those are by the way great for genealogy but not the secondary sources we want for Wikipedia). Some of the Findagrave info is accurate, and some is legend, hearsay, rumor, mistaken identity, or wishful thinking. It does suggest fruitful areas for research in local histories, newspaper obituary files, etc. Even a tombstone inscription may just reflect what some ill-informed distant relative told the stonecutter to carve. Edison (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oleo Strut

Did you notice Oleo Strut (coffeehouse)? I restored the article that had been turned into a redirect without apparent discussion. Given the inbound links, this may well be notable. Closing RMs is not trivial. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

long-lived office furniture

The mistake YOU are making is that work is placed in office in trays in bundles, one on top of another. Therefore, most sliding of paper out rubs on pages underneath. It is only when the last sheet is reached that it has the opportunity to erode the metal of the tray. Clerks traditionally keep more complex work on the bottom of the tray, and deal with the easier stuff on top. In this way, it might be weeks before the really hard stuff is slid off the tray. So I stand by my figure that a metal in tray has an expected working life of about 4 billion years.Myles325a (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Was this post your intent?

That one was not mine as the username "Wikih101" is not me nor do I have an account with that name. I will leave a message to the user to gave that cookie message. Thanks for letting me know, SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edison/Archive_4&oldid=1147869633"