User talk:Sladen/Archives/2013

split proposal for Aqueduct

I note your contribution to Talk:Aqueduct and I would like to bring to your attention a proposal that the article Aqueduct be split to Aqueduct (watercourse) and Aqueduct (bridge), with the original article directed to the existing page Aqueduct (disambiguation). Please feel welcome to comment on the proposal at Talk:Aqueduct#Split proposal (2) Please note a similar proposal was made a couple of years ago (see about halfway up the talk page).Nankai (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

splitting Aqueduct

Thanks for your comments Sladen, would you be happy to carry out the split? I sense that you would get it right.Nankai (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Louis XIV of France

Hello. You might have missed it but there is currently an edit war going on about the inclusion of the German name "Strassburg" in this article. Your edit reintroduced this term that previously been removed. I would like to ask you to self-revert and open a discussion at the article talk because having "Strassburg" in this article is currently contested. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's what the edit conflict was. If it's there it should preferably be formatted using {{lang-de|Strassburg}} which provides the italics per the WP:MOS. Perhaps, if you feel strongly, you could comment it out (rather than deleting), so that if it does remain/get re-added again it remains correctly formatted. —Sladen (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then I'm going to wrap a comment around it. I do support the use of the lang templates but let's first sort the general problems over there. The German name was newly introduced to the article here and removed by another editor the same day, which started the edit war. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and the WP:EN article Enclave and exclave

Hi. I've been experimenting with Wikidata, adding various statements and correcting interwiki links were necessary. But I've come across an issue with the WP:EN article Enclave and exclave, which covers two linked concepts in one article. This makes it very hard to provide links for the Wikidata concepts of enclave and exclave, especially as Wikidata does not appear to let me set up interwiki links pointing at redirect pages. I've discused this further at Talk:Enclave and exclave#Reconsideration of merge of enclave and exclave, mostly from the perspective of whether we should demerge the article. As somebody who seems to be involved in the integration of Wikidata and WP:EN, you may like to comment there. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to ask. My 'involvement' started a few days ago, deriding the lack of documentation or pre-announcement, and trying to do something about those. I've made a few dozen contributions to the Wikidata database itself in order to get familiar with it, but I won't understand the corner cases. On the Talk: pages relating to Wikidata there is a hint that interlinks remaining in a page will add/override those pulled from the central database. However, yes, it may be easiest to demerge enclave and exclave and say at the top of each "X is the opposite to Y". —Sladen (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Aqueduct

I was not trying to trample on your daisies in this page. I like the page a it is and that it is growing naturally. I think some of the items on your list should be on the Aqueduct page also.

Managing the information in Wikipedia a relational information store where information is easily accessible to all levels of users seems like a good thing. Stellar (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Awarded for your concern with the world. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What

I didn't get what yo tried to say here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Technical_13#Need_to_ask_some_question...

"Both of you are making ten-times as many edits in User_talk as in Article space" Miss Bono (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia. This is Wikipedia's reason for existing.
2. Edit count: Miss Bono shows that you have made very few edits that contribute to articles on the Encyclopaedia, just 22 when those numbers were recorded. And most of those[[1]] are about Bono.
3. You are spending ten-times as many edits in the User talk area (22 vs. 210).
4. This is not appropriate, it is not contributing directly to building an Encyclopaedia. Please read WP:NOTHERE about Not being here to build an encyclopedia.

Please let me know if know if you would like me to expand on any of these points. —Sladen (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You were very specific, I know it is not completely fine, but I am a new editor, I mean that I don't have enough maturity, so I go to other editors' user pages for help - I must confess that not always is about the edits what I talk about but sometimes it is.

Anyway, I apologize. And thank you for your time! :) Have a great day. Miss Bono (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Need to ask a question: What does it mean this " abuse of editing privileges ", why are people block for this? Miss Bono (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are asking because of User talk:Technical 13/2013#Blocked, where the link for "abusive editing" is to WP:Disruptive editing. I'm uncomfortable reinterpreting it for you, it would be preferable to read the page itself directly and what it is says. However, if Wikipedia were a job/company, "abuse of editing privileges" might be something like "wasting company resources"—ie. the time of other employees (editors), or spending all day making phonecalls about non-work things, or spending 90% of one's time chatting and asking questions of other employees (editors) instead of doing work (writing an encyclopaedia). There are plenty of other websites to engage in social activities on the internet (eg. Facebook etc), but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide this. The purpose of the discussion facilities available within Wikipedia are for discussing edits to the content of the encyclopaedia, not those of a social nature (asking about personality types might count as social chatter). You're welcome to ask questions, please think out they are relevant to creating a better encyclopaedia and keep them on-topic. —Sladen (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

William Leveson/recycle

Any particular reason this still needs to be around? --Jac16888 ^Talk 18:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we're finished with it. Go for it. It was restored to try and debug an alleged situation that had occurred. —Sladen (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Middle C

Hello.

I've replied here. 2602:304:6F8B:19F9:5C3A:EE32:75DD:6975 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dukeries Junction

Hello, I've taken "Please review" in your first edit of DJ to be a request for feedback. First of all, I ain't precious and I welcome others chipping in, that's how Wikipedia works, so thanks for your input. I see that Redrose has already corrected your mention of the Sheffield District Railway being at DJ. I'm happy with re-referencing the three stations against the bridge. If you believe that bringing text from the content of the article into the intro helps, that's fine, but I suggest it puts an expectation on you to do the same for all the other stations and structures on the LD&ECR which have articles, most if not all of which have a one line intro. The only thing we part company on appears almost nit-picky, ie your "...was a former station...". I think that either "..is a former station..." or " ...was a station..." would be correct, but "...was a former station..." is a sort of double negative implying that it was a former station but it's now something else, ie a station. Cheers, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Sladen. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer to CinEx

1. Numbered list item

So I understand it right way, that my work, my results and my writing is not worth to be an information to people. I called this a big bad censorship. Cinavia is a really poplular topic and every information about it is really needed for all people. Where you can find a white paper? You leave AnyDVD and DVDFab in the Cinavia entry, this are offense advertising, but noone care because this software is popular. A new software with new result on our academic research and the development of the WORD's FIRST solution that Cinavia can be removed is not a worth information for the world. Again, bad censorship. However I leave Wikipedia and delete my ccoun because you are crazy. You hide information that thousands of people wnat to know. Wikipedia slowly becomes a joke: Advertising for popular companies is allowed, new companies with real academic rsults are out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFoerster (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello IFoerster (talk · contribs), have you seen Cinavia#History and Cinavia#References (I linked to them yesterday). I can see that "DVD-Ranger CinEx" is mentioned (with several more sentences of coverage than mentions of "DVDFab" and "AnyDVD HD"). The white paper is there in the references section at Cinavia#cite_note-cinex-whitepaper-15. I would love to increase the use of the white paper as a citation source, but it is mostly about the history of copy-protection attempts, and not about Cinavia itself. I would encourage you to add more details to the white paper (ie, to say things that are not already mentioned/confirmed in Wikipedia article from other sources). As before, I would welcome any corrections to the article (factual corrections and improvements, not advertising). —Sladen (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sladen,

so what is your try here? The white paper is full of new, undocumented information of Cinavia, that we have learned in our 13 month work with the Cinavia watermark. We have convict them about their lies and the real quality manipulation of HD content. Finaly the document explains how we start to remove the watermark, not in detail because not each detail is confirmed and we do not want to publish unconfirmed things. However, many places have confirmed that we have removed the watermark succesfully. So we and our white paper know what we are talking about. Noone, not AnyDVD or DVDFab will bring any real needed information to the Cinavia entry, what they do is plain advertising. But our work, that brought real information that we have written down in a white paper, are not worth to be shared with the people in the world. So finaly, you say our work is bad. Our work is incomplete. But sorry, those things you can only say if there is something you can compare. But our white paper do contain more information as the Cinavia patent papers contain. You do not have any source to compare so who you can say that our work is bad or incomplete? This is crazy and this is finaly a real censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFoerster (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply IFoerster (talk · contribs). Perhaps let us keep things simple. Are there any mistakes about Cinavia on the present Cinavia Wikipedia article? Perhaps we can start by correcting those based on what you've learnt. —Sladen (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep it simple? Now you want to change the Cinavia information? This sounds crazy. Cinavia is a product of VErance and you cannot change or remove the information the patent holder has give to the public.

If you change his information this is also a censorship. What I battle is that you have removed CinEx with crazy arguments. A link from Cinavia to CinEx is the right way, so the epople will know what CinEx is and read what we have found out. People who read about CinEx somewhere will check Wikipedia for this name. They want to get information what it is. Also if there is something written on the Cinavia page, why it is not allowed to get deeper information. Your team deleted this twice. Deeper information about CinEx. This is censorship and works against the sense of an encyclopedia.

So, it is not easy. You cannot delete information VErance gave the public. You can also not claim that the patent papers are wrong. This is a legal issue and the work of attorneys, not from Wikipedia editors.

But you can link to new extended information. That you decide to delete and not to do. This is censorship.

And now back to AnyDVD and DVDFab. I work with them together so I do not want to diss them, but what you can read on the Cinavia page is nothing more than advertising. There is really no no information in the DVDFab blog and really no new information in the AnyDD information. DVDFab is complete outdated and definitly wrong. AnyDVD is hijacking, hooking a DLL from a software company, like a virus do. So it is not information about Cinavia it is just advertising.

But finaly, our work, our rseults that we have done in a 13 month research, an academic research, this is not worth to get named and to get an entry in the Wikipedia. Crazy, really crazy. This is a frist class censorship to hide academic work.

So is it easy? No it is not easy. It is high tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFoerster (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

IFoerster: Is the Wikipedia article correct? (Ja oder nein?) —Sladen (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (Hint: I wrote most of the Wikipedia article, after considerable research. However I have not tried to actually decode Cinavia; I would however like to know that the summary of Cinavia–which includes a reference link to the "white paper" described above–is correct and accurate).

Sladen/Craft Identification Number

I saw that you created Sladen/Craft Identification Number. Did you mean to create it in your user namespace (e.g. user sandbox)? It is currently in the article namespace, but with an incorrect Sladen/ prefix. Either way, it should be moved. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Moved from article space, to proper name under article space.[2]. A little sooner than expected, but good catch and thank you for picking up on it! —Sladen (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PIANC

• moved back to User talk:Elio Ciralli —Sladen (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalizing an essay I drafted

Please do not vandalize the essay I've drafted. That is not a nice thing to do. If you want to discuss your concerns, I am happy to speak with you, but if you damage the page again, gratuitously, I will report you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman: this appears to have been dealt[3] with[4] by yourself in my absence. Thank you. I hope you will find the opportunity to carefully reflect upon the discussion and guidance[5] of Spinningspark, WilyD, David Eppstein and myself—and to evaluate if any alternative actions could have been taken to achieve the same desired end goal with greater smoothness. —Sladen (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your restrained response. I am sorry that I was short tempered with you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)