Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

.

Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul ( talk • contribs)

Can you take a look? I'm a little curious about the three sources added, one doesn't look reliable, no library holdings, the other appears to be conjecture, the third can't say. Quite similar to Mkbdce contributions. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Reverted. It may be Maleabroad; have asked YM for confirmation. Abecedare ( talk) 08:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, I just reverted Mkbdce on Harivamsa, so I thought it might be him. He's also on the Reliance network, and you just beat me on the Mahabharata bit! cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 09:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, 115.240.94.122 ( talk · contribs) is surely Mkbdce. His edit-summary at Mahabharata was very sly attempt at deception! Abecedare ( talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

BTW, could you take a look at Ss59861 ( talk · contribs). I've edited a couple of pages where he inserts his POV and removes all sources that don't go with it, so I don't want to take any action, but the warning list on his page will give you an idea. — Spaceman Spiff 09:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems to be an exemplary wikipedian! Abecedare ( talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, wonderful vocabulary! I thought I'd seen him around before, and when I went to his tp today, I realized that it was on the Dhoni page a few months back. Surprising that he's lasted so long, but that just shows how little attention we pay to these castecruft articles. Glad to see that someone caught this on RCP. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Missed the pleasure of knowing him. "Mongrol farschists" exhibits brilliant word- and soundplay that would have made James Joyce or Lewis Carroll proud! Abecedare ( talk) 10:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is as close to an unblock request as he'd get to: [1]. Happy reading! — Spaceman Spiff 10:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

"mongrose" ... Wow. He's a natural.

(I should perhaps remove his talkpage access, but can't bring myself to do it.) Abecedare ( talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Mkbdce on Sarasvati River with another IP? — Spaceman Spiff 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Could be him, but ca't be certain yet. Anyway, he was correctly reverted, and we can see if he chooses to edit-war, filibuster, or discuss. Abecedare ( talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Was him, see the conversation on my talk page. He's inserting similar nonsense in different articles (revered on Nishada Kingdom), the conversation on Mahabharata is between two socks of his! — Spaceman Spiff 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You are requested to visit the article once again and give your observations. 'Co-author' has been replaced by 'Contributor'. A list of their publications have been added further. One thing cannot be disputed that their volume and quality of work carried out together as scientists is remarkable. Of course the article requires some third party references, which will be provided soon.

arunbandana 11:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana ( talk • contribs)

The article will almost certainly have to be split into two unless all independent sources talk of the two researchers as a pair. However, we'll need to find third party sources before we reach that stage (see WP:GNG and WP:Academics). I'll keep an eye on the article and update my comment at AFD, if necessary. Abecedare ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, you should move your comment from the AFD talkpgae to the main AFD page, since it may get overlooked in its current location. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, you previously blocked this guy for disruptive editing, and I blocked the account again for socking. I think the account is itself a sock of Onelifefreak2007 ( talk · contribs), compare editing behavior with another sock, Razzinator ( talk · contribs). Thoughts? (Feel free to block indef and tag if you concur, I have not done that yet.) Cirt ( talk) 15:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007. Cirt ( talk) 15:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Seconded the CU request at the SPI. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you again.

New way to undo AFD? Redirect then revert all contents?

On 28 July 2009, an admin decided on the AFD of Conrad Murray as keep. On 5 August 2009, another administrator (NuclearWarfare or NW) stated on that talk page that he wanted to redirect the article. 4 days later, NW did so and also protected the article to prevent re-creation. It seems like an admin starting a redirect so soon after the AFD then page protecting it is thumbing their nose at the AFD. It also seems like a conflict of interest because they are proposing the change (like a prosecutor), deciding it (like a judge), and locking it up (like a jailer). Furthermore, nothing of the old article exists in the redirect target. This really doesn't seem right. I just wanted to find some bio info on Murray and it took a lot of work to uncover.

On the other hand, maybe quickly defacto deleting after a keep AFD can be done in this way? I thought Deletion review was the correct way?

I do not seek punishment against anyone or even change in the articles. I am just confused seeing the behaviour. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Suomi, I don't see anything nefarious here. After the AFD was closed, NW took it to [[|Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_4|DRV]], where he was rightly told that a merge discussion on the article page would be the right way to go (and is not precluded by a "keep" at AFD). NW started such a discussion, and there was a rough consensus for merger, which NW then implemented. Incidentally, the Personal physician section of the DoMJ article does seem to reflect the old Conrad Murray article.

Now you are welcome to dispute the outcome of the process and this RFC would be the place to discuss the issue, but the process itself was fine. Finally note that, you should have brought this issue up at NuclearWarfare's talkpage first, since 9 times out of 10 such confusions are easily resolved through "face-to-face" discussion. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your advice. I did not discuss it with NW because he is liable to become defensive. Furthermore, he is not one of the best administrators in Wikipedia and does not have the wisdom that you have.

I don't have much interest in the outcome so I will not dispute the process. The process seems flawed because if you dispute the delete, you can sometimes destroy the article by a merge, depending on the traffic. Besides, not only did NW start the merge discussion but he closed it and page protected it. That would be like submitting an AFD and deciding on it and page protecting the delete.

You also mentioned that there is a personal physician section in the Michael Jackson article. I put it there! It can be mostly removed but I was interested in where this doctor did his medical training. Not seeing it, I put it in. Thank you again for your advice. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's him. And I had to nag you for a participation in an amusing photo poll YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Will do! Abecedare ( talk) 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see User_talk:NJA for my proposition about a new article about Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time. If that's not the right place to talk, could you show me the way as an administrator? I'm new. If I'm not welcome here, I can leave. Is putting references wrong? If I weren't User:Yuzgen but somebody else, would that be OK to give links to external sites? Because you said links to web sites with which you are affiliated here: User_talk:Yuzgen.

You reverted linkspam here: [2].

Yuzgen ( talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

There are a few issues here:

• Why is being listed in this book written for young adults a noteworthy honor about persons who have often won Nobel prizes, National medals of Science/Technology etc ? Have other reliable sources noted this as a significant biographical detail ?
• Secondly the information you added in your edits ("*In 2010, listed amongst The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time") is non-specific since it does not specify who made up the particular list being talked about (such lists are a dime a dozen)
• Thirdly, you linked to your website as the source for the information. Since your website does not qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia, is not the original source of the list, and you have a conflict-of-interest in linking to it, that is considered spamming

Now, while your edits were inappropriate and thus reverted, you are most welcome here. We encourage new editors to be bold and even make good-faith errors, as long as they rectify any mistake (i.e., violation of wikipedia policies or guidelines) once it has been pointed to them.

Finally, on the issue of creating an article on the "Britannica's list of The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time": such an article would have to pass wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines ( WP:NBOOK in particular), which it is unlikely to do unless several other sources have independently covered the list or the book in significant detail. Also note that simply listing the 100 people on wikipedia (as you have done on your website) may also raise copyright issues. Abecedare ( talk) 15:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for your explanation. I see now. Blogs are self-published and are not reliable sources. I will also delete links directing to blogs from now on.

• Another bunch of thanks for welcoming me.

• Last but not least, what about copyright issues? Will Wikipedia sue me because I linked to information here? That would be ridiculous. Are you talking about Britannica? It makes more sense, but then they should also sue Wikipedia for copying a lot of info from them.

Yuzgen ( talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No, wikipedia will not (cannot ?) sue you for violating another party's copyright. Britannica perhaps can sue you, although even if it cares it's more likely to send out an email asking you to remove the information; you, on the other hand, could possibly make a fair use argument for keeping up the list on your website - I won't pretend to know who's case would be stronger in this hypothetical, and very unlikely, situation.

More relevant: see WP:Copyrights, WP:COPYVIO and WP:Copylink for wikipedia policies in this area. Note too that Wikimedia Foundation probably enjoys a safe harbor exemption from copyright law, and it is the user who adds copyrighted information on wikipedia, who is legally liable for the infringement. Again, copyright laws are complex, and on wikipedia we simply try to avoid both the forbidden and the gray areas. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess this will get a lot longer but I still want to ask you a question... Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page#Awards_and_recognition. There are references to Forbes and PC_World_(magazine).

Now, the question... Are Forbes and PC_World_(magazine) more reliable than Britannica? If you say "No.", please let me start to remove some references from Wikipedia. If "Yes.", I will go ahead and say "You don't deserve to administrate here." and contact other administrators.

PS: I'm talking about WP:Notability and WP:NBOOK when I'm talking about reliability. Remember that you gave me those links above and claimed the Britannica book does not suit them. Yuzgen ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It's important not to confuse Encyclopædia Britannica with other books published by Britannica Educational Publishing (a collaboration of the EB publisher with Rosen Publishing). The latter are aimed towards the K-12 audience, and don't have close to the same reputation as EB. Note too that reliability is not an issue here: no one is questioning the fact that a particular book listed Cerf etc in its list of "100 Most Influential Inventors". The question is dueness, i.e., is this fact noteworthy enough to include in the subject's biography ? The Forbes list of richest people, for instance, is definitely noteworthy (as in, hundreds of other sources make note of it). I am less sure of the PC World Magazine magazine's "50 Most Important People on the Web"; you are welcome to remove the latter if you think it should not be included on the Larry Page article, and if someone objects you can discuss the issue on the article talk page.

PS: "Notability" and "reliability" have distinct meanings in wikipedia jargon; the former refers to whether a subject is "noteworthy" enough to have a wikipedia article on it, while the latter refers to whether a reference work is trustworthy enough for us to use it as a source in an article. I realize this may be confusing at first, but you can look up WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS for more details on how these terms are used, and the qualities evaluated on wikipedia. Abecedare ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Added my 2c at RSN. Abecedare ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards Pournick ( talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Replied on your talk page. Abecedare ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I've left a note at the talk page for Vijai S. Shankar, and given your involvement in the proposed deletion, I thought I might give you a heads up. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have speedy deleted the page, since the conversation between you and User:CambridgeBayWeather confirmed that the G11 tag had been accidentally removed. Abecedare ( talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem. I was only interested in the original copyvio. Cheers. something lame from CBW 06:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for semi protection but why its just 3 days for my talk page?, I have seen some admins of Persian wiki who sometimes protects one's talk page for two weeks or more! So it should be illegal according to you as I understand. Also the problem is: that user attacks me by I.P.address not by his/her real username, so I guess the admins will not be able to block his/her usernmae next time when he/she will attack me by a new I.P. I have a question too, what is the differences between semi and full protection? why didn't you protect me full? Regards, Pournick ( talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The 3 day period is based upon the fact that as far as I can see the IP has made only 1 edit to your usertalk page. If the abuse continues after the current protection ends, we can consider extending the protection or blocking the IP. A full protection allows only admins to edit a page, so applying it to your userpage would prevent even you from editing it. The semi-protection only prevents IPs and new users from editing a page. Abecedare ( talk) 03:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Instead of leaving patronizing messages on my talk (telling me to give a reason, when I did give a reason), why not discuss the issue on the article's talk page, as you said you would?