I would think your interests in risk assessment and computers would make you a little more concerned about what you can do to to convince a computer within the limitations of it's boolean logic, binomial math thinking processes. I like computers and I'm sure you do too. And if you'll stick with their logic you will run into find the essential problems in human ideas much faster than by the human rationalization concept effort process. Maybe what we need is more programs to tell the PC how to properly evaluate the risk/gain relationship of decisions that are not boolean logic perfect. That's done in reliability analysis programs. But I dont know how it would satisfy your demand for corroborating references in order to have an idea considered. And I wish that somebody would develop a program that would give a PC a personality to go along with it's capabilities. (Say like that of DR. Isaac Asimov) So that we could continue to benefit from certain unique circumstances of skill in analysis and discussion. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
==I agree. But lets face the problem as the computer does. We've got a Tautology here. So where shouled we go. Well, something exists, so what is it. We say it is mass, which is partially collected form of energy. Well how can it exist in the first place? We dont have to deal with that. The question is as to what is going on now and in the future. And the logic of the chronological processes with masses in a gravitationally powered system is that you stsrt with mass and potential energy of accumulation, (which implies an initial stasis of cohering forces) and then a movement in the direction of any concentration. If you have a diffuse mass you can say with confidence that sooner or later it will concentrate. And the question only whether or not all of it will concentrate due to irregularities in distribution. But we're getting lost in the details without even bothering to define the problem.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
==No my problem is that you're restricting my ability to deal with the fundamental question by assuming and piling on the pro assumptions and not respecting my arguments and/or opinions which I am supposed to do in the talk section. Thus I have to spend all my time finding faults in something rather than improving an alternative (plus additional corrobarating requirements). That's why I like computer logic, because it wouldn't allow you to do that. We'd stop at the Tautology. And as Plato said, it's better to know that you dont know because then you have a possibility of finding the real answer. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==And my answer to the concentration problem is "Who Cares!" If Nature is capable of creating a universe and then decides to reaccumulate it, I have absolutely no doubt that it has the capability to do that. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==The way I understand it is that Stephen Hawkins thinks that the matter of the universe will be accumulated into island black holes, who then slowly evaporate. So then where are we? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
==Yes I appreciate your editing and subject matter control problems. But we're not here to generate content for a periodic newspaper, but rather a dynamic and hopefully up to date information source for considered important subject matters. And that involves exploring fundamentals and related data. In the Big Bang I dont have much of a concept. But I have pictures and information related to the Whirlpool Galaxy that has to fit into the concept framework, and there I see Mass being accumulated and radiation energy and presumably kinetic energy containing mass coming out as the result of an energy conversion process. And behind that I see a "singularity" just waiting to gobble up practically "the whole thing". So I have a concept of a 3 phase reaccumulation process, which I'm sure you'd call very ad hoc and unscientific and wouldn't want to put into Wiki because I haven't spent But a lot of effort trying to get it adequately accepted to meet your standards of notability. But you are the people trying to generate and "disambigulate" ideas about everything, Including the parceling of it out into multitudes of articles before you actually get it figured out. And in doing so you must know that you're just adding to the confusion in areas of uncertancy. And particularly if you're not really interested in the subject matter. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) But then maybe your method is a successfull idea. Then we can hope that instead of having some pretty reasonable ideas about a limited group of subject matters that we have rigorously examined to the best of our ability we will wind up being in a stste of confusion about everything. And now I Must apologize for being silly and say I appreciate your efforts to work with and accomodate me.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
==Gee I cant even imagine how I came up with that phrase. Desparation I guess. But I didn't say that we dont have a universe to think about and that relative information isnt important. After all, as you say, information about the Physical properties of things is serious business. But sometimes people do get inspired and have good ideas. In Richard Rhodes' book "The making of the Atomic bomb" he describes how Neils Bohr suddenly understood the difference between the nuclear instability properties of Uranium as compared to those of Thorium (page 284), which then got them started on the successful right track. And I'm on your side in this hardly understandable knowledge proliferation business. So keep up the good work. Regards. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a scientist either. When I try to research citations on the Internet, I usually run into a website that wants my non-existent institution to pay big bucks for a subscription before I can read enough to find out if it's relevant. I think you're supposed to find citations at an academic library, like the one 25 miles north of my home here. Your referenced book itself is a source, but the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Your source would clearly qualify as "outdated". To get around that obstacle, I would have to understand what point you're making. The universe was once thought to be 5000 MPC across, but the current opinion has changed. So? Are you just documenting a detail of the history of the theory? Art LaPella ( talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't "understand the concept". If "EB" means "Encyclopedia Britannica", I have a 1963 version that doesn't even have a Big Bang article. "age of the universe (T)" sounds the same as "absolute time value t", but since you're talking about tangent lines, I assume you're trying to correct the age of the universe by making assumptions about different expansion rates in the past. I assume Newton's laws aren't enough to determine expansion rate change (otherwise the expansion couldn't be accelerating), so I have no idea what expansion rate assumptions should be used.
You summarized this as defining the problem. Does that mean defining the problem with the Big Bang theory, and does that mean I should therefore reject the Big Bang? The ideal Wikipedian would write the same Big Bang article whether he personally believes the Big Bang or not. So that sounds as if you need explanation number kazillion and one of the No Original Research policy. Do you? If not, then defining the problem only makes sense if you are defining what a modern consensus of leading scientists (or at least a significant minority) considers to be a problem, and if you can quote leading scientists to prove it.
If you do need explanation number kazillion and one, here comes another major speech again: It doesn't matter if you can define the problem you have with the Big Bang. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report the opinions of leading scientists, not ours. And even if you found just the right words to make me drop my fishing nets and come, follow you, it wouldn't matter because I'm just the messenger. You may think of me as the enforcer after removing your edit from Big Bang, but that was atypical for me (for one thing, the signature, equals sign etc. was very unusual). As you meet other Wikipedians, they won't reexplain the same policy umpteen times. They will ignore you on the talk page, revert you in the article without explanation, and block you when they get tired of it. There are other Wikipedia:POV pushers, but the ones who survive here (including Wikipedia's usual 15-25 age range) usually do a better job of at least pretending to cooperate with Wikipedia's basic policies. Art LaPella ( talk) 04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I am of course sorry for disturbing you, but I'm an old Geezer with several careers behind me, and nothing to do but survive economically and read about science. And most of science is problem solving in scientific subject matter. And the recommended procedure Number 1 for problem solving is to define the problem. And I was trying to help with the subject matter in that respect. And of course I started out with misconceptions about the Big Bang theory, as do many of your 15-25 year old readers, so I thought the thing to do was to read up on the subject and pass any clarifying information on to whoever is in charge of the information. And like Socrates, I certainly dont consider myself to be in charge of the information. More like a coordinator. But I guess that's what you do. And I'm not an expert programmer with graphics capability to draw the charts I see in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) so I tried to describe them. And so when you want contributions to talk sections to be technically and graphically correct you're asking a lot from me and the 15-25 year olds, who are supposedly reading in order to learn, rather than to pontificate. And you did right in manageing the article's organization which is your responsability. Because I like to read the organized information, and the question becomes what do I do when I disagree with it or maybe even find an error. Maybe I should question the credentials of whoever said the diameter of the universe is 30,000MPC, when it's only 14x10E9years old, and doesn't have near enough galaxies to occupy that volume of space. I dont know. And I hope you get someone in authority to find out soon enough so that I can read about it. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)PS Please note that someone has now changed the Universe article's diameter estimate to 156 billion light years. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Would you say that contributer No. 24.26.109.88 is a responsable authority on the subject? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And I read the space com article, and it seems that while the world and visible parts of the universe have been piddling around and doing nothing much for 13 billion years, the space volume of the universe has, on average expanded at 6 times the speed of light (6x 13 billion= 78 billion). And of course we must be near the center so the diameter is 156 billion years. And there wasn't any energy differential involved in that process, because space inflation values dont count in physics. In the meantime the other references are stuck in the range of diameters of 30 t0 90 billion light years, and haven't caught up with the up to date concepts and reports in Wikipedia. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that what I think has absolutely no significance as regarding the subject matter. And I dont know what significance the referred space com article has. But when it crops up in wikipedia as an authoritative statement it impacts on the credibility of wikipedia and editors are told to try to report the facts, and, of course, reputable opinions. All I have ever done, when it comes to science, is do build a set of real physical entities (models) that have some relationship to an important set of real physical entities (Atoms) and tried to bring that to science's attention. And I dont know how I got into this subject about the Big Bang and Universe inflation theories. Just trying to learn and understand, I Guess. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well the Logarithmic Map of the Universe link leads to a Map of the Universe article where it is explained that the Hubble radius for redshift purposes is 4400 MPC And that the inflated universe's present status is presently 3.38 times that or 14,000+ MPC (with the future ultimate possible size being 250,000 MPC). It's called the Friedman Model. And I can only organize my contributing capabilities to be able to get in one set of ideas per session. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art LaPella, I I have responded to your comment. I have never been involved in DYK before and you have educated me on how it works. I will be back there soon.-- intraining Jack In 05:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | |
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Art LaPella has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS New Jersey (BB-62), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hello I believe I have fixed the problem and I have responded to your comment regarding my DYK submission for the article List of Mortal Kombat media. Thank you. Silver Sonic Shadow ( talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art. Hope all is well for you in the beautiful PNW. Thanks for your help with Thomas Johnes! Take care, ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised when someone nominated this article for DYK- as I had never heard of DYK before! -- Axiosaurus ( talk) 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the prompt review of the DYK submission of Lars Andreas Oftedahl! I have substituted "reputated" with "renowned", both in the hook and in the article. Think "renowned" is slightly more close to the cited source than your suggested "well-known". PS. I have noticed your continuous and helpful work at the DYK pages. Keep up the good work! Cheers. Oceanh ( talk) 00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC).
May I please thank for helping me out with Mirage of astronomical objects?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help with the hook for Jupiter and Thetis (Ingres); appreciated, its a skill that takes practice, and I'm not very practicised with DYK. Frankly, I'm not trilled with the hook for The Ghost of a Flea [2]. If you could tighten, it would be very much appreciated. Best. Ceoil sláinte 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:
. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul ( talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for letting me know you'd had a look at my DYK. I've fixed the problem you commented.
I've changed the hook a bit. I hope it works now. Thanks for informing me, btw! Bsimmons666 ( talk) Friend? 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Art. I guess by now you rather tiered of correcting my errors. Thank you one more tome for helping me out with the article.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you've been active at
T:TDYK, and I just wanted to let you know that I've been working on making a template for notifying users when there are issues that need to be addressed with their hooks (ie, when you've had to mark it with
). The template is at {{
DYKquestions}} if you want to take a look or try using it, and
RyanCross started a discussion
here to request comments about it. —
Politizer
talk/
contribs
14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, You may recall participating in a Conflict of Interest notice concerning Richard Tylman earlier this year. I have presented evidence from this COI at a current Request for Arbitration. In doing so, I notified Gordonofcartoon whose name was mentioned in the evidence. It has been suggested by Poeticbent that I should have notified all participants… hence this notice. Kind regards, Victoriagirl ( talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
So if I expand the main body text to over 1,500 chars, can I resubmit at some point for reconsideration at T:DYK? Cirt ( talk) 07:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. How do you figure out that the longitude is in the street, not the building? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No editors have been notified that they have DYKs for those currently on main page. Mjroots ( talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, in answer to your question is that both Julio and Arturo used both their father's and mother's surnames as is custom in Hispanic culture. It is common in Hispanic culture to use both parents surnames and since they were Spanish subjects that is what they did. A good example is Ramon Power y Giralt. His father was Joaquín Power y Morgan who married Maria Josefa Giralt. When Ramon was born, he was inscribed as Ramon Power y Giralt. It is a little confusing, but that is the custom. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you please check if comma is used appropriately in the current lead hook? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art, May I please ask you, when and if you have a time, to correct my errors in Fata Morgana (mirage). Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Your unwritten rules are being discussed here. Your thoughts would be welcome. -- Suntag ☼ 17:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You probably know what for :) — Politizer talk/ contribs 08:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Unwritten Rule A2 goes against Wikipedia guideline. As per definition ON Wikipedia and approved by Consensus: "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting" from here. This is the agreed definition by the community. IF you wish to pursue this further, take it up with the community. However, your rules remain invalid as long as they contradict determined definitions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As for scripture, I am a Pastafarian myself, and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created the universe with His noodley appendages. I believe He uses the base-16 numbering system (He has 16 noodley appendages, which makes base-16 imminently sensible for Him). Note that when He refers to the value 15, unless one is willing to transcribe 15 as “F” in English (or “נ” in Hebrew), any numeric value He (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) uses to communicate His thoughts, will not only convert to the language of the transcriber, but will also always seem to convert to the base-10 numbering system that is part of that language. It is just an illusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses base-10 math; an artifact of converting to English. The Sumerians used the sexagesimal numbering system so His number 15 in Babylonian would appear like this to them. A splendid scientific test for what numbering system He *really* uses (setting aside the transcribed illusions of what He communicates in), is to calculate whether notable events tend to happen on nice, round numbers in various numbering systems.
And yes, if a serpent was held for a thousand years, that too would be *evidence* for this. But “thousand” could be a generalization; it could have originated from God-talk for something like “millennia” (but not exactly). But ending the world on a nice, exquisitely precise, round number like the first day of year-2000, would indeed have signaled not only that God existed (totally bursting my belief bubble for a second or two), but also that He really and truly uses the base-10 numbering system.
Thank you for your post; I had never pondered this numbering system issue in such depth before. A meatball is a terrible thing to waste.©™® That is Revelation 1 in my book. Greg L ( talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I weep at the thought of all the cans of Beefaroni I have cut open and eaten. For they are His children. Greg L ( talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you comment here? Thanks. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to let you know what the template {{
DYKsug}}
was just updated with a new feature: now, for all DYK nominations that include only one article, it auto-generates the credit templates ({{
DYKmake}}
and {{
DYKnom}}
), which the person moving the hook to Next may simply cut and past from T:TDYK directly into next. This only happens with single-article nominations; if the nomination has more than one article, there will be a message in the template saying "Credits must be done manually by the person moving this nomination to Next" or something like that. It will probably be a few days before you start seeing the auto-generated credit templates, since the template was only just updated and only the new nominations will reflect it; the first several times you see auto-generated credit templates, you may want to double-check the nom as you are promoting it, just to make sure the credits are correct.
There have been some other minor changes—mainly, now if a DYK nominator lists himself as both "creator/expander" and "nominator," the "nominator" field ends up blank (so that what gets displayed is "Created by
User, self nom" rather than "Created by
User, nominated by
User." Also, the fields, |collaborator=
, |collaborator2=
, and |collaborator3=
have been replaced with the more intuitive |creator2=
, |creator3=
, and |creator4=
.
Please let me know if you experience any problems with the new template. — Politizer talk/ contribs 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted an ALTERNATE hook for the 9-article DKY. I believe the wording now is such it closer relates to the articles involved. As long as the "200 character" rule could be a little flexible since there are so many articles involved, I believe this should be somehting closer to what might satisfy everyone. Do you think this would work? -- Doug Coldwell talk 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you comment on T:TDYK#Suanmeitang. Thanks a lot. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your work on DYK. There isn't always a huge amount of glory in reviewing, rewriting, discussing and promoting the work of others. But I apprecaite your efforts and hope you have a happy end of 2008 and a great start to 2009. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Art. I'm attempting to post a comment at the 'Translations as "new" content' section on WT:DYK but after clicking save I got a connectivity error, and now my browser's refusing to load any very long pages so I can't get there to re-post it. If you're still about would you mind posting it there for me? I see there's been some activity since I first started writing it so it may be somewhat irrelevant now, but I'm loath to just discard it altogether. Many thanks!
Here's the comment:
Thanks for your notice. I'll try to work on those more; was trying to get in the DYK before it got too late.-- Parkwells ( talk) 23:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please look through the history and the move log for this page and try to figure out what exactly has gone on with it? The edit summary from the diff you provided suggest a pagemove from usetspace to mainspace on Dec 30 or Dec 31 (in which case the article would indeed be DYK-eligible, as you noted). However, when looking at the move logs for the relevant pages (the article itself and DDima's sandbox), both move logs appear to be empty. There is a record of a manual creation of a redirect from the sandbox to mainspace on Dec 31 [3], but nothing else. I am really confused and don't understand what is going on. If the article has been moved, using a pagemove, from userspace to mainspace (on Dec 30 or Dec 31), there should be a record of it in a move log somewhere. But I don't see anything like that. To all appearances, it looks like the article has existed in mainspace since Feb 2008 [4]. Nsk92 ( talk) 06:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
How is this evidence that my "latest" mentorship (by the way, I've never had a mentor before) is not working? Have you looked closely at the history between me and Gandalf? Do you know what it is?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of moving on, I have communicated to a third-party what my interpretations were and why I interpreted them that way. You can read about which AfD comments felt like personal attacks at User talk:Gandalf61.
I guess I just see the situation much differently than you. What I see is an editor asking another editor to consider whether their actions are vindictive or not and to perhaps provide some breathing room. Was it phrased in the best Wikipedia-way possible? Perhaps not, but then I've never been very good at phrasing such things as you may recall.
You have a different view of appropriate processes than do I, you've always been willing to take time to carefully evaluate the particular turns-of-phrase and word choices of the editors here. It's that attention to wording that makes you such a good copy-editor. Not everyone has that same commitment. I rarely find parsing interactions on-line to be of anyone's benefit. The chance for people to be misunderstood or misinterpreted is simply too great and what normally happens is an extended discussion about the definition of the word "is".
As for "truth" and "plausibility", I have to say that the truth or plausibility about how someone's written words on-line make someone else feel is left to the eye-of-the-beholder. Durova rightly points out on Gandalf61's talk page that this approach may be subject to WP:GAME issues, but I have no other way to understand how civility functions in light of my year-long tutorial. Assuming good faith, I think that when people make accusations that I'm being uncivil that those accusations are true whether I can understand them or not. I do not ask people to understand why I think something is uncivil. I only ask them to respect that this is how an event made me feel. This acknowledgment is the first step in moving forward in a civil society. If that basic step cannot be taken, then there is no point in going any further. Failing to acknowledge that someone feels a certain way is absolutely an assumption of bad faith. I acknowledge that Gandalf felt upset by my post. However, he has yet to acknowledge that I felt hounded by him. In fact, he's only become more strident as I've tried to make it clear that it was how I felt. His last post to my talkpage continues to indicate that he approaches this situation from a standpoint of being the only wronged party in the situation. So there is no chance for us to be able to come to terms with civil interaction.
What's to be done? Well, my feeling at this point is that the entire thing has gone on too long. Gandalf wants me to apologize for telling him how I felt. Or maybe he wants me to apologize for phrasing it inappropriately. However, he's also written on my talkpage that he doesn't want to talk about it any longer, and seemed fit preemptively dismiss any attempts I might make in that regard (it "might mitigate"). Okay. That's fine with me. Water under the bridge, etc. etc.
What I didn't appreciate is you stepping in as a third party trying to make some statement about the functionality of a fourth party's new relationship with a first party as an interpretation of an interaction with a second party. Do you see how convoluted that looks? It feels very kettly for you to accuse me of lacking truth, plausibility, and rationality in my statements about how Gandalf made me feel when you post evidence with that kind of interpretive spin.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So you were trying to insult me? Okay. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm considering a hook that might be too long. Are you supposed to count what will actually appear on the main page or the underlying code? My initial thought was that you don't want to hog too much space on the main page with one hook, but the rules aren't entirely clear about that. (If you answer here, please leave me a reminder on my talk page) - Mgm| (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe should the previously unwritten rules be merged with the current rules or moved to a separate page under DYK? Simply south not SS, sorry 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm blind, or perhaps you've got a caching issue. Either way, I can't find the redlinks you're talking about. Where are they? I provided three possible hooks and I didn't find a redlink in any of them. Can you be more specific? - Mgm| (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Art, would it be worthwhile to mention in section A of the Additional rules that (I believe) article length counts using prosesize.js seem to trump other counters in most situations? I don't know if that's explicit anywhere, but it's the impression I've gotten at T:TDYK. Politizer talk/ contribs 04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently had Schuym complain that there are so much hooks sitting around without any comments and now one I submitted January 20 is suffering the same fate and even now it's expiring, it's still not being commented upon even though it now is pretty much its last chance. Unvetted hooks are unlikely to be chosen so we should somehow improve on the current situation. Any ideas?- Mgm| (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually {{'s}} generated an extra space, at least on my screen. (I am using Vista and Firefox.) -- BorgQueen ( talk) 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done finding the relevant phrase at catastrophism.com. It's hard to anticipate just what the WWW might hold on any topic lately. Thank you for the correction. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly aren't apostrophes or the following 's' linked in DYK? It seems weird to me to only link part of a word. - Mgm| (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment regarding the hook length. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to edit the hook directly or not, so I went ahead and suggested a shorter hook as a new comment. I believe it is 200 characters, and it removed the repetitive "of the Year" while still getting across the various award titles. Hopefully this one will work! - Whataworld06 ( talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please help me with something. If you are willing would you please check the prose of List of wind farms in Romania for mistakes because i need a going over by a native english speaker. Thanks in advance. Mario 1987 10:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with copyediting. I normally write about dead cricketers, not current events, so I am a bit lost about what to do most of the time with this article. Keep plugging away, I guess. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\ talk 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Art, thanks for
fixing the links in that template. Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between
User:Dr pda/prosesize.js and
User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the first truncates (such as 18,000 B
to 18kB
) and the second doesn't....I'm hoping that is the only difference, and that the new script still counts characters rather than bytes? If that is the case (that the new script counts the same thing and just displays it differently) then I can see why it would be nice to use it instead of the other, to get more specific counts.
rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)
talk/
contribs
19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Art,
I saw your note. What I saw in a "DID you know" article space was
"...that INSECT SPECIES (pictured) is butt-ugly?"
That looked rather innapropriate for a Did you know entry. Howevever, I looked again after your note
and realized I read too quickly. It was explicitly stated that this was an April Fool's "Did you know".
My bad!
—
Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes
Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris
12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, I was only chancing my arm by submitting it :) The article was largely unreferenced and in a bit of a mess before I started on it. Its hard to 5x expand an article that is almost 10k already but I'm running out of time for DYK - I intend to get the article to GAC soon. I had hoped that the curious hook would get it through... Parrot of Doom ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would think your interests in risk assessment and computers would make you a little more concerned about what you can do to to convince a computer within the limitations of it's boolean logic, binomial math thinking processes. I like computers and I'm sure you do too. And if you'll stick with their logic you will run into find the essential problems in human ideas much faster than by the human rationalization concept effort process. Maybe what we need is more programs to tell the PC how to properly evaluate the risk/gain relationship of decisions that are not boolean logic perfect. That's done in reliability analysis programs. But I dont know how it would satisfy your demand for corroborating references in order to have an idea considered. And I wish that somebody would develop a program that would give a PC a personality to go along with it's capabilities. (Say like that of DR. Isaac Asimov) So that we could continue to benefit from certain unique circumstances of skill in analysis and discussion. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
==I agree. But lets face the problem as the computer does. We've got a Tautology here. So where shouled we go. Well, something exists, so what is it. We say it is mass, which is partially collected form of energy. Well how can it exist in the first place? We dont have to deal with that. The question is as to what is going on now and in the future. And the logic of the chronological processes with masses in a gravitationally powered system is that you stsrt with mass and potential energy of accumulation, (which implies an initial stasis of cohering forces) and then a movement in the direction of any concentration. If you have a diffuse mass you can say with confidence that sooner or later it will concentrate. And the question only whether or not all of it will concentrate due to irregularities in distribution. But we're getting lost in the details without even bothering to define the problem.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
==No my problem is that you're restricting my ability to deal with the fundamental question by assuming and piling on the pro assumptions and not respecting my arguments and/or opinions which I am supposed to do in the talk section. Thus I have to spend all my time finding faults in something rather than improving an alternative (plus additional corrobarating requirements). That's why I like computer logic, because it wouldn't allow you to do that. We'd stop at the Tautology. And as Plato said, it's better to know that you dont know because then you have a possibility of finding the real answer. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==And my answer to the concentration problem is "Who Cares!" If Nature is capable of creating a universe and then decides to reaccumulate it, I have absolutely no doubt that it has the capability to do that. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==The way I understand it is that Stephen Hawkins thinks that the matter of the universe will be accumulated into island black holes, who then slowly evaporate. So then where are we? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
==Yes I appreciate your editing and subject matter control problems. But we're not here to generate content for a periodic newspaper, but rather a dynamic and hopefully up to date information source for considered important subject matters. And that involves exploring fundamentals and related data. In the Big Bang I dont have much of a concept. But I have pictures and information related to the Whirlpool Galaxy that has to fit into the concept framework, and there I see Mass being accumulated and radiation energy and presumably kinetic energy containing mass coming out as the result of an energy conversion process. And behind that I see a "singularity" just waiting to gobble up practically "the whole thing". So I have a concept of a 3 phase reaccumulation process, which I'm sure you'd call very ad hoc and unscientific and wouldn't want to put into Wiki because I haven't spent But a lot of effort trying to get it adequately accepted to meet your standards of notability. But you are the people trying to generate and "disambigulate" ideas about everything, Including the parceling of it out into multitudes of articles before you actually get it figured out. And in doing so you must know that you're just adding to the confusion in areas of uncertancy. And particularly if you're not really interested in the subject matter. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) But then maybe your method is a successfull idea. Then we can hope that instead of having some pretty reasonable ideas about a limited group of subject matters that we have rigorously examined to the best of our ability we will wind up being in a stste of confusion about everything. And now I Must apologize for being silly and say I appreciate your efforts to work with and accomodate me.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
==Gee I cant even imagine how I came up with that phrase. Desparation I guess. But I didn't say that we dont have a universe to think about and that relative information isnt important. After all, as you say, information about the Physical properties of things is serious business. But sometimes people do get inspired and have good ideas. In Richard Rhodes' book "The making of the Atomic bomb" he describes how Neils Bohr suddenly understood the difference between the nuclear instability properties of Uranium as compared to those of Thorium (page 284), which then got them started on the successful right track. And I'm on your side in this hardly understandable knowledge proliferation business. So keep up the good work. Regards. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a scientist either. When I try to research citations on the Internet, I usually run into a website that wants my non-existent institution to pay big bucks for a subscription before I can read enough to find out if it's relevant. I think you're supposed to find citations at an academic library, like the one 25 miles north of my home here. Your referenced book itself is a source, but the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Your source would clearly qualify as "outdated". To get around that obstacle, I would have to understand what point you're making. The universe was once thought to be 5000 MPC across, but the current opinion has changed. So? Are you just documenting a detail of the history of the theory? Art LaPella ( talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't "understand the concept". If "EB" means "Encyclopedia Britannica", I have a 1963 version that doesn't even have a Big Bang article. "age of the universe (T)" sounds the same as "absolute time value t", but since you're talking about tangent lines, I assume you're trying to correct the age of the universe by making assumptions about different expansion rates in the past. I assume Newton's laws aren't enough to determine expansion rate change (otherwise the expansion couldn't be accelerating), so I have no idea what expansion rate assumptions should be used.
You summarized this as defining the problem. Does that mean defining the problem with the Big Bang theory, and does that mean I should therefore reject the Big Bang? The ideal Wikipedian would write the same Big Bang article whether he personally believes the Big Bang or not. So that sounds as if you need explanation number kazillion and one of the No Original Research policy. Do you? If not, then defining the problem only makes sense if you are defining what a modern consensus of leading scientists (or at least a significant minority) considers to be a problem, and if you can quote leading scientists to prove it.
If you do need explanation number kazillion and one, here comes another major speech again: It doesn't matter if you can define the problem you have with the Big Bang. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report the opinions of leading scientists, not ours. And even if you found just the right words to make me drop my fishing nets and come, follow you, it wouldn't matter because I'm just the messenger. You may think of me as the enforcer after removing your edit from Big Bang, but that was atypical for me (for one thing, the signature, equals sign etc. was very unusual). As you meet other Wikipedians, they won't reexplain the same policy umpteen times. They will ignore you on the talk page, revert you in the article without explanation, and block you when they get tired of it. There are other Wikipedia:POV pushers, but the ones who survive here (including Wikipedia's usual 15-25 age range) usually do a better job of at least pretending to cooperate with Wikipedia's basic policies. Art LaPella ( talk) 04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I am of course sorry for disturbing you, but I'm an old Geezer with several careers behind me, and nothing to do but survive economically and read about science. And most of science is problem solving in scientific subject matter. And the recommended procedure Number 1 for problem solving is to define the problem. And I was trying to help with the subject matter in that respect. And of course I started out with misconceptions about the Big Bang theory, as do many of your 15-25 year old readers, so I thought the thing to do was to read up on the subject and pass any clarifying information on to whoever is in charge of the information. And like Socrates, I certainly dont consider myself to be in charge of the information. More like a coordinator. But I guess that's what you do. And I'm not an expert programmer with graphics capability to draw the charts I see in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) so I tried to describe them. And so when you want contributions to talk sections to be technically and graphically correct you're asking a lot from me and the 15-25 year olds, who are supposedly reading in order to learn, rather than to pontificate. And you did right in manageing the article's organization which is your responsability. Because I like to read the organized information, and the question becomes what do I do when I disagree with it or maybe even find an error. Maybe I should question the credentials of whoever said the diameter of the universe is 30,000MPC, when it's only 14x10E9years old, and doesn't have near enough galaxies to occupy that volume of space. I dont know. And I hope you get someone in authority to find out soon enough so that I can read about it. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)PS Please note that someone has now changed the Universe article's diameter estimate to 156 billion light years. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Would you say that contributer No. 24.26.109.88 is a responsable authority on the subject? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And I read the space com article, and it seems that while the world and visible parts of the universe have been piddling around and doing nothing much for 13 billion years, the space volume of the universe has, on average expanded at 6 times the speed of light (6x 13 billion= 78 billion). And of course we must be near the center so the diameter is 156 billion years. And there wasn't any energy differential involved in that process, because space inflation values dont count in physics. In the meantime the other references are stuck in the range of diameters of 30 t0 90 billion light years, and haven't caught up with the up to date concepts and reports in Wikipedia. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that what I think has absolutely no significance as regarding the subject matter. And I dont know what significance the referred space com article has. But when it crops up in wikipedia as an authoritative statement it impacts on the credibility of wikipedia and editors are told to try to report the facts, and, of course, reputable opinions. All I have ever done, when it comes to science, is do build a set of real physical entities (models) that have some relationship to an important set of real physical entities (Atoms) and tried to bring that to science's attention. And I dont know how I got into this subject about the Big Bang and Universe inflation theories. Just trying to learn and understand, I Guess. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well the Logarithmic Map of the Universe link leads to a Map of the Universe article where it is explained that the Hubble radius for redshift purposes is 4400 MPC And that the inflated universe's present status is presently 3.38 times that or 14,000+ MPC (with the future ultimate possible size being 250,000 MPC). It's called the Friedman Model. And I can only organize my contributing capabilities to be able to get in one set of ideas per session. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art LaPella, I I have responded to your comment. I have never been involved in DYK before and you have educated me on how it works. I will be back there soon.-- intraining Jack In 05:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | |
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Art LaPella has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS New Jersey (BB-62), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hello I believe I have fixed the problem and I have responded to your comment regarding my DYK submission for the article List of Mortal Kombat media. Thank you. Silver Sonic Shadow ( talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art. Hope all is well for you in the beautiful PNW. Thanks for your help with Thomas Johnes! Take care, ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised when someone nominated this article for DYK- as I had never heard of DYK before! -- Axiosaurus ( talk) 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the prompt review of the DYK submission of Lars Andreas Oftedahl! I have substituted "reputated" with "renowned", both in the hook and in the article. Think "renowned" is slightly more close to the cited source than your suggested "well-known". PS. I have noticed your continuous and helpful work at the DYK pages. Keep up the good work! Cheers. Oceanh ( talk) 00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC).
May I please thank for helping me out with Mirage of astronomical objects?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help with the hook for Jupiter and Thetis (Ingres); appreciated, its a skill that takes practice, and I'm not very practicised with DYK. Frankly, I'm not trilled with the hook for The Ghost of a Flea [2]. If you could tighten, it would be very much appreciated. Best. Ceoil sláinte 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:
. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul ( talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for letting me know you'd had a look at my DYK. I've fixed the problem you commented.
I've changed the hook a bit. I hope it works now. Thanks for informing me, btw! Bsimmons666 ( talk) Friend? 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Art. I guess by now you rather tiered of correcting my errors. Thank you one more tome for helping me out with the article.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you've been active at
T:TDYK, and I just wanted to let you know that I've been working on making a template for notifying users when there are issues that need to be addressed with their hooks (ie, when you've had to mark it with
). The template is at {{
DYKquestions}} if you want to take a look or try using it, and
RyanCross started a discussion
here to request comments about it. —
Politizer
talk/
contribs
14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, You may recall participating in a Conflict of Interest notice concerning Richard Tylman earlier this year. I have presented evidence from this COI at a current Request for Arbitration. In doing so, I notified Gordonofcartoon whose name was mentioned in the evidence. It has been suggested by Poeticbent that I should have notified all participants… hence this notice. Kind regards, Victoriagirl ( talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
So if I expand the main body text to over 1,500 chars, can I resubmit at some point for reconsideration at T:DYK? Cirt ( talk) 07:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. How do you figure out that the longitude is in the street, not the building? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No editors have been notified that they have DYKs for those currently on main page. Mjroots ( talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, in answer to your question is that both Julio and Arturo used both their father's and mother's surnames as is custom in Hispanic culture. It is common in Hispanic culture to use both parents surnames and since they were Spanish subjects that is what they did. A good example is Ramon Power y Giralt. His father was Joaquín Power y Morgan who married Maria Josefa Giralt. When Ramon was born, he was inscribed as Ramon Power y Giralt. It is a little confusing, but that is the custom. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you please check if comma is used appropriately in the current lead hook? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art, May I please ask you, when and if you have a time, to correct my errors in Fata Morgana (mirage). Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Your unwritten rules are being discussed here. Your thoughts would be welcome. -- Suntag ☼ 17:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You probably know what for :) — Politizer talk/ contribs 08:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Unwritten Rule A2 goes against Wikipedia guideline. As per definition ON Wikipedia and approved by Consensus: "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting" from here. This is the agreed definition by the community. IF you wish to pursue this further, take it up with the community. However, your rules remain invalid as long as they contradict determined definitions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As for scripture, I am a Pastafarian myself, and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created the universe with His noodley appendages. I believe He uses the base-16 numbering system (He has 16 noodley appendages, which makes base-16 imminently sensible for Him). Note that when He refers to the value 15, unless one is willing to transcribe 15 as “F” in English (or “נ” in Hebrew), any numeric value He (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) uses to communicate His thoughts, will not only convert to the language of the transcriber, but will also always seem to convert to the base-10 numbering system that is part of that language. It is just an illusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses base-10 math; an artifact of converting to English. The Sumerians used the sexagesimal numbering system so His number 15 in Babylonian would appear like this to them. A splendid scientific test for what numbering system He *really* uses (setting aside the transcribed illusions of what He communicates in), is to calculate whether notable events tend to happen on nice, round numbers in various numbering systems.
And yes, if a serpent was held for a thousand years, that too would be *evidence* for this. But “thousand” could be a generalization; it could have originated from God-talk for something like “millennia” (but not exactly). But ending the world on a nice, exquisitely precise, round number like the first day of year-2000, would indeed have signaled not only that God existed (totally bursting my belief bubble for a second or two), but also that He really and truly uses the base-10 numbering system.
Thank you for your post; I had never pondered this numbering system issue in such depth before. A meatball is a terrible thing to waste.©™® That is Revelation 1 in my book. Greg L ( talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I weep at the thought of all the cans of Beefaroni I have cut open and eaten. For they are His children. Greg L ( talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you comment here? Thanks. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to let you know what the template {{
DYKsug}}
was just updated with a new feature: now, for all DYK nominations that include only one article, it auto-generates the credit templates ({{
DYKmake}}
and {{
DYKnom}}
), which the person moving the hook to Next may simply cut and past from T:TDYK directly into next. This only happens with single-article nominations; if the nomination has more than one article, there will be a message in the template saying "Credits must be done manually by the person moving this nomination to Next" or something like that. It will probably be a few days before you start seeing the auto-generated credit templates, since the template was only just updated and only the new nominations will reflect it; the first several times you see auto-generated credit templates, you may want to double-check the nom as you are promoting it, just to make sure the credits are correct.
There have been some other minor changes—mainly, now if a DYK nominator lists himself as both "creator/expander" and "nominator," the "nominator" field ends up blank (so that what gets displayed is "Created by
User, self nom" rather than "Created by
User, nominated by
User." Also, the fields, |collaborator=
, |collaborator2=
, and |collaborator3=
have been replaced with the more intuitive |creator2=
, |creator3=
, and |creator4=
.
Please let me know if you experience any problems with the new template. — Politizer talk/ contribs 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted an ALTERNATE hook for the 9-article DKY. I believe the wording now is such it closer relates to the articles involved. As long as the "200 character" rule could be a little flexible since there are so many articles involved, I believe this should be somehting closer to what might satisfy everyone. Do you think this would work? -- Doug Coldwell talk 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you comment on T:TDYK#Suanmeitang. Thanks a lot. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your work on DYK. There isn't always a huge amount of glory in reviewing, rewriting, discussing and promoting the work of others. But I apprecaite your efforts and hope you have a happy end of 2008 and a great start to 2009. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Art. I'm attempting to post a comment at the 'Translations as "new" content' section on WT:DYK but after clicking save I got a connectivity error, and now my browser's refusing to load any very long pages so I can't get there to re-post it. If you're still about would you mind posting it there for me? I see there's been some activity since I first started writing it so it may be somewhat irrelevant now, but I'm loath to just discard it altogether. Many thanks!
Here's the comment:
Thanks for your notice. I'll try to work on those more; was trying to get in the DYK before it got too late.-- Parkwells ( talk) 23:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please look through the history and the move log for this page and try to figure out what exactly has gone on with it? The edit summary from the diff you provided suggest a pagemove from usetspace to mainspace on Dec 30 or Dec 31 (in which case the article would indeed be DYK-eligible, as you noted). However, when looking at the move logs for the relevant pages (the article itself and DDima's sandbox), both move logs appear to be empty. There is a record of a manual creation of a redirect from the sandbox to mainspace on Dec 31 [3], but nothing else. I am really confused and don't understand what is going on. If the article has been moved, using a pagemove, from userspace to mainspace (on Dec 30 or Dec 31), there should be a record of it in a move log somewhere. But I don't see anything like that. To all appearances, it looks like the article has existed in mainspace since Feb 2008 [4]. Nsk92 ( talk) 06:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
How is this evidence that my "latest" mentorship (by the way, I've never had a mentor before) is not working? Have you looked closely at the history between me and Gandalf? Do you know what it is?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of moving on, I have communicated to a third-party what my interpretations were and why I interpreted them that way. You can read about which AfD comments felt like personal attacks at User talk:Gandalf61.
I guess I just see the situation much differently than you. What I see is an editor asking another editor to consider whether their actions are vindictive or not and to perhaps provide some breathing room. Was it phrased in the best Wikipedia-way possible? Perhaps not, but then I've never been very good at phrasing such things as you may recall.
You have a different view of appropriate processes than do I, you've always been willing to take time to carefully evaluate the particular turns-of-phrase and word choices of the editors here. It's that attention to wording that makes you such a good copy-editor. Not everyone has that same commitment. I rarely find parsing interactions on-line to be of anyone's benefit. The chance for people to be misunderstood or misinterpreted is simply too great and what normally happens is an extended discussion about the definition of the word "is".
As for "truth" and "plausibility", I have to say that the truth or plausibility about how someone's written words on-line make someone else feel is left to the eye-of-the-beholder. Durova rightly points out on Gandalf61's talk page that this approach may be subject to WP:GAME issues, but I have no other way to understand how civility functions in light of my year-long tutorial. Assuming good faith, I think that when people make accusations that I'm being uncivil that those accusations are true whether I can understand them or not. I do not ask people to understand why I think something is uncivil. I only ask them to respect that this is how an event made me feel. This acknowledgment is the first step in moving forward in a civil society. If that basic step cannot be taken, then there is no point in going any further. Failing to acknowledge that someone feels a certain way is absolutely an assumption of bad faith. I acknowledge that Gandalf felt upset by my post. However, he has yet to acknowledge that I felt hounded by him. In fact, he's only become more strident as I've tried to make it clear that it was how I felt. His last post to my talkpage continues to indicate that he approaches this situation from a standpoint of being the only wronged party in the situation. So there is no chance for us to be able to come to terms with civil interaction.
What's to be done? Well, my feeling at this point is that the entire thing has gone on too long. Gandalf wants me to apologize for telling him how I felt. Or maybe he wants me to apologize for phrasing it inappropriately. However, he's also written on my talkpage that he doesn't want to talk about it any longer, and seemed fit preemptively dismiss any attempts I might make in that regard (it "might mitigate"). Okay. That's fine with me. Water under the bridge, etc. etc.
What I didn't appreciate is you stepping in as a third party trying to make some statement about the functionality of a fourth party's new relationship with a first party as an interpretation of an interaction with a second party. Do you see how convoluted that looks? It feels very kettly for you to accuse me of lacking truth, plausibility, and rationality in my statements about how Gandalf made me feel when you post evidence with that kind of interpretive spin.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So you were trying to insult me? Okay. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm considering a hook that might be too long. Are you supposed to count what will actually appear on the main page or the underlying code? My initial thought was that you don't want to hog too much space on the main page with one hook, but the rules aren't entirely clear about that. (If you answer here, please leave me a reminder on my talk page) - Mgm| (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe should the previously unwritten rules be merged with the current rules or moved to a separate page under DYK? Simply south not SS, sorry 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm blind, or perhaps you've got a caching issue. Either way, I can't find the redlinks you're talking about. Where are they? I provided three possible hooks and I didn't find a redlink in any of them. Can you be more specific? - Mgm| (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Art, would it be worthwhile to mention in section A of the Additional rules that (I believe) article length counts using prosesize.js seem to trump other counters in most situations? I don't know if that's explicit anywhere, but it's the impression I've gotten at T:TDYK. Politizer talk/ contribs 04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently had Schuym complain that there are so much hooks sitting around without any comments and now one I submitted January 20 is suffering the same fate and even now it's expiring, it's still not being commented upon even though it now is pretty much its last chance. Unvetted hooks are unlikely to be chosen so we should somehow improve on the current situation. Any ideas?- Mgm| (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually {{'s}} generated an extra space, at least on my screen. (I am using Vista and Firefox.) -- BorgQueen ( talk) 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done finding the relevant phrase at catastrophism.com. It's hard to anticipate just what the WWW might hold on any topic lately. Thank you for the correction. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly aren't apostrophes or the following 's' linked in DYK? It seems weird to me to only link part of a word. - Mgm| (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment regarding the hook length. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to edit the hook directly or not, so I went ahead and suggested a shorter hook as a new comment. I believe it is 200 characters, and it removed the repetitive "of the Year" while still getting across the various award titles. Hopefully this one will work! - Whataworld06 ( talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please help me with something. If you are willing would you please check the prose of List of wind farms in Romania for mistakes because i need a going over by a native english speaker. Thanks in advance. Mario 1987 10:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with copyediting. I normally write about dead cricketers, not current events, so I am a bit lost about what to do most of the time with this article. Keep plugging away, I guess. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\ talk 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Art, thanks for
fixing the links in that template. Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between
User:Dr pda/prosesize.js and
User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the first truncates (such as 18,000 B
to 18kB
) and the second doesn't....I'm hoping that is the only difference, and that the new script still counts characters rather than bytes? If that is the case (that the new script counts the same thing and just displays it differently) then I can see why it would be nice to use it instead of the other, to get more specific counts.
rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)
talk/
contribs
19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Art,
I saw your note. What I saw in a "DID you know" article space was
"...that INSECT SPECIES (pictured) is butt-ugly?"
That looked rather innapropriate for a Did you know entry. Howevever, I looked again after your note
and realized I read too quickly. It was explicitly stated that this was an April Fool's "Did you know".
My bad!
—
Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes
Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris
12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, I was only chancing my arm by submitting it :) The article was largely unreferenced and in a bit of a mess before I started on it. Its hard to 5x expand an article that is almost 10k already but I'm running out of time for DYK - I intend to get the article to GAC soon. I had hoped that the curious hook would get it through... Parrot of Doom ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)