| ||||
| ||||
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi There Thanks for the advice...couple of questions: 1) The above title page is a disambiguated title, I have entered a hatnote to The Rumour page accordingly, is it possible to have both The Rumour and The Rumour (New Zealand band) come up in a google search? 2) How do I put in a "summary box" with photograph at the top right of the article? Thanks Jacques Koolen ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Jacques Koolen Jacques Koolen ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Google does. It is fundamentally of no concern to Wikipedia how Google treats article titles. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Search engine optimization, but be aware that Wikipedia has stringent policies against promotional editing, or working specifically and deliberately to use Wikipedia to promote an entity you have a direct relationship with. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you do have a reason to promote this band using Wikipedia. Regarding the summary box, those are called "infoboxes" and there is a guideline at Help:Infobox on how to use them. {{ Infobox musical artist}} is probably the specific one you want. I hope that helps some. -- Jayron 32 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I read the word endos right here: http://wiki-sentai.wikia.com/wiki/Dora_Endos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustar84 ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good for you. Now, why are we carrying this conversation on here instead of the reference desk? Don't answer that, just keep the conversation in one place, s'il vous plait. -- Jayron 32 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Manor > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fitzhugh > > Same topic 69.65.77.159 ( talk) 16:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Jayron 32 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
|
The Original Barnstar |
| you are awesome! thank you so much! Paulhus15 ( talk) 23:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
Oh. I just noticed that it wasn't actually an over zealous archive bot but a user that blanked Talk:Richard Nixon. I'll contact that user to ask about it.
But in any case, archiving unfinished discussions doesn't make any sense unless they're causing some technical problem. Maybe if there's 100 sections, then the oldest should start being moved into archives. Otherwise it's just preventing people from seeing questions. Often the best questions are the ones that have to wait years before a sufficiently informed (or lucky) passer-by knows how to answer. Gronky ( talk) 03:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, 90 days is probably enough: There's a difference between discussions that have not finished, and discussions that will never finish, or that have already finished. Some article talk pages would become bloated, and too large for many browsers to load, if they were never archived. -- Jayron 32 03:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron: A user has started demanding an article layout be changed according to his desire against the vote of everyone else who has reverted the changes. It is really odd. I am a new and have no idea how to handle the situation. And is this type of thing a regular occurrence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath
I am also updating the page of Patrick M. Byrne which has extremely confusing Talk page requirements. Bhalluka ( talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The way to solve all problems is to talk them out, and give it time. Work on coming to a consensus solution everyone can agree with. Don't expect that agreement to come in 5 minutes. If you reach an impasse, try WP:DRN. -- Jayron 32 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
...for this! Spencer T♦ C 05:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
|
| Hello, Jayron32. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks for joining the project! Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 | ||
| Volume 6, Issue 1 • Winter 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- — EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Play calling system, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flanker, Bill Walsh and Ray Perkins ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering, since you are highly knowledgeable with chemistry, whether you could comment at Talk:Synthesis of precious metals#Why do we consider radioisotope synthesis?.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mmm. Sorry. I'd love to help out, but this isn't my area of expertise. I'm sure I may have known this stuff 5 years ago, but I haven't done this sort of stuff since college. --
Jayron
32 01:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't so much about the content itself as it is about the way the content is presented here.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! As a past participant in the U.S. portion of the USRD Cup, you may be interested to know that we are doing it again this year! Signups are at the above page and the contest will begin February 1. -- Rs chen 7754 10:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your
answers.
If the density have nothing to do with speed of sound, then why is it 8 times faster in solid and 4 times faster in liquid than in the air?--
YanikB (
talk) 12:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Read all of the words that I wrote again. Come back when you spot the difference between my answer and your question. -- Jayron 32 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jaryon32,
Recently you replied to a question I posed at the science ref desk, in which you provided a link to Google scholar searching for "exercise and sleep" with the quote of "check this out and see what you think". I felt that it was a bit demeaning, and like I had asked an incorrect question. I suppose you could have meant it as a "look it up and add to Wikipedia" sort of statement, but I don't know for sure. Can you tell me what you meant by your response?
Thanks, Sazea ( talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was there was information there which could answer your question about exercise and sleep. -- Jayron 32 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Why don't the the sunrise and sunset times go the other way at the solstice?
"...and the orbit is an eclipse."
You might want to change that to "ellipse". (smile) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, thanks ever so much for fixing that mess-up on the Wright brothers talk page. I still don't completely understand what happened, but I suspected it had something to with the Edit Request template. Thanks again. DonFB ( talk) 05:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- See my note on Wikipedia:Help desk. It had nothing to do with the template. Someone above you had used a backslash instead of a frontslash to close a ref tag; that messed everything else up after it. -- Jayron 32 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your patient, informative answer at the Teahouse about dealing with dead links. It told the guest just what they needed to know and gave them the right context and perspective for thinking about the problem in the future. We appreciate it!
Also, in case you were wondering, we're trying a new experiment centered around 'acknowledgements' in the Teahouse. If you see someone doing something awesome, find the Badge that fits best and share it with them. More details are linked on the Badge itself. Cheers!
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Ocaasi
t |
c 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Chi Omega vandalism
I saw your reply at the help desk about the Chi Omega section blanking. Thanks for your quick action. I wasn't sure if I should reply there or here, but I just wanted to ask if there's a way you can monitor the article, so that after the protection expires you can be aware if the section blanking happens again. The last three times was by the same IP, but there were several before that, including one from an IP in the city of the sorority's national headquarters. I appreciate your help on this. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 04:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Glad to help! --
Jayron
32 04:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! From reading other comments on your talk page, you're apparently a really friendly, helpful administrator. It's nice to know that people like you are here to help. Especially when others have no idea how to solve a problem. Have a nice week. :) --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify... is there indeed a way for you to monitor a particular article? And if so, can you do it for Chi Omega? Sorry, just wanted to make sure because it would be a relief to know that an admin is watching out for future violations. Thanks. --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist. If you
get an account you can have a watchlist too. It's free and east to do. --
Jayron
32 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming. And the info. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist. If you
get an account you can have a watchlist too. It's free and east to do. --
Jayron
32 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify... is there indeed a way for you to monitor a particular article? And if so, can you do it for Chi Omega? Sorry, just wanted to make sure because it would be a relief to know that an admin is watching out for future violations. Thanks. --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! From reading other comments on your talk page, you're apparently a really friendly, helpful administrator. It's nice to know that people like you are here to help. Especially when others have no idea how to solve a problem. Have a nice week. :) --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1960 Buffalo Bills season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jay~
I liked your comment because I find it remarkable to find out that there are popular concepts out there applicable to situations about which I never though a popular concept would exist -- hope that makes sense -- but anyway, I didn't understand the point. Even after reading the gratis vs. libre article, I couldn't seem to understand the difference because the article makes too many references to software, freedom of speech and beer -- 3 things I don't really know too much about on the deep levels as used by the article. Would you be able to summarize the difference so that I'd be able to take it into my own hands to apply this concept to something like buying gas, babysitting or dental work, because, as it stands, I'm very fuzzy about the distinction. Thanks! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 14:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is caused by the fact that English uses the word "free" to mean two non-identical concepts:
- Free means "doesn't cost anything", in the sense that to get it, I don't have to lay out any money to get it. Free beer is a wonderful thing because a) it's beer and b) I didn't have to pay anything for it.
- Free also means "I'm allowed to do it", that is there are no rules against. That's what free speech is about. Speaking never costs money (that is, I don't have to pay anyone cash to make my vocal cords vibrate). What free speech means is that you're allowed to talk all you want, about anything. There's no rule against it.
- Here's a way to look at it as well. When I was 19, I went to a lot of frat parties. Once inside, the beer was free: that is, it didn't cost me anything. However, because I was below the legal drinking age, I wasn't "free" to drink the beer. Had a police officer come in and found me with a beer in my hand, I'd have found out that fact pretty quickly. So the beer was both free (didn't cost anything) and not free (against the rules).
- The deal with the software community is this: when someone writes a program under the guise of being "free", they mean that they will allow other people to see the source code: they aren't protecting the code by obfuscating it, and aren't demanding that no one ever use it under the guise of copyright protection. However, people who write that software expect you to pay to use it, if you are an end user. Thus it is "free" like free speech (no rules against seeing the code or using it to write your own software), but it is not "free" like free beer, in the sense that if you are running the program on your computer, you should have payed cash to someone for it. --
Jayron
32 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanx! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you know when Johanna Zorn gets deleted, or does it have to be requested? The template says, "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 13:58 on 30 January", which was about 12 hours ago. Thanks. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 01:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
People are making noises over in this part of the state about a meetup ... is Greensboro too far for you? (Some might come from Charlotte). - Dank ( push to talk) 20:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, depends on the date. Greenboro is not undoable, but it couldn't be like this weekend. If you give me enough lead time, and if I don't have anything else going, I'll try to make a go of it. Talk to
User:Jennavecia too. She's gone a bit inactive since her life has gotten busy outside of WP (and some stuff at WP has soured her a bit, sadly); but she's always been a catalyst for events like this and getting her on board usually helps. --
Jayron
32 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You might want to weigh in with an opinion here: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Medical advice question removed at Science Desk -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Best. Answer. Ever. Guy Macon ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Well, thank you. I'm glad my input was able to break that deadlock in the discussion you were having. -- Jayron 32 00:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years.
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (
Grapple X (
submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years.
12george1 (
submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a
detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
-
12george1 (
submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article
Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
-
Buggie111 (
submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with
Marquis Flowers. -
Spencer (
submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with
2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede. -
Status (
submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with
list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists. -
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with
File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
-
Ed! (
submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with
Portland-class cruiser, a good article. -
Hawkeye7 (
submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on
Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score. -
HueSatLum (
submissions) claimed bonus points for
René Vautier and
Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of
The C of E (
submissions), who may well have already written the
oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to
Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| For your fine work at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
can you collapse that section, rather than hiding it? I don't know how to do so. μηδείς ( talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Especially as unsought. Yes, I was annoyed on reading it, but no longer. Kevin McE ( talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a sensitive situation at the Teahouse and turning it into a thoughtful learning opportunity about verifiability. You helped a new editor with a close connection to the subject understand how Wikipedia functions in a deep way. Keep being awesome!
|
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Ocaasi
t |
c 15:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Understood, I will try to find a real picture of a hikikomori. Thank. Kotjap ( talk) 02:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
| This is still not the correct venue to solve this problem. Use the article talk page or WP:DR. I am not your mommy, and I'm not here to pick sides. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello Jayron32. Mr. Mustard made four reverts within 24 hours. But instead of blocking him you locked the article in Mr. Mustards version. I think that is encouraging that kind of behaviour. He allready linked FDR to Hitler [1] and it can´t be long until he carries out an edit-war on that topic. (Not to mention a couple of other articles that have to be blocked in his version for years). Mr. Mustard blanked out about 20 sentences based on sourced text (mostly from User:Christian L. Glossner). Additionally he added several sentences of hoax information that have been opposed allready in November by User:Qyerro an me. In November he allready set back the article on an earlier version by reverting every single edit of every user made within the last two years [2]. Now Mr. Mustard achieved a block of Social Market Economy in his version. I know that it was wrong to revert someone who doesn´t give a shit about any argument. But I know that user from german wikipedia, he does not whant to expand articles, he is just on a mission for cheap POV-pushing. Now that he got the article blocked in his version he is fully satisfied. There is absolutely no way of building consensus with this user (others than giving in). He carries out every dispute about his pov by edit-warrying until users or the articles are blocked. In German wikipedia Mr. Mustard got blocked infinitely for extensive edit-warrying and socket puppetry [3]. That underlines that there is no way one can work with him. What can I do? I would resolve that dispute with every single user but as long as Mr. Mustard blockes everything no consensus is possible. Is there any way a third party can decide that dispute? (Mr. Mustard himself does not care for any other users opinion). -- Pass3456 ( talk) 11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Hello, is there significant support? -- Pass3456 ( talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, there is absolutely no consensus for this ridiculous proposal. This proposal is extrem POV and you know this. You asked some users on their talk page to put their O.K. to your proposal
[5] and they did. My proposal is verified by much better sources than yours and I verified the opposite of your proposal. So your proposal for lead section can't be NPOV. Please stop this behavior because it isn't constructive. --
Mr. Mustard (
talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I invited every single user that contributed to Social market economy within the last six month to state his opinion. Some proposed minor changes to the proposal which I conducted. That is how consensus making works. -- Pass3456 ( talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I told the both of you that I am not here to pick sides. What you need to do is open this up to more users. Let me suggest you try some of the options listed at
WP:DR. --
Jayron
32 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seven users have allready stated their opinion. Request for third opinion would not work since a third opinion was allready stated. Might I pledge you to propose a specific option from
WP:DR? --
Pass3456 (
talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that bringing in fresh eyes, from people who have not contributed to the article, may help. Try asking for input from contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, or start a "request for comment" as described at WP:RFC. Or both. The key here is finding people who are both knowledgable enough, but uninvolved in the dispute to this point. -- Jayron 32 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seven users have allready stated their opinion. Request for third opinion would not work since a third opinion was allready stated. Might I pledge you to propose a specific option from
WP:DR? --
Pass3456 (
talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI -- Mr. Mustard ( talk) 13:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey there. Last week you contributed to the discussion at the now archived " Manometery equation" science reference desk question. I thought that you might be interested in knowing where the mystery 800 came from. It turns out that the question had been misstated, and the relative density of the fluid was 0.8, not 13.6. -- ToE
You are too kind, but thank you. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- That photo of you doesn't do you justice, if my long-held mental picture of you is anything to go by. But maybe a 50 pound lighter version would be closer to my truth. I'd give a lot to lose 50 pounds: I have a history of temporarily misplacing weight, but never really losing it. Will 2013 be my year? We shall see. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you have deleted the final paragraph that I contributed to the article entitled Christian Humanism? Christum ( talk) 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
- We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.
- We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.
- Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!
- And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:
|
Teahouse Host Badge |
| Awarded to hosts at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like
Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. |
- You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jayron, I have a question about MLB stadium refs. I was reading through Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Football League stadiums from nearly six years ago and I saw you comment about have a book with the complete history of all 30 MLB stadiums. I was wondering if that book is online or if there's a website about it. If you could provide a link or some alternative book or website, that would be great. Thanks, -- Astros4477 ( Talk) 02:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already asked this question on Science Reference Desk, and the discussion is very long. I know, no one would like to add anything further in that discussion. I have posted my last response there, but I don't think anyone would reply. So, I asked this on your talk page.
"Suppose, an electron gets attracted to the nucleus, it falls towards the nucleus, coming to a lower orbit and then to other lower orbits between the electrons's initial orbit and the nucleus. We know, for an electron to come to a lower orbit, it would have to emit photon. The attraction of nucleus for an electron is not so strong that it will make an electron to emit photon. Therefore, the electron doesn't come to a lower orbit. This is why electrons don't fall in the nucleus". Am I right or wrong?
Want to be Einstein (
talk) 06:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're wrong because the entire picture you're drawing here depends on an electron moving around a nucleus in an orbit. It doesn't do that. If you go back and read the comments I left directly to you (ignoring the silly tangent I had with StuRat, sorry about that), you'll see that the problem you are having is that you're still thinking about electrons as a little ball whizzing little circular paths around a nucleus like a planet does a sun. Electrons simply don't do that at all. --
Jayron
32 07:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- (
talk page stalker) Listen to your teachers and seniors on questions like, "When we twist our fingers, it produces sound. Why is it so ? Is there any suitable word instead of "twist" ?"
[6] None of them will answer that question for you, forcing you to go to the Science Reference Desk here on Wikipedia? Hmm...
Doc
talk 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are right Doc, but I know the answer to your question. Another term for "twist" is " Cracking knuckles" and it is due to Cavitation. Want to be Einstein ( talk) 07:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you learned that from Wikipedia rather than your paid educators, I weep for the future. Doc talk 07:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- (
talk page stalker) Listen to your teachers and seniors on questions like, "When we twist our fingers, it produces sound. Why is it so ? Is there any suitable word instead of "twist" ?"
[6] None of them will answer that question for you, forcing you to go to the Science Reference Desk here on Wikipedia? Hmm...
Doc
talk 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Who first developed the idea of atomic orbital? Bohr or Broglie. Sunny Singh 09:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba ( talk • contribs)
- Neither. It was Hantaro Nagaoka, though he still thought of orbitals as "real" orbits; like planets around the sun. Rutherford and later Bohr improved on this model, but the modern model of atomic orbitals developed mostly because of the work of Erwin Schrödinger. Schrödinger was the person who first developed the mathematical underpinning of the modern atomic orbital model; see Schrödinger equation. De Broglie also contributed, because of his concept of the matter wave, which provided the notion that a massive particle could also be modeled as a wave; which is what Schrödinger's wave functions do-- Jayron 32 18:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Any idea? [7] --[[User:FelMol|FelMol( talk) 21:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks, and no problem, in regard to [8]. I almost get annoyed by people who think the fact that I have disagreed with them in the past, even strongly, makes us enemies. Having had my sister die on me at 20 and the love of my life murdered, I do find it hard to take disagreement at Wikipedia seriously, and enjoy it immensely when people do take the time to point out agreement. So, again, thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 04:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. All people have a dignity, and I hope to treat them that way. I will call bullshit when I see it, but I am also equally willing to give props where due. It's only what is right. --
Jayron
32 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, "give props"! A great phrase I learned in my 30's. My favorite philosopher (not that of many others) and my second favorite author,
Ayn Rand, said the greatest social virtue was to give credit where credit was due. I agree it is a sin not to.
μηδείς (
talk) 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Etymonline dates "props" to 1999; but I'm sure I was using it in high school, which was many years before that. Definitely widely used by the mid-1990s. Plus,
Respect had the word "propers" with the exact same sense, and that song is 30 years older than that. It's a short step from "propers" to "props"; so it's probably a lot older than my awareness of it. Sorry. Geeked out for a minute there. --
Jayron
32 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I first heard "props" in 1988 from the college roommate of my brother-in-law, and all the time from people in NYC from '91 on. Dictionaries tend to use the first notable written example, so that means no white person is known to have written the word for pay until '99. I am sure it was used on Martin well before '99. I lived down the hall from Shenéné, she used to braid my hair. μηδείς ( talk) 05:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Etymonline dates "props" to 1999; but I'm sure I was using it in high school, which was many years before that. Definitely widely used by the mid-1990s. Plus,
Respect had the word "propers" with the exact same sense, and that song is 30 years older than that. It's a short step from "propers" to "props"; so it's probably a lot older than my awareness of it. Sorry. Geeked out for a minute there. --
Jayron
32 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, "give props"! A great phrase I learned in my 30's. My favorite philosopher (not that of many others) and my second favorite author,
Ayn Rand, said the greatest social virtue was to give credit where credit was due. I agree it is a sin not to.
μηδείς (
talk) 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
...A couple years ago, you became the first person to comment on the talk page associated with my user ID MacRutchik. Your comment was entitled "Howdy Stranger." I didn't look back there for two plus years. It was kind of warning about Wikipedia rules, but it became and remains the only topic in my talk page. In case friends look me up and get curious about what people talk to me about in Wikipedia-world, it's kind of unpleasant. I answered your comment immediately, asking explicitly for help keeping things neat and clean, but you never responded. So it still sticks out there kind of unpleasantly for other strangers who might wander there. I'd appreciate your help clearing this up. MacRutchik ( talk) 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and blank it. It's your user talk page. I honestly have no recollection of the message, I obviously left it, but it's over two years ago, and I haven't the foggiest idea what specifically prompted it me to leave it. You've read it, it's well past its usefulness after two years. You can manage your user talk page however you want. Heck, I archive my messages every month or two. So go ahead and do whatever you want with the message, you don't need my permission! -- Jayron 32 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. MacRutchik ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Damn, I was thinking before dinner "I better get an effing barnstar for this!" and here I get one without even demanding it be given me! On a lighter note, how do you like those ITN page nominators who can dish but who can't follow up? Lord knows I can be a jerk, but I do my own work. μηδείς ( talk) 05:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
| ||||
Sorry about the indentation error. I was about to correct it, but you beat me by seconds. :) — David Levy 07:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is unsigned. μηδείς ( talk) 21:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing about how to implement Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. A proposal is being worked on with general community support, where TAFI is put it on the left hand side, below the DYK content. In order to balance the Main Page, part of this proposal involves increasing the ITN content by one item per day. Since you are an editor involved in the process, I would ask if you could comment on the proposal. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've already commented when you announced this earlier. -- Jayron 32 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please just vote on the merits, Jayron. You are an admin, you know. KotJap's nonsense may have reminded me of the issue, but you know it is right on the merits, and the additional nonsense at the RfC is not helpful. You'll notice he is not attacked there by me, a non-admin, while I am by you. μηδείς ( talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, Medeis, being annoying is not, in itself, reason to treat someone's question as invalid. And I've not attacked you, I've reminded you that there is no compulsion for you to answer any question in no different way than you reminded the OP that there are search engines, which you yourself said that you believe he already knew about which then brings to mind that your answer was not to help them, but to chastise them. I only returned to you what you gave to them. -- Jayron 32 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You have mixed metaphors and been decisive recently in cases around banned user and serial sockmaster RealEarthquake. You might be interested in wielding admin powers over what I have posted here for want of a more obvious location. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like The Rambling Man has already taken care of it. Thanks for the heads up, and if you need any more help in this regard, lemme know. -- Jayron 32 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free file File:Munson 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Munson 2.jpg. The file is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Munson 2.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Mentioned here. LittleBen ( talk) 09:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you saw some of the older ones... but messages from earlier this morning show he's changed it back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Message added 05:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the
Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at
the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the
Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the
TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the
Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the
Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current
Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
Message added 12:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed this [9] as posted by the same editor that's asking about circumcision. I leave it to your judgment: Troll or No Troll? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The other questions from that IP seem to be reasonable. Let's just call that a momentary lapse of good judgement, and see where it goes from there. -- Jayron 32 14:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Wiz Khalifa vandalism (again)
Hi Jayron, you protected Wiz Khalifa last week and said to let you know if it happens after the protection expires. This article has a long history of being regularly vandalized (typically with childish, immature changes), so I was wondering if a much stronger measure can be taken to prevent the disruptive editing on a long-term basis? Thanks! -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I gave it a full year this time. If there's any more problems, let me know! --
Jayron
32 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're the best. Thank you. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
From 2012, I asked you a list of questions about your stance on the Southern Baptist. Well, I went away for a while and returned. The more I dug into Christianity out of personal curiosity and interest, the more I figured that it was a bit theologically inconsistent. I couldn't tell if you were closer to Arminianism to Calvinism by the wording of your responses. A Calvinist would probably say that all who enters the church hears the word of God, which seems to be what you suggest. At the same time, you seem to believe that people voluntarily become Christians rather than become elected by God and predestined to follow God. The notion of free will seems to be indicative of Arminianism.
Another thing that I would like to ask is that, since the United States is densely populated with churches (check Google if you don't believe me), it is quite easy to find a Christian church in any given neighborhood/community. At this point, one would think that Christians would not bother with evangelism and missionary work or advertise their church or parachurch organizations, since there seems to be no point in trying to "evangelize the evanglized". Nope. It's quite amusing that I would find a message saying "If you would like to make a first-time commitment to God today..." on a study guide pdf file on a local church website that I assume that it's intended that it's written to mainly Christian congregants. Apparently, the United Methodist Church (that's the church who wrote it) thinks its audience is non-Christian who has never made a commitment to God before, which I think would be quite rare in the US. In any case, I wonder if another Christian assumes that you were a non-Christian and tries to invite you to his/her church, thinking that you would become a member, even though you are already firmly attached to your own church. Pretty awkward, eh? 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most individual Christians don't get into naming their theology in broad (and somewhat antiquated) terms like "Arminianist" and "Calvinist". Also, there is a wide variation in terms of theology, worship style, organization, etc. from one Christian denomination to another, so the fact that there are several churches close together doesn't mean there's a whole lot in common between them. Also, regular church attendance in the U.S. isn't widespread, and while most Americans profess to be Christians in their broad beliefs, the number that actually regularly attend a church is considerably lower than that, and those that take an active role in the activities of their church beyond showing up for an hour on Sundays is even lower.
This poll by Gallup indicates significantly less than 50 % of Americans describe themselves as regular attenders of religious services (of all types, not just Christian, so the % of Americans attending a Christian church are even lower than that). Even among Americans that self-identify as "conservative", only 55% regularly attend religious services. Even more so, going to church doesn't make one a Christian. A good analogy I have heard is "Being in church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car". Christian churches don't expect 100% of the people who show up every Sunday to be Christians, and if they are doing their jobs correctly, then they won't be. There should be non-Christians at every church service, the more there are the better, that's what many Christian churches are trying to do; the goal is to get as many non-Christians into the church where they can hear the message as possible. Back to your first questions about theological positions within various denominations: Most of the Wikipedia articles on various denominations have sections on their theology. Baptists, in general, don't get too dogmatic over the "Calvinist vs. Arminian" thing.
Baptist#Baptist_beliefs_and_principles, just to pick one, has some information on core Baptist principles and theology: Generally, all Baptists hold to
believer's baptism over infant baptism (that's where the name comes from), they vehemently believe in the autonomy of the local congregation, and hold that religious conversion can never be coerced, and must occur via the free choice of the individual. Baptists have a long tradition of supporting the separation of Church and State, for example (see
Baptists in the history of separation of church and state) which fits with their strong belief in individual freedom of conscience, and most Baptist churches would support the
Five Solae as core beliefs, at least in principle. Other than those principles, because of the core principle of congregational autonomy, individual Baptist congregations show a VERY wide variation in theology, practice, and worship style. For denominations with a more centralized organization (such as the
United Methodist Church), you're likely to get more uniform and well-expressed theology and practices. --
Jayron
32 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, given that Christianity is a belief-oriented religion rather than a tribal religion, I suppose you do have a point. In a belief-oriented religion, people become adherents by sharing the same beliefs. In a tribal religion, people become adherents by being born in a particular culture and learning the way of life, which includes religion, ethics, cosmology, etc. So, practicing the tribal religion is synonymous as living the cultural way of life. As long as that person accepts the culture, he/she is still considered _____________. Such is the case with indigenous Indian religions (Hinduism), Native American religions, Chinese folk religion, and Judaism. The only way for a person to become detached from the religion in those religions is to dissociate oneself from the culture/family to which one belongs and not perpetuate any practices onto the next generation. Christianity and Islam are different in that they rely heavily on agreement on the beliefs. If a person does not believe the same things they do or believe in God, then one is not technically a Christian or Muslim. They may still be affiliated with the culture, though, but that just means from a tribal religionist's perspective to be a Christian or Muslim. In addition, just because a person does not attend church does not necessarily mean that the person has rejected the faith. I have a classmate who is of the Coptic Orthodox church, and recently she stops going to church. But she considers herself a Coptic Orthodox, presumably because she expresses loyalty to that particular church. (If one is a busy undergraduate student who has to study 7 days a week, then one may not have the time and energy at church.) To me, I do not consider church attendance very important. Private worship and the will to teach the children your way of life, to me, are more important indicators of religiosity. If Christianity is seen and treated as more of a tribal religion, then so-called "cultural Christians" would be considered Christians. However, since Christianity is really a belief-oriented religion, cultural Christians are not considered Christians; they are merely "secular individuals" who are not committed to God, Christ, or the church. In my opinion, the Western definition of "secularism" is meaningless. It is supposed to mean "no religion", but are these secular people really nonreligious? I am quite ambivalent about it, because Western secularists do seem to have a very Christian frame of mind - something you don't find in Eastern cultures. 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 00:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron. I just wanted to make you aware of this unresolved issue at the help desk initiated by Guy Macon. I thought perhaps you might be interested in giving your input. I mentioned to Guy that it would be good to hear from some editors with a lot of experience. Have a wonderful weekend. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jayron,
Could you please review this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. If not, that's okay, but please let me know what your decision on this is. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed a DYK nomination for years. I'm not really up on current standards; I would totally help you out if I were. All of the nominations do get reviewed in the order they were submitted, as far as I know, so someone will be along soon. It looks like others have already left some good tips regarding referencing and NPOV. Listen to them, and try to make the fixes they have recommended. --
Jayron
32 01:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, Jayron. Anyway, I was able to get Medeis to review this DYK? nomination of mine, but I have a question--could you please (since you're an admin here on Wikipedia) put the entire editing history of
Race and ethnic history of New York City into
Racial and ethnic history of New York City (it's the same article, but I gave it a new name and turned the other article into a redirect page). Thank you very much, and have a good day.
Futurist110 (
talk) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, as far as I am concerned, this is ready to go, especially in response to my own concerns and the previous reviewers' stated concerns. I would have marked it confirmed but am leaving it to you if you want further review--in which case talk me. If you do not have any real scary significant objections I suggest you do mark it confirmed and have it queued. And please see about the history move mentioned above whatever the case.
μηδείς (
talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, I haven't done any work at DYK for years. It'd be better to get someone with more recent experience to handle the technical aspects of this. --
Jayron
32 03:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Allright, thank you, Jayron. Futurist110 ( talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, I haven't done any work at DYK for years. It'd be better to get someone with more recent experience to handle the technical aspects of this. --
Jayron
32 03:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, as far as I am concerned, this is ready to go, especially in response to my own concerns and the previous reviewers' stated concerns. I would have marked it confirmed but am leaving it to you if you want further review--in which case talk me. If you do not have any real scary significant objections I suggest you do mark it confirmed and have it queued. And please see about the history move mentioned above whatever the case.
μηδείς (
talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, Jayron. Anyway, I was able to get Medeis to review this DYK? nomination of mine, but I have a question--could you please (since you're an admin here on Wikipedia) put the entire editing history of
Race and ethnic history of New York City into
Racial and ethnic history of New York City (it's the same article, but I gave it a new name and turned the other article into a redirect page). Thank you very much, and have a good day.
Futurist110 (
talk) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Since I've seen your name at the Help Desk forums, I thought I'd ask for your advice about this comment by User:Reisio which seems to cross the line of NPA: "It’d never come up if people like you weren’t attempting to delude others in addition to yourselves" [10] I've posted a complaint about it at ANI [11] because I think it's part of a pattern of disrespectful comments I've seen from him. El duderino ( abides) 03:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
One says Angular momentum of eletron is quantized. What does this quantize mean? And, please, give some response to question asked on Science reference desk under the heading "In what respect two protons (or any two fermion) are not identical?" since this question is related to your field. Thank you! 106.215.104.0 ( talk) 13:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- See Quantization (physics). The notion that some measurement or value is quantized is that the measurement has only certain available values it can have; instead of having a continuous set of values, it has only certain allowable values. For something like, say, an electron its angular momentum is defined by three numbers (one as the sum of the other two), those being the Azimuthal quantum number (l) (analogous to the classical concept of "orbit" in something like, say, a planet) and the Spin quantum number (s) (analogous to the classical concept of "rotation about an axis" in something like, say, a planet), and the Total angular momentum quantum number which is the sum of the two other quantum numbers. Note that the existance of these numbers does not mean that an electron "behaves" like a physical object like a planet, rather that an electron has measurable properties which behave like properties of a planet, in a mathematical sense; and that these properties are "quantized" in that they can only have certain allowable values. For example, the azimuthal QN can only have integer values constrained by the principle quantum number, while the spin QN can only have an absolute value of 1/2. The actual measurable values of these numbers are defined by mathematical formulas, for example the actual angular momentum of an electron is given by a mathematical formula related to both the wave function and the value of l. These allowable values are the only values that an electron can have for its angular momentum, it cannot have any intermediate values. -- Jayron 32 13:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron. Would you mind closing this this RfC? I have recently imposed a topic ban on the OP and he has now asked for guidance. I feel that a completely uninvolved admin should deal with the RFC, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at it. De728631 ( talk) 14:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that Chi Omega is the lone article in the protection template cats, which prompted me to take a look. It looks like a protection template was substed rather than transcluded when you protected it a month ago - I don't like to mess with admin-level stuff but could you take a look? Cheers. Le Deluge ( talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.
Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
| Metric | Control group | Teahouse group | Contrast |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) | 5.02 weeks | 8.57 weeks | 1.7x retention |
| Average number of articles edited | 58.7 articles | 116.9 edits | 2.0x articles edited |
| Average talk page edits | 36.5 edits | 85.6 edits | 2.4x talk page edits |
| Average article space edits | 129.6 edits | 360.4 edits | 2.8x article edits |
| Average total edits (all namespaces) | 182.1 edits | 532.4 edits | 2.9x total edits |
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|
|
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
From the first months, through its first birthday, you have stuck with the Teahouse, nurtured its community, learned and helped, shared and improved. Simply put, the Teahouse would not be what it is without you. Stick around, because we need your lovely attitudes, sincere dedication, sharp minds, crafty design, caring reform, technical wits, and good humor. Display this delicious badge with honor, for you are a Teahouse Founder.
|
Teahouse Founders Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to editors who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first months and are still participating a year later. To celebrate the editors who have been with Teahouse from the beginning through its first year, we've made you this extra special birthday badge! Teahouse continues to be awesome because you are still here all these months later, so thank you. You are the Foundation of this awesome project. |
- With the utmost cheer and appreciation,
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 23:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot ( talk) 03:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
-
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
-
Miyagawa (
submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points. -
Casliber (
submissions), due in no small part to
Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with
Keilana (
submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
-
Sven Manguard (
submissions), whose
Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores. -
Sasata (
submissions), whose
Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year. -
Muboshgu (
submissions) and
Wizardman (
submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the
Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition. -
Toa Nidhiki05 (
submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the
Casting Crowns studio albums topic.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a
curious contribution has been offered by
The C of E (
submissions): did you know that there is a
Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyediting request on FIFA Club World Cup
Hello. I have been editing a page that I believe deserves to be upgraded to a FA status. That page is the FIFA Club World Cup. However, it seems there are a few errors that I am not seeing and more than one editor suggested that I have someone copyedit the article. I looked up who did anything with sports and you seem to be the more active member of the two I found.
I would like to request that you copyedit the article. The FA nomination is still open pending that. If so, let me know when you will start. The article is detailed but easy to understand as I have provided detailed information in a balanced manner. I look forward to hearing your reply. EpidemiaCorinthiana ( talk) 12:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yo! Thanks a lot for your copyedit. It allowed me to see many things that needed fixing i.e. making sure every reference followed the same, exact model, removing a lot of the footnotes that were cluttering the article, ALT texted every image, translated every foreign reference, simplifying a lot of the sentences in the article itself and caught two references typed twice by accident.
- Could I ask for one last copyedit from you? I want to hear your opinion of how it is now and I would like a reply after it. I feel there is absolutely nothing left for it and it could easily be a FA now. If so, could you lend your support on the nomination? Thanks for everything and I can't wait to hear your replies. EpidemiaCorinthiana ( talk) 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your insight. I have just finished adding the dates of publication, authors, editors and formats of each reference provided the information was around. By going through each reference one by one, I saw a few more double-links and a handful of dead ones. Could you give your support to the nomination of the article to a FA? Thanks again. EpidemiaCorinthiana ( talk) 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.
--- The Old Jacobite The '45 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Heads-up about a discussion to up this to indef. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know that I have anything to add, but thanks for the heads up. If you have any specific questions, let me know! -- Jayron 32 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have The Mentalist (season 5) page unprotected? New episode and ratings information will be available soon after the airing of last night's episode. The content dispute in question is pretty one sided. User:Aeusetereleiea continuously adds the titles of upcoming episodes and refuses to provide any kind of source to back up the claims. Per Wikipedia's verification rules this is totally unacceptable. Any addition of upcoming episode titles or dates must be accompanied by a source, which Aeusetereleiea clearly doesn't care about. They have consistently flouted the rules, personally insulted me and demonstrated a pattern of disrespect toward the site. They clearly have no interest in learning the rules or co-operating with other editors. My hope in speaking out was that action would be taken against the user and not the page. A protection will do nothing to discourage Aeusetereleiea from further vandalism. I respectfully disagree with your decision to protect the page and would like to request that it be unprotected and that steps be taken to prevent further disruption by Aeusetereleiea. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 ( talk) 09:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, just get a consensus established on the article talk page among uninvolved editors, and when that happens then someone can unprotect the page. Also, please don't use the word vandalism unless you can demonstrate that someone else is deliberately trying to make a Wikipedia article worse. Aeusetereleiea may (or may not, I don't make any judgements in that regard) be wrong, but it appears they are trying to, in their mind, make the article better. They may be edit warring, they may not be citing their sources, but none of that is vandalism. So, please start a discussion, use
WP:DR methods if needed, and establish consensus and we'll see about unprotecting the article--
Jayron
32 11:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just set up a talk of The Mentalist (season 5) in discussion about new episode infomation. So we need to get the article unprotected real soon so we get the new episode and ratings infomation on that article. BattleshipMan ( talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to make a request to unprotect The Mentalist (season 5) so we can update the episode ratings, plot summaries and such. BattleshipMan ( talk) 07:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was not involved in that edit war in the past. It just Aeusetereleiea and SchrutedIt08 who we're. In any case, Aeusetereleiea is the one that should be blocked in case the edit war happens again. SchrutedIt08 was right that Aeusetereleiea did edit some future episode titles without referencing them for confirmation. I was not involved in that edit war in anyway, so you don't have to block me. I just thought you should know that before you start having a reason to block me. BattleshipMan ( talk) 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be keeping an eye on this article and if there is dispute that may happen, you will be notified. BattleshipMan ( talk) 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As the article says,
Twin cities are a special case of two cities or urban centres that are founded in close geographic proximity and then grow into each other over time.
In none of those cases does this apply. None of these are multipolar cities. They are single cities that happen to be bisected by a state line. If we're not careful, this list will quickly devolve into a list of all cities, since virtually all cities have more than one municipal government district, and these districts tend to be called "cities" in English. The rest of the list needs significant pruning as well, but I'm only confident enough to be bold with the North American ones... — ˈzɪzɨvə ( talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It really fits with my impression of a person who likes football. I am trying to imagine this person in a Southern Baptist church, wearing a Protestant clergyman garb. 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 01:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! There is no Southern Baptist clergy garb, BTW. Suit and tie, usually. That's about it. And I'm definitely not "clergy". Never been to seminary, never taken a single theology class. --
Jayron
32 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. What do you dress yourself to church then? 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Jayron32. i edited Kai445's comment because it was his own personal opinion of the company and not a critic of the article in question. i don't mind genuine concerns over what i have written, these seem to stem from notation issues,but i do mind Kai445's own crusade against EnGeniux, i feel he overstepped the mark with what he wrote in the talk page. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony flaxman ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're quite free to say exactly that after their comments. What you may not do is to edit their comments to change what they have said. A person's words should not be changed to alter what they have said. If you disagree with someone, do so, but don't make it seem like they said something different than what they said. -- Jayron 32 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.
If you could get me a reply as soon as possible (about 15 hours), that'd be really great! I'm so sorry for the short notice, but this is crucial.
Thank you,
-- Jethro B 04:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the intrusion again. I emailed you again with a different email address to use, as my current one isn't functioning properly right now. Thanks. -- Jethro B 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you thank you again so much! I understood your procedure - I pretty much just didn't realize to do the first part, but thank you for your assistance. I really do appreciate it. --
Jethro
B 05:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| For truly having a brilliant idea! Jethro B 05:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
We came to an agreement on the last version lead in Talk:Social_market_economy#working_on_Lead_consensus. Five Users accepted that version, one User (Mr. Mustard ) still disagrees, one other users (Qyerro) made a single recommendation that was solved in the last version. So i guess we are good to go and hereby ask you kindly to unprotect the article Social market economy if and when you see fit. -- Kharon ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The user Gaming&Computing has removed a large portion of the ad-drivel, but I still believe GNG is not met. If you still support your initial !vote, please reiterate your support on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oton page. Thanks! - Kai445 ( talk) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Flash Gorden....is that you? LOL! (I kid...and couldn't resist!)-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You blocked me for 31 hours for what? disruptive question on the ref desk? I am sorry. But can I ask a question that I have on the ref desk now? 186.130.74.115 ( talk) 16:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
At User talk:NXTguru. I've placed it on hold for the moment. The request is a bit thin on details but presuming they are a young person four years is a pretty long time. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Go for it, per
WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap, and if they vandalize again, they can be quickly reblocked. I have no objections to you unblocking if you wish to do so. --
Jayron
32 17:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno, the guy who wrote that ROPE essay is a bit of a nut [12] but I guess we can risk it... Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.
-- Jethro B 21:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, it's very helpful and I truly appreciate it. I emailed you back just to confirm the answer to one more small, quick question. I hope that it's not an issue. Thank again. -- Jethro B 19:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You might want to look at the history of User:Timothyhere/AKA sock puppets Kotjap FMicronesian, et al, with his obsession on Israel being supported by US Pacific Island puppet states before you feed his newest incarnation again. Be aware the Solomon Islands are a Pacific island group just as is Micronesia. for example, see these questions on Islands and Israel and the rapid block of User:FMicronesian. μηδείς ( talk) 01:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. Will take care of that presently. I knew about that particular modus operandi, but it had slipped my mind for a moment. Damn me and my trustworthy nature... --
Jayron
32 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've researched this users contribs history:
[13] and it is a terrible match for Timothy here or any of his socks; in the first case it predates any of his socks by several years and in the second case it shows an article editing history which is in NO way a match for Timothyhere's interests or history or known locale. It was a good connection, but literally nothing else matches Timothyhere, so while I think the whole "pacific islander states supporting Israel" thing was a good catch, a deeper investigation looks to me like this is a mere coincidence, and NOT our resident Argentine ref desk troll. --
Jayron
32 01:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- But would a registered account that's lain dormant have been caught in a checkuser scan before? Even then, an innocent confluence of puppet state/UN/pacific islands/support Israel/named after pacific islands on the ref desk by a very sophisticated user with a rather short edit history is far less likely than 1/
Sagan's Number. Aren't there proxy IP addresses as well? (I don't know how that works.) If I am right you can order me dinner from
Spice and then get us a room on the Upper East Side to eat it because they don't have room for sit down dinners. (If I am wrong I'll ship you a case of Nathan's.)
μηδείς (
talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look, if you want to check further,
WP:SPI is the place to do it. From what I can see based on the accounts complete edit history, it is NOT a sleeper account of our recent troll; this account has always been editing India-related biographies, years ago and up to this week, and though it isn't very active, it has been consistent. It also has always (in the past going back a ways, and recently) consistently used a particular style of writing that shows an unfamiliarity with English which isn't coincident with Timothyhere. Could it be that Timothy here has been preparing this sockpuppet account for use for over two years by carefully making specific edits to India biography topics on a sporadic basis, and deliberately using an idiosyncratic style of English, again deliberately and specifically for this account, all the while keeping it clean of any association with him, JUST to spring it on us today to ask a question about Israel and Pacific Islands states? Under the "anything is possible" idea. But seriously, I'm just as likely to be a carefully crafted Timothyhere sock. But, if you are THAT convinced that this question is that suspicious (and it IS very suspicious taken in isolation), and so much so as to outweigh all of the rest of the behavioral evidence, ask for a checkuser to look into an SPI report for you. But I simply don't see it. I've been wrong before, but I'm not seeing it on this one at all. --
Jayron
32 02:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- And, anyhoo, I'm not a big hot dog fan. I'll settle for a beer the next time either of us is in the other's home town. Just a tall glass of something decent at any bar you wish. That's all I ask for... --
Jayron
32 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then, The Piper's Kilt, and their burgers are great. But that's one of those Irish bars I mentioned where the patrons all shut up if they don't know the new person walking in the door. PS, no need for talkbacks, I watch where I have posted for at least a week. μηδείς ( talk) 02:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- And, anyhoo, I'm not a big hot dog fan. I'll settle for a beer the next time either of us is in the other's home town. Just a tall glass of something decent at any bar you wish. That's all I ask for... --
Jayron
32 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look, if you want to check further,
WP:SPI is the place to do it. From what I can see based on the accounts complete edit history, it is NOT a sleeper account of our recent troll; this account has always been editing India-related biographies, years ago and up to this week, and though it isn't very active, it has been consistent. It also has always (in the past going back a ways, and recently) consistently used a particular style of writing that shows an unfamiliarity with English which isn't coincident with Timothyhere. Could it be that Timothy here has been preparing this sockpuppet account for use for over two years by carefully making specific edits to India biography topics on a sporadic basis, and deliberately using an idiosyncratic style of English, again deliberately and specifically for this account, all the while keeping it clean of any association with him, JUST to spring it on us today to ask a question about Israel and Pacific Islands states? Under the "anything is possible" idea. But seriously, I'm just as likely to be a carefully crafted Timothyhere sock. But, if you are THAT convinced that this question is that suspicious (and it IS very suspicious taken in isolation), and so much so as to outweigh all of the rest of the behavioral evidence, ask for a checkuser to look into an SPI report for you. But I simply don't see it. I've been wrong before, but I'm not seeing it on this one at all. --
Jayron
32 02:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- But would a registered account that's lain dormant have been caught in a checkuser scan before? Even then, an innocent confluence of puppet state/UN/pacific islands/support Israel/named after pacific islands on the ref desk by a very sophisticated user with a rather short edit history is far less likely than 1/
Sagan's Number. Aren't there proxy IP addresses as well? (I don't know how that works.) If I am right you can order me dinner from
Spice and then get us a room on the Upper East Side to eat it because they don't have room for sit down dinners. (If I am wrong I'll ship you a case of Nathan's.)
μηδείς (
talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've researched this users contribs history:
[13] and it is a terrible match for Timothy here or any of his socks; in the first case it predates any of his socks by several years and in the second case it shows an article editing history which is in NO way a match for Timothyhere's interests or history or known locale. It was a good connection, but literally nothing else matches Timothyhere, so while I think the whole "pacific islander states supporting Israel" thing was a good catch, a deeper investigation looks to me like this is a mere coincidence, and NOT our resident Argentine ref desk troll. --
Jayron
32 01:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "earnestly seeking" baptism? What would count as "earnestly seeking" baptism in the Catholic church? What type of reason would suffice? What if a person just wants to become a generic Christian but chooses the Roman Catholic Church because it is the oldest and largest of all? Does converting to Roman Catholicism mean that an individual agrees with Roman Catholic beliefs or just uses the Roman Catholic Church as a gateway into Christianity? Or would the Roman Catholic priest expect that the person must specifically have a reason for wishing to favor the Roman Catholic Church above the other churches? 65.24.105.132 ( talk) 22:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Talk to a priest and ask them. They'll be far more informed and will do a better job answering your questions than I will. If you have questions like this, find the nearest Catholic parish, ask to speak to a priest there, and see what he says. He'll probably gladly take a few minutes out of his day to answer your questions. --
Jayron
32 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I would try to look up the answers online, since asking a Catholic priest would probably lead to an awkward situation in which it would look like that I am interested in converting to Catholicism or Christianity, which I am not. Another option is to ask that young Catholic missionary, with whom I had a casual conversation, last Thursday, if only I could meet him again. 65.24.105.132 ( talk) 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Phil Ramone
 | On 31 March 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Phil Ramone, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Spencer T♦ C 03:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! But The Rambling Man did most of the hard work on this one. But I appreciate the recognition! -- Jayron 32 03:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for steering me to WP:ARCA it appears to be just the right place to get help I needed! (duh, why didn't I think of that?) Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate
Miyagawa (
submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's
Casliber (
submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with
WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist
Niels Bohr (
Hawkeye7 (
submissions)), on the
European hare (
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions)), on the constellation
Circinus (
Keilana (
submissions) and
Casliber (
submissions)) and on the
Third Epistle of John (
Cerebellum (
submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.
A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I am writing to you Jayron32 in an effort to have the Cape Coral Hurricanes page restored. If their was any problem with it, I would be happy to fix them so The page can be reposted. The Cape Coral Hurricanes are a professional soccer team in the NPSL and from Cape Coral Florida. ( Moose101094 ( talk) 22:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC))
- Go ahead and make a new page. The old page was so minimal, there was nothing worth preserving. Make sure that the article you create is well referenced and in depth enough. If you wish to take time to craft a decent article, do it as a draft before moving it into the main article space. Help:Userspace draft discusses how to do that. -- Jayron 32 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- just wanted to let you know in an unobtrusive way that your statement that "the core of the brain is the basal ganglion" is off the mark. To the extent that the brain has a core, it is the brainstem. There really isn't even such a thing as the "basal ganglion". There is a set of structures called the basal ganglia, which play a crucial role in decision-making, but it would be a far stretch to think of them as the core of the brain in any meaningful way. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- You should correct me in public then. It does no good to people reading a wrong answer to think I was correct. My feelings be damned, go set all those readers straight please. -- Jayron 32 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, Please could you restore my article and provide me with some guidelines as to why the page was removed so swiftly. The article was checked by the administrator who initially deleted it a few weeks ago. So I worked with the same administrator to get it right all this time, then submitted it but you've deleted it within seconds of it being submitted. The document is 'Not' identical and or an unimproved copy of the failed one which was there before. It had been improved and worked upon, please could you at least communicate with me first to tell me whats wrong before acting so swiftly a simple I'm open to a any discussion that can help me improve...Thanks.
G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"
The version I submitted was not identical nor was it a copy of the old one, Therefore why was it not excluded? JonS 13:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, Thanks for your response, Where you said "Please do not restore the article to the main space until Blak Prophetz have extensive, well-written sources in reliable, well-regarded publications"
Please reconsider based on the following.. Please define Well regarded publications. The publications in this article include Blues & Soul, Notion/Notionmag, ( http://www.notionmag.com/issue-archive/index.php) Hip Hop Connection, Echoes including that of Tim Westwood BBC. Are you saying that these are none reliable/well regarded publications?. This does not make any sense as this publications are global, known and specialist to the artist in the article. Please check the references throughout Wikipedia from known music artists who make reference to these very publications. The basis for deletion does seem a bit heavy handed or based on your personal acceptance for "well regarded". Please reconsider and work with me to resolve this as I have worked with other administrators to build this article who did not have any issues on the sources cited for the article, Please re-instate the articleJonS 16:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John shaftman ( talk • contribs)
- I think you haven't had a reply to the message here because you haven't put it on his talk page, and he provbably isn't checking yours Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Hi Jayron, If you can make a decision to delete an article, you can most definitely make the same decision to leave it as an article to be judged by others. You said it yourself that it is a far better article than before. So why the decision to delete it if you were unsure in the first place? Something does not make sense here, I feel as though my work is being held back for reasons which do not carry any real foundation. I admit my very first article was poor and it got deleted by a professional administrator for good reasons. I also admit that I was not happy with his decision but I conformed with what Wikipedia advises and went back to the administrator who initially removed the article and asked if he could work with me to repair and rebuild my article from which he did. What I'm now confused about is your sudden decision to delete my article 5 mins after it was uploaded, with a claim under G4 that it " was not an improvement and a copy of my old article " from which it clearly was not. I've made no change to the article since you took it down but a day later you now say that has " improved and now claim that you can't decide to put it back up as an article ". I respect you as an administrator but I don't feel that the work I've done is respected. I ask with much respect if you could please put my article back as an article and reconsider removing it."
JonS 09:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John shaftman ( talk • contribs)
- Thanks Jayron32, Then please put the article back up online as an article and allow them to do so.JonS 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John shaftman (
talk •
contribs)
- It is located at User:John shaftman/Blak Prophetz. I did this several days ago, and also notified you when I did so. -- Jayron 32 16:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayron32, Then please put the article back up online as an article and allow them to do so.JonS 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John shaftman (
talk •
contribs)
Hi Jayron32, I've been correcting and updating this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_shaftman/Blak_Prophetz If its OK with you I'd like to resubmit this after it has been worked over, Thanks. RapwriterWiki ( talk) 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big East Conference ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Sid Gillman.jpg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Ok, so this is what I don't understand.
How is
pH that important? How is proton transfer different and alike with pH? Why is proton transfer very common and exist allover the place, compared with H+
?
Curb Chain (
talk) 03:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Look, what a theory is is a way of looking at something. It's a perspective, an explanation, something that acts as a bridge to understanding how reality happens, especially where reality is way to complex to take it all it at once. You seem to be taking a misunderstanding about what the purpose of these theories are. I must reiterate again what I said previously: A theory is supposed to be useful. Understanding how ions in water work is very useful because most of chemistry happens in water. You're mostly water. So a model of acids and bases based on the self-ionization reaction is very useful in looking at what goes on in water with regard to acids and bases. I'm not really concerned with how electron pairs are moving between nucleophiles and electrophiles if all I want to know is how a particular drug works at
physiological pH. Let's get directly to your question. pH is important because it is part of the language of chemistry. If you want to be able to speak the language of chemistry, you need to know all of it. And that means knowing what pH is about and how it works. It's the language of how we discuss acid/base chemistry (along with concepts like pKa). Frankly, Lewis theory isn't itself all that useful as an acid-base theory, which is why we always use the qualifier Lewis acid to describe things like
borane, and we use words like that because when chemists say something is an "acid", they mean "it donates a proton" or "it's got a low pH". Context will tell you which meaning of "acid" you're working with, and thus you need to learn all three theories because that's part of chemistry. I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point as though you could convince every chemist that they are wrong. --
Jayron
32 03:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So in some cases, H
3O+
must be used because of the presence of water? So are you saying that H does not dissociate into H+
unless ithas itis in the composition of water, thus, it is able to react with other elements and compounds because of the ionization of water? Curb Chain ( talk) 05:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)- Except in the case of high-energy particle accelerators and perhaps in extremely high energy plasmas like in the Sun, H+ doesn't exist. A bare proton is just too charge-dense to exist for any arbitrary length of time before it stuck to some negative charge somewhere. Even if water wasn't present, for example if you were using some other solvent, you wouldn't ever find a bare proton; you would just have the protonated version of that solvent; whatever the analog of
hydronium would be for that solvent. Even H3O+ is a
heuristic representation of acid in water. See
Hydronium#Solvation which discusses some of the complex problems in trying to actually describe the physical structure of hydronium/acid. But no, bare protons do not exist in any chemistry you are ever going to handle in any context. Wikipedia does have an article about
Hydrons, which is a theoretical H+ cation, but it also notes "The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation."--
Jayron
32 05:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So HCl:
- Cl−
: Chlorine is highly reactive. Does it react with hydrogen in the atmosphere to created hydrochloric acid? Curb Chain ( talk) 01:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is very little elemental hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere. Atmosphere#Composition shows how little; probably on the order of parts per million. Chlorine is highly reactive. Chloride is not really, chloride is a very weak base, so weak that it will not deprotonate water to form hydroxide in solution to any appreciable amount, and other than a few cases, it is usually a spectator ion in all reactions (excepting where it precipitates with a few metal ions like silver (I) and lead (II).) Chlorine, also, does not really exist in nature; what chlorine does get into the atmosphere gets there via decomposition of Chlorofluorocarbon, and the atmospheric behavior of chlorine is well studied; work in this field led to the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, see Ozone depletion and the work of Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the atmosphere, chlorine molecules (Cl2) will undergo Homolysis to form chlorine radicals (the same type of homolysis produces chlorine radicals from CFCs), and these chlorine radicals, among other things, catalytically decompose ozone as described in the ozone depletion article I cited above. HCl doesn't form atmospherically in any meaningful way. Most chlorine atoms on earth are in the form of chloride ions, and most of this makes up various salts, especially sodium chloride. -- Jayron 32 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- So then
Isis HCl highly reactive, or highly corrosive? Why apply a pH (Arrhenius) theory in a reaction where H
2O doesn't exist? Curb Chain ( talk) 02:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)- HCl is very reactive because the H-Cl bond is very weak, so it will readily transfer that proton to lots of other molecules very easily (mainly because that new H-X bond, whatever it is, will be stronger than the H-Cl bond). If HCl is a gas, the reactive species is HCl. If HCl is in solution, then there are no HCl molecules in solution because HCl is a
strong acid, which means it extensively transfers that proton to water. So HCl in water is all H3O+ and Cl- ions. If I am dealing with a water solution of HCl, I will discuss its pH because it is water based. If I am thinking about a gas-phase HCl reaction, then I would think of it in different terms. --
Jayron
32 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- See, this is confusing me. I thought Arrhenius theory dealt with pH, but you are using B-L theory with an (aq) solution.
Curb Chain (
talk) 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, why do I need to ignore one tool merely because I have another tool. I'm still allowed to walk after I get my driver's license, am I not? Don't get so hung up on trying to put each theory into a little box, as though you need to put one away before you can use another. You need to understand them all and be able to use any (or all) of them as necessary to explain anything. Your problem is that you keep wanting to try to treat each bit in isolation. Chemistry doesn't work that way. Chemistry, like any science, is a self-consistent system: that is, you should get the same answer regardless of which theory or model you work in. Stop trying to decide, before approaching the problem, which theory you need to use as though you couldn't use all of it if you needed to. That's just silly. It's all useful, so use it all all the time. It's important to understand which context a problem or situation best fits which models or theories, but also to know that there isn't a need to choose one and forget the others. --
Jayron
32 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you are telling me there is no one grand theory for the behaviour of chemical reactions, including the acid-base reaction area, and that these theories are an ATTEMPT at explaining the behaviour of these substances (
compounds and
elements), since they really are constantly switching from one theory to another to explain the behaviour of the ion, compound, (or) element(, or substance). Is this why the area of
Higgs is so important?
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Higgs is really unrelated to chemistry in any meaningful way. Well, sort of, but no moreso than chemistry is related to international relations. But yes, think in terms of theories as "tools" in your toolkit that you use to solve problems. So tools work very well for certain kinds of problems, some tools are highly specialized, some tools are more general use, some problems require the use of multiple tools simultaneously, some problems are straightforward and others require you to use your tools creatively. The beauty of chemistry, the deeper you get into it, is the complementary way in which concepts from different parts of chemistry work to provide you with different perspectives on a problem. You'll find the nice way in which different chemistry concepts work together. For example, the relationship between
Free energy and the
equilibrium constant, which are really two different numbers that approach a concept (spontaneity or extensiveness) in different directions, but nicely compliment each other in how they arrive at that concept in different ways. It's like taking two different paths to arrive at the same destination: you find if you learn to appreciate the scenery along the way, that both paths have value. Chemistry is like that. The same here between the various acid-base theories. The way in which they work together adds to the inherent beauty of a science like chemistry because they show how one can use different approaches to solve a problem, and how they all compliment each other in interesting ways. The real AHA! moment for me in Chemistry has always been discovering this underlying thread of connections that runs through the entire discipline, and how it isn't just an unrelated string of random facts about matter, but rather a highly interdependent series of theories and concepts that really provide a a picture of the world together that no one of them could ever capture in isolation. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- But you see, I'm seeing a lot of problems with these theories of chemistry. If you know about string theory, a documentary on PBS mentions (by the interviewees) that some people consider it convenient to solve the problem, that it is like a philosophy, and that it has little predictability power; it's like of an atom behaves a certain way, we will explain the behaviour in the conditions of the environment it was behaving in, but since the behavior changes so often, we need to make a new theory/"explanation" to explain this new behaviour. Curb Chain ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Higgs is really unrelated to chemistry in any meaningful way. Well, sort of, but no moreso than chemistry is related to international relations. But yes, think in terms of theories as "tools" in your toolkit that you use to solve problems. So tools work very well for certain kinds of problems, some tools are highly specialized, some tools are more general use, some problems require the use of multiple tools simultaneously, some problems are straightforward and others require you to use your tools creatively. The beauty of chemistry, the deeper you get into it, is the complementary way in which concepts from different parts of chemistry work to provide you with different perspectives on a problem. You'll find the nice way in which different chemistry concepts work together. For example, the relationship between
Free energy and the
equilibrium constant, which are really two different numbers that approach a concept (spontaneity or extensiveness) in different directions, but nicely compliment each other in how they arrive at that concept in different ways. It's like taking two different paths to arrive at the same destination: you find if you learn to appreciate the scenery along the way, that both paths have value. Chemistry is like that. The same here between the various acid-base theories. The way in which they work together adds to the inherent beauty of a science like chemistry because they show how one can use different approaches to solve a problem, and how they all compliment each other in interesting ways. The real AHA! moment for me in Chemistry has always been discovering this underlying thread of connections that runs through the entire discipline, and how it isn't just an unrelated string of random facts about matter, but rather a highly interdependent series of theories and concepts that really provide a a picture of the world together that no one of them could ever capture in isolation. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Moreover, they should be called
Arrhenius Explanation,
Brønsted–Lowry Explanation, and
Lewis Explanation, and not
Arrhenius Theory,
Brønsted–Lowry Theory, and
Lewis Theory, if they are not describing the behaviour of chemistry.
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- A theory IS an explanation. That's what the word means, almost to a synonym. A theory is a way of organizing the thoughts, laws, descriptions, and data about a concept in a way that provides meaning to it. It is an explanation. That's what a
Scientific theory is, entirely. Read the first sentence of the wikipedia article. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world," That's a very elegant definition of what a theory is. A well-substantiated explanation. I like that a lot. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- But what about
alzheimer's? Some causes of alzheimer's is due to genes, others are due to diet. Is this a theory, or explanation, of the diagnosis of a patient to alzheimer's?
Curb Chain (
talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, what? --
Jayron
32 21:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- If a patient asks "Why did I get alzheimer's?", do you give them a hypothesis of how the patient got alzheimer's when you know the likely cause of alzheimer's? Curb Chain ( talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, what? --
Jayron
32 21:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- But what about
alzheimer's? Some causes of alzheimer's is due to genes, others are due to diet. Is this a theory, or explanation, of the diagnosis of a patient to alzheimer's?
Curb Chain (
talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- A theory IS an explanation. That's what the word means, almost to a synonym. A theory is a way of organizing the thoughts, laws, descriptions, and data about a concept in a way that provides meaning to it. It is an explanation. That's what a
Scientific theory is, entirely. Read the first sentence of the wikipedia article. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world," That's a very elegant definition of what a theory is. A well-substantiated explanation. I like that a lot. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you are telling me there is no one grand theory for the behaviour of chemical reactions, including the acid-base reaction area, and that these theories are an ATTEMPT at explaining the behaviour of these substances (
compounds and
elements), since they really are constantly switching from one theory to another to explain the behaviour of the ion, compound, (or) element(, or substance). Is this why the area of
Higgs is so important?
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, why do I need to ignore one tool merely because I have another tool. I'm still allowed to walk after I get my driver's license, am I not? Don't get so hung up on trying to put each theory into a little box, as though you need to put one away before you can use another. You need to understand them all and be able to use any (or all) of them as necessary to explain anything. Your problem is that you keep wanting to try to treat each bit in isolation. Chemistry doesn't work that way. Chemistry, like any science, is a self-consistent system: that is, you should get the same answer regardless of which theory or model you work in. Stop trying to decide, before approaching the problem, which theory you need to use as though you couldn't use all of it if you needed to. That's just silly. It's all useful, so use it all all the time. It's important to understand which context a problem or situation best fits which models or theories, but also to know that there isn't a need to choose one and forget the others. --
Jayron
32 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- See, this is confusing me. I thought Arrhenius theory dealt with pH, but you are using B-L theory with an (aq) solution.
Curb Chain (
talk) 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- HCl is very reactive because the H-Cl bond is very weak, so it will readily transfer that proton to lots of other molecules very easily (mainly because that new H-X bond, whatever it is, will be stronger than the H-Cl bond). If HCl is a gas, the reactive species is HCl. If HCl is in solution, then there are no HCl molecules in solution because HCl is a
strong acid, which means it extensively transfers that proton to water. So HCl in water is all H3O+ and Cl- ions. If I am dealing with a water solution of HCl, I will discuss its pH because it is water based. If I am thinking about a gas-phase HCl reaction, then I would think of it in different terms. --
Jayron
32 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Cl−
- So HCl:
- Except in the case of high-energy particle accelerators and perhaps in extremely high energy plasmas like in the Sun, H+ doesn't exist. A bare proton is just too charge-dense to exist for any arbitrary length of time before it stuck to some negative charge somewhere. Even if water wasn't present, for example if you were using some other solvent, you wouldn't ever find a bare proton; you would just have the protonated version of that solvent; whatever the analog of
hydronium would be for that solvent. Even H3O+ is a
heuristic representation of acid in water. See
Hydronium#Solvation which discusses some of the complex problems in trying to actually describe the physical structure of hydronium/acid. But no, bare protons do not exist in any chemistry you are ever going to handle in any context. Wikipedia does have an article about
Hydrons, which is a theoretical H+ cation, but it also notes "The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation."--
Jayron
32 05:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So in some cases, H
why did you remove my qusten about Selena gomez? (not saying you didn't have the right to, i just don't understand the reason.) 70.114.248.114 ( talk) 05:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC) p.s., could you (as an admin) see my ip if i had an account? thanks, 70.114.248.114 ( talk) 05:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BLP. We should not write things about people which casts them in a negative light, where that information cannot be backed up with reliable sources. Saying that everyone hates someone else would easily qualify as an unsupported negative statement. -- Jayron 32 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sports in North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.246.33 ( talk) 07:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but most of the event occurred on April 19, and we need not keep the article on ITN even longer than it will be anyway (i.e. a long time). -- tariqabjotu 01:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
nothing personal on being the swift first opposal. μηδείς ( talk) 02:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| For consistent high quality answers at the Reference Desk. Your answers are always well researched (or are evidence of prior knowledge that you have) and leave the OP with everything they asked for, if not more. Ryan Vesey 03:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC) |
Jayron, since you were such a valued contributor to the James Moore (Continental Army officer) article that I've recently expanded, I was hoping you may be interested in reviewing its current state, and seeing if there's anything you might change or add. As it is now, it's recently undergone (and passed) A-Class Review with Milhist, and I would like to nominate it for FAC. My end goal would be to build a Featured Topic around Moore and his relative, Robert Howe, and the three other NC Continental Army generals. If you're into that sort of thing, the peer review is here. Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 18:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it looks great. I'm probably not the person to ask for a peer review, as you've more than exceeded my knowledge on the subject. Perhaps someone from WP:MILHIST maybe? -- Jayron 32 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I am red-faced. You may have thought I was talking about you. In fact, I had no recollection of your being some small part of that, and it was not my intention to show you up, or anything of that nature - merely trying to provide further illustration for the original poster. I hasten to add that not only do I have a high regard for you as an admin and editor, you are on my short list of go-to guys or what I have called "most trusted admins" for a reasoned approach to issues. I apologize if I caused you any harm here. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't sweat it. I know you meant nothing by it. I own my mistakes, and really, it's almost 4 years ago. Water under the bridge, and a good learning experience overall. I'm not upset by it, and you have nothing to apologize for. -- Jayron 32 02:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, I had the page with Paramahansa Yogananda's Samadhi poem on Wikipedia in my favorites. Haven't used it for a long time but when I wanted to read it today, I saw that you deleted the page on 20 January 2008. Can you tell me why you deleted it? Thanks and kind regards, Raymond RaymondR63 ( talk) 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's been over 5 years, so I had no recollection of that article. I had to do some digging to figure it out, but here's what I found. The reason it was deleted was that the article at Wikipedia didn't contain any more information than merely a reprinting of the poem. Wikipedia is not supposed to merely reprint poems and other works.
Wikisource is supposed to do that. In fact, Wikisource has a copy of the poem
here. So, since we're already hosting it in the correct place, there's no need to host it here as well, indeed even if it wasn't already at Wikisource, it still shouldn't be at Wikipedia, as that is not what the purpose of Wikipedia is. If you wish to create a new article, which is about the poem and its history, development, impact, etc. that would be fine, but Wikipedia should not be used to reprint text that appears elsewhere. --
Jayron
32 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks– RaymondR63 ( talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
ITN for 2012–13 Premier League
|
| On 24 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2012–13 Premier League, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--Thank you for making sure that article quality is important in ITN articles. Best, Spencer T♦ C 08:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it was posted long before there was any substantial update. I've been merely trying to correct that mistake after the fact. I'm also not done yet; I've only gotten through about October. -- Jayron 32 12:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay: first of all, it's not confirmed. Secondly, the 1998 one-off show did not make Leadon, Meisner or Felder a full member of the band again. Thirdly, see my talk page for how Leadon, if he in fact does rejoin the tour, would likely only be a "special guest". Doc talk 21:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
When they officially announce it, and I hope they do, we can go from there. I strongly suspect that it will be a Mick Taylor "special guest" thing, but if they start, say, publishing new photos of the five of them like they did when Felder rejoined, he will have undoubtedly "rejoined" the Eagles. Epic! Cheers :) Doc talk 01:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, when you delete, please always link to the deletion discussion in your deletion summary, even if the discussion isn't the actual reason for deletion. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion was located at
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Paul_Kevin_Curtis. --
Jayron
32 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I know that - the problem is someone who clicks the red link and sees an entirely out-of-process delete, for something they might not know was a redirect. This makes you look like someone who deletes stuff because you just feel like it.
Ego White Tray (
talk) 12:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are no article space red links. If you are concerned about the project space redlinks with this person's name, we can redact those. Given the BLP concerns, that may be a good idea too. -- Jayron 32 14:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I know that - the problem is someone who clicks the red link and sees an entirely out-of-process delete, for something they might not know was a redirect. This makes you look like someone who deletes stuff because you just feel like it.
Ego White Tray (
talk) 12:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 Premier League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Javier Hernandez ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have mentioned your name here. I hope the mention is okay. Not my place to request any action, just making sure you know the context in case any enquiry originates. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. If there's a violation of a topic ban happening currently, it should probably be brought up at
WP:ANI. --
Jayron
32 05:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- He is merely reporting—and repeatedly having reverted—things that originated in November, like this template. You should read his POV-pushing arguments. LittleBen ( talk) 07:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
| ||
| Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- — EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with
Sven Manguard (
submissions) claiming for the high-importance
Portal:Sports and
Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) claiming for a did you know of
sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place
Casliber (
submissions) and second place
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 15:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, let's talk for a second. I don't know what "trolling" are, but let's just assume good faith, talk it out. Now, what was so objectionable about my question that warranted its removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pewthle ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pretending to not know what trolling is makes it clear that you're trolling. Good day. --
Jayron
32 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You've got me at a loss here... I'm just going to go back to the board and re-adding my question, as your argument centers on a mythical beast. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pewthle (
talk •
contribs) 23:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I'm really confused. All I'm asking, if you insist on the question's removal, is that you comment on my talk page. Now, I know what a
Sockpuppet (Internet) is, but why these accusations? By the way, I'm still not quite certain as to the meaning of "troll". Let's discuss it. (Keep forgetting to sign)--
PEWTHLE
talk
contribs 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your dishonesty in not recognizing this shows me that there is nothing to discuss. The fact that you are an experienced Wikipedia user who created a new account recently to mask your prior identities does not engender me with a desire to converse with you. Unless and until you cop to your prior accounts/identities and you stop the charade of pretending like you don't know exactly what trolling is I have nothing further to add to this conversation. It is not going to happen so long as you maintain a stance of dishonesty. --
Jayron
32 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- The M.O. reminds me of Timothyhere ( talk · contribs)'s many socks. Although Pewthle has now "retired", a checkuser "sweep" might be in order, as he typically creates several socks at once. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your dishonesty in not recognizing this shows me that there is nothing to discuss. The fact that you are an experienced Wikipedia user who created a new account recently to mask your prior identities does not engender me with a desire to converse with you. Unless and until you cop to your prior accounts/identities and you stop the charade of pretending like you don't know exactly what trolling is I have nothing further to add to this conversation. It is not going to happen so long as you maintain a stance of dishonesty. --
Jayron
32 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I'm really confused. All I'm asking, if you insist on the question's removal, is that you comment on my talk page. Now, I know what a
Sockpuppet (Internet) is, but why these accusations? By the way, I'm still not quite certain as to the meaning of "troll". Let's discuss it. (Keep forgetting to sign)--
PEWTHLE
talk
contribs 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You've got me at a loss here... I'm just going to go back to the board and re-adding my question, as your argument centers on a mythical beast. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pewthle (
talk •
contribs) 23:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find the right way to create an article on the Serpentine font series. I tried talking to Shakescene about it. You can feel free to check my talk page and/or his. There might be some references. I feel there should an article on Serpentine font style. 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, the best thing to do is to create a user account first. See here for instructions. Once you've created a user account, you get access to a "user space" which is a part of Wikipedia that allows, among other things, you to work on draft articles on your own time and then, AFTER they are in a good shape, move them to the main article space. See Help:Userspace draft for more info on that. -- Jayron 32 04:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you checked my talk page and Shakescene's talk page? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see you've got the start of an article at User:Shakescene/Serpentine. When it's ready, we can move it to the main space. What you need before we do that is references. You need to find published works about this typeface, which discusses it in some detail, and which has a reputation for reliability, and then cites those sources to every fact in the article. The article doesn't have to be perfect, but even a stub article (which is what you have so far) needs at least one or two references. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for info on how to use and format references at Wikipedia. When that is done, we can move this. -- Jayron 32 04:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
On the subject of references, did you look at the ones I supplied on Shakescene's talk page? Would [15] and [16] be more helpful, as well? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- What you need is references that are completely independent of the subject. Since Adobe sells the Serpentine typeface, while the document is useful in showing basic facts about it, it does not establish that Wikipedia should have an article about the Serpentine typeface. The basic criteria for subjects that Wikipedia should have stand-alone articles about is that someone completely independent of the subject has written a significant amount of text about it in reliable sources The first reference is useful in providing facts, is fairly in depth, but cannot be used to show that the font is notable because it is not independent. The second isn't really in depth in any way. -- Jayron 32 12:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I found something that may be a little more helpful. Would [17] do the trick? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 03:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call that in depth. There's about 10 words about Serpentine in that document. -- Jayron 32 03:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've given you what I know about the Serpentine font style. What else is there more I can do? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why your trying to convince me of anything. Either text exists or it doesn't. I'm not the Wikipedia approval committee, and my opinion doesn't mean anything. You wanted to know what you needed to create an article. What you need is a significant amount of reliable source text. See WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 00:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The other day, I watched a rerun of the "Mothers' Day" episode of NCIS. There was this sound effect like a boat horn. In addition there was also a foghorn. I tried asking at the Entertainment Reference Desk. But so far, I had very little luck. You can check my question there. There's a reference to the foghorn sound effect which I described. 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Boldness is fine, but as I reminded you previously, please upload Commons images locally before transcluding them on the main page. And please remember to remove "(pictured)" from the item whose subject is no longer illustrated.
Also note that the "link=" parameter needn't be used to specify the transcluded file (which is linked by default). The "File:" prefix is unneeded (but equally harmless) as well.
Thanks! —
David Levy 07:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right. I did forget that. I usually do upload a local copy. Must've slipped my mind. Thanks for keeping on top of that! -- Jayron 32 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, I was in the middle of posting a reply to an editor in the AN/I discussion and when I clicked to post it, I noticed that someone had just closed the discussion. To say the least, I was shocked. This is a legitimate and important discussion because it affects all editors. I feel this premature close is very inappropriate. I also feel the closing editor's comment at the end of the thread, in which he attempts to speak for the editor I reported about, is very inappropriate. That editor can speak for himself is he chooses, and I feel the close is disrepectful to the participating editors and any other editors who would've been interested in commenting. It was only open for four hours. Now I don't know what to do. Thanks. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 08:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with the closure. This conversation happens about once a month, and the result is always the same: all users are free to manage their talk page how they wish. Having it again doesn't seem to me to be wise. -- Jayron 32 18:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stas Namin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenin Stadium ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience with this. (Me, I can't be bothered to figure out who said what, beyond agreeing that your analogy to seven-year-olds just about covers it.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look, the way I've always dealt with this sort of thing (been a parent for seven years, and a teacher for seven years before that) like this. Inconsequential things should be inconsequential. -- Jayron 32 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there Jayron32, I see a recent topic at the Humanities RefDesk has just been closed but did enjoy reading your academic take on it, didn't wish to imply your response was one of totality just that billions of dollars tend to rig any pure psychology--addictive or not. Happy editing and see you on the reference side! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
| hints are apparently not being taken |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
textbook case μηδείς ( talk) 00:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|
I've replied to your comment there.
...And now I feel like a damn fool. =| Kurtis (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, I just wanted to make you aware of this talk page discussion because I invoked your name. Thank you. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 15:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron,
You posted as response to my post on Ref Desk today, re Validity of ideal gas law - you objected that I did the OP's homework for him. If I recall correctly, you are a teacher of somekind yourself, so I can undertsand your concern. You made a good point, but (and there is a but)....
(I sometimes attract thank you's and I sometimes attract adverse squawks. But it is unusual for you to squawk on me. Is this Be Squawky To Wickwack Week?)
I didn't make an initial response, as the question did read as though it was copied out of an assignment. And it is a somewhat common question. However Dolphin posted with an incorrect answer (he thinks the ideal gas laws are good at near atmostpheric pressures and that's just not the right concept at all). Where an answer is likely to mislead the OP, I will post a correction if other citeria are met (e.g., I know the topic myself).
We don't know if the OP is a high school student or an uni undergrad. Or an Engineer or similar, who wants to do a quick back of the envelope calc on something he's rusty on. Did you notice that for a high school student, my answer will most likely be well beyond his level, perhaps even over his head? How many high school science teachers have even heard of the High Triple Point, let alone the critical point? So, the OP, if a high school student, cannot use my answer directly - but he just may be provoked into looking up the terms I used, or googling them. If he does that, he'll learn quite a bit. If he copies my answer, or just puts it in his own words, a typical high school teacher is going to think "Huh? What? Sounds right, but not what I was expecting, and where did he get it from?"
If he is a uni student doing physics, it should not be over his head. However, instead of giving a standard answer, I came at it with a direction, that while it is correct, is not that used in typical educational texts (how many graphs have you seen of temperature vs internal energy, with const pressure contours, in undergrad texts? In engineering texts maybe). So the risk is there that I answered homework for him, but it should still make him think. While correct, my answer should make him just uncomfortable enough to think about it, or search further to verify it.
We need something like Kainaw's Criterion for medical questions to guide Wikipedians on answering homework. If you look at the range of questions asked and answered, Wikipedians are very inconsistent in handling possible/likely homework questions. In some cases, I recognised OP's questions and wording as straight out of well known undergrad textbook end of chapter questions, and posted that the OP should not be answered, but others went ahead and answered anyway with an answer that will do just fine in getting good marks. Some OP's will say "This is not homework". As far as I am concerned, if it sounds like homework, smells like homework, and the OP shows absolutely no evidence that he had a go first, then we should not trust the claim. But many, if not most, Wikipedians do. By their responses, it seems that many Wikipedians think that homework means only school homework.
There's a whole page of guidance and example on answering medical questions, but nothing on answering possible homework questions. Wikipedians need to develop something to guide us, don't you think? Let's start the ball rolling.
Wickwack 120.145.193.132 ( talk) 15:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- See
WP:DYOH. It's been Wikipedia guidance since 2008. 5 years is hardly a new policy. --
Jayron
32 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I was unaware of that. But with good reason, as there is no link to it from the Ref Desk main page or the Science Desk page. It's an orphan. The article page is directed towards potential OP's. It does not tell Wikipedians how to consistently respond to OP's who may or may not be trying to get homework done for them, as the Kainaw Criterion does for Wikipedians considering answering medical questions. The WP:DYOH is no guidance to answering at all. The debate on the DYOH talk page seems to be obsolete - the main objection to answering is that Wikipedians main objective is writing encyclopedia articles. That's not relevant, many like answering Ref Desk questions, and some eg me only answer Ref Desk questions. The objection to answering homework is that by doing it for them, the OP will not have learnt as much as he would doing his own work. It's time to revisit this. It's all very well having a debate 5 years ago about something - if it's not working (and it certainly isn't), then it needs to be re-examined. Wickwack
124.178.154.86 (
talk) 00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a very often used template at {{
DYOH}} that is used many times on the ref desks. I don't often use it, because I try to usually hand craft every response (I find templated messages from live people somewhat rude). The proper response is "If something is an obvious homework question, tell them we don't answer homework questions, but we will help them get past sticking points if they can tell us what they have already tried to work out" This question was a reading comprehension question. It is answered in literally every single first year chemistry text book, and taught in every first year chemistry class. --
Jayron
32 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that template used from time to time. But you've missed my point. Wikipedians are inconsistent - some detect probable homework but others go ahead and answer it. So I think we need some guidelines to make responses more consistent by explaining how to detect homework - see above. The problem is not what to say, the problem is when to say it. I agree that OP's question is a common/standard one. But one that also occurs sometimes to people long past their school/college/uni days. Having said that, I orginally was not going to answer it, and was quite happy when I saw your response - it is most likely quite appropriate, although perhaps a bit off-putting if teh OP is not a student. But Dolphin then posted what was incorrect, and could mislead the OP. So I refuted that, and gave a response that was calculated to make the OP think. I notice now that Count Iblis has since given, in a slightly round about way, the usual textbook answer, so the good intentions of both you and I have perhaps been defeated. Wickwack 121.215.134.76 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a very often used template at {{
DYOH}} that is used many times on the ref desks. I don't often use it, because I try to usually hand craft every response (I find templated messages from live people somewhat rude). The proper response is "If something is an obvious homework question, tell them we don't answer homework questions, but we will help them get past sticking points if they can tell us what they have already tried to work out" This question was a reading comprehension question. It is answered in literally every single first year chemistry text book, and taught in every first year chemistry class. --
Jayron
32 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I was unaware of that. But with good reason, as there is no link to it from the Ref Desk main page or the Science Desk page. It's an orphan. The article page is directed towards potential OP's. It does not tell Wikipedians how to consistently respond to OP's who may or may not be trying to get homework done for them, as the Kainaw Criterion does for Wikipedians considering answering medical questions. The WP:DYOH is no guidance to answering at all. The debate on the DYOH talk page seems to be obsolete - the main objection to answering is that Wikipedians main objective is writing encyclopedia articles. That's not relevant, many like answering Ref Desk questions, and some eg me only answer Ref Desk questions. The objection to answering homework is that by doing it for them, the OP will not have learnt as much as he would doing his own work. It's time to revisit this. It's all very well having a debate 5 years ago about something - if it's not working (and it certainly isn't), then it needs to be re-examined. Wickwack
124.178.154.86 (
talk) 00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't ssay t his there, but usually an expletive of some kind LOL. Slang terms for the group are "Harperite" and "ReformaTories, which can't be used. The "FOO government" formation is controversial in Canada, it's like " Canada's New Government" as being seen not only as a rebranding of the Government of Canada, but like "CNG" it's also been forced upon bureaucrats, who object to it, and has been put on government web pages and also on huge cheques (as in physically huge) made for show-announcements. I've always suggested the titles of this series of articles should be "FOO policies of the Government of Canada" which is the traditional way to speak of such things, and "FOO policies of the Government of Canada (2006-present)" would be the way to title this. Media do tend to use "the Trudeau government" and "the Mulroney government" and so on, which confuses the issue, but it's only this government/PM that has tried to turn that phrasing into a brand. It's absurd to me that this series of articles was created when his regime was still in its infancy, on the premise, as was stated in the AfDs about them "I found he was really interesting"....as others noted the framework of the articles was POV to start with, and real balance hasn't come from others adding in criticisms and facts; the whole architecture and premises of the articles were POV to start with. "Well, someone else is free to create articles for the other Prime Ministers"....but no other PM has such UNDUE weight in Wikipedia.....I used to find name-drops of him in small town articles where he'd been there to shake hands and hand out cheques...my attempt to have this series of articles deleted or merged during the 2011 election ended in disaster - me being blocked as POV and, backed into a corner, argumentative. To me they constitute advertising, even in repeating that "FOO government" formation. Maybe a better title would be "Anti-environmental policies of the H government", given what's been done in the course of the omnibus bills....Trudeau and Mulroney, even, were more significant for environmental leadership, despite things like the CHMC credit you use; Lucien Bouchard was one of this country's best environment ministers ever and John Fraser and Tom Siddon in fisheries (or was Fraser in Environment after Bouchard left?). The AfD you can source and read; the upshot is that someone on the watch for POV-pushing by this lot was blocked during the election campaign and not allowed back in until after, by admins in other countries, many of them who admitted to right-wing bias/alignment openly; in response after being invited back in I boycotted Wikipedia until this last December or so, when I discovered all the POV ranting and political spin on Idle No More and Theresa Spence and came back in to ask responsible editors to help with those. "Neutralizing" these titles and taskforce-type revisions of these articles are necessary, as also are writeups on earlier periods of Canadian history/government; the opening of the Foreign Policy article, in its original form, made it sound like prior foreign policy had been shamefully weak-kneed and submissive and we're all strong and assertive now, for instance.....I've mused about starting the highly ironic title Democratic reform policies of the Harper government or Senate policy of the Harper government. Or "Parliamentary reform" about the centralizing of power in the PCO/PMO and the muzzling of MPs and so on.... Science policy of the Harper government would be a hoot, too.....there's that "34th Canadian ministry" article or whatever ordinal number he is, but it's not even a Canadian usage, I've never liked that series of titles, it's an imposed British-ism, but it's where regime-specific policies/conduct should go IMO. Thing is environmental policy, and other matters, are not creatures of the Prime Minister of the day, but of bureaucrats and stakeholder groups (until Harper's folks declared them "foreign-backed extremists" and took measures to exclude them from processes such as the Enbridge hearings). "Canadian environmental policy 1968-1984" and "1984-1991" and so on would break it down by "regimes" but timespans not directly linked to the elections/regime changes seem less POV to me and are more realistic (Joe Clark didn't really change anything that Trudeau did; Chretien didn't really change course or revert anything Mulroney had done). On other matters e.g. "Privatization policies of the Canadian government" re CN and Air Canada and such didn't start with Harper and are as much Chretien and Martin's doing as Harper's. Environmental policy in general came from the populace and the scientific/academic community, and federal policy largely reflected that when Canada's legislation and behaviour was research-based rather than ideologically-driven as it is now. I'm glad to see you and the other editor come along with pointed questions; I'll mostly hold my tongue because of my voluble style, which too many find "aggressive" and "against wikiquette".....while pushing POV views/defences....my observation is that political acumen is in short supply among Wikipedians, sadly often among admins, including those who close politically-oriented discussions. These were obviously started as spin-pieces and come right from the period when Harper's p.r. machine (paid for by taxpayers) was doing the "Harper government" rebranding thingamawhatzit. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think you've mistaken me for someone who cares about Canadian politics. This is also NOT an answer to my question. This is an answer to a question you wished I had asked so that it would give you the opportunity to rant. Instead, focus on answering the question I actually asked. Let me restate the question a bit differently. How does one refer to "a collective set of Ministers, officials, and policy makers tied to a specific government or time period in Canada, so as to draw distinctions between different such sets?" Also, don't answer it here. Answer it on the article talk page instead. --
Jayron
32 02:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was simply explaining to you the issues of such names and articles, and the history of previous attempts to rename these articles; invariably Canadian politics matter when a series of articles, and their titles, are launched and framed on POV grounds/views. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, I responded to your answer of my question in the Teahouse post but I just wanted to personally reach out and say thanks for taking the time to review my page. I found your feedback to be very constructive because it was very direct and clear, with specific examples. Many admins just point me to general WP policy pages, with no specifics behind their feedback, which makes it hard to properly address their criticisms. I'll do my best to correct things and look for more reviews so I can improve the content. Thanks and enjoy your weekend. Frank -- FGuerino ( talk) 02:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron. Thanks for contributing to the "Low controversy ITN/R items" discussion. TRM has closed the discussion and the items are now "cited". You mentioned that you were considering doing a second collection of items? Can I encourage you to do that, it'd be great to have your input in this exercise.
Cheers! --
LukeSurl
t
c 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I specifically asked at ANI because I wanted someone else to step in, not wanting to add any more myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I've been re-reading my small collection of McLuhan for the past week, trying to find the source of one of my favourite quotes (I eventually found it online, not in any of the books I own, and added it to wikiquote and to the discussion at meta which was my primary goal all along. It's been part of my User:Quiddity/How it Works for years!)
So far I've appreciated his short form / collaborative / primer style-pieces more than his academic length works. But all I have are: The Medium is the Massage, War and peace in the global village, Counterblast, and The Gutenberg Galaxy. (The first 3 go nicely with Bucky Fuller's I Seem To Be a Verb, and Buckminster Fuller to Children of Earth. Solid all-age epiphanies! I buy duplicates for gifts whenever I can.) What would you recommend I look for next?
(replying here, so as not to overweigh or tangent the refdesk thread). – Quiddity ( talk) 01:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I last read anything by McLuhan in 1999 for a grad school class, I'm only familiar with his works in a broad sense. -- Jayron 32 01:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
List of auxiliary Interstate Highways may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Asking for reasons and quotes as to why political leaders ignore the feelings of their electorate with regards to the EU is a legitimate question and not a debate. Just because it's a contentious issue with differing viewpoints doesn't mean it has to descend into chaos. You might be an unquestioning Europhile but I'm not and neither are a lot of other people -- Andrew 18:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a what? --
Jayron
32 18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why else wouldn't you want legitimate questions about the European Union posted on the ref desk. What I asked for where facts, quotes ascribed to national leaders as to why they continue to promote the EU against the wishes of the people who elected them. That isn't a request for debate, it's asking for quotations. If it descended into a debate, that isn't my problem. -- Andrew 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Projecting your desire to find political enemies onto me is not going to solve your problem. I am not interested in either side of this debate. -- Jayron 32 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well your on the side that wants to censor the reference desk for no real reason. Asking for information as to why leaders support membership of the EU isn't politically biased at all, but when your own electorate show that they're discontented, it doesn't make much sense to ignore them. Personally my only problem is Wikipedia at the moment, censoring legitimate questions -- Andrew 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that only they can really say why they support whatever it is they support; we can't know for sure, and it's not the place of the Refdesk, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, to speculate on their motives. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm on the side that doesn't want to turn the reference desk into a place to use circumlocution to mask a political debate as a question. The internet is filled with places where that behavior is expected and encouraged. The Wikipedia Reference desks is not one of them. Being opposed to using the reference desk as a political forum doesn't mean I oppose your particular political stance (or even care one wit about the debate one way or the other). The world is not divided into people who are for or against an issue. Some of us just aren't interested in seeing the reference desk turned into a soapbox for any political issue, irrespective of the politics of the OP. -- Jayron 32 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't understand your point about how a request for quotations of national leaders risks inciting debate, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree -- Andrew 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nowhere did you ask simply for quotations. You're being disingenuous when you now paint your question in such terms. In fact, the word "quotations" does not appear in your question at all. It was prefaced by an extensive outlining of your own position and your own dissatisfaction with the status quo. Clearly you didn't come there to elicit referenced information, but to convey your feelings and opinions to others in an attempt to convert them to your thinking. That is soapboxing, and it is an abuse of the reference desk. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) It is worth noting, in the final analysis, that I was not the only person to think that what you were doing was political soapboxing in the form of a question. I was not even the first person. Nor the second. The fact that you place a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it not an attempt to make a political statement. Your statement above "when your own electorate show that they're discontented, it doesn't make much sense to ignore them" makes it clear that your building evidence to defend one side of a political argument, not asking a neutral question. If you can't be intellectually honest with yourself that you care about one side of this issue, when several of your statements have expressed exactly that (including calling someone, apropros of nothing, and whom you've never met or interacted with before in your life, an "unquestioning Europhile" speaks volumes as to the intent of your question. -- Jayron 32 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, pls see my reply. Attleboro ( talk) 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, would you please review, and, assuming you agree there's consensus, post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Liberty_Reserve? I was the major cause of the delay and pull, and I want the article, I believe fixed, reposted, rather than sitting in limbo because I for a time strongly objected. If you can't, can you ask another admin to judge? Thanks. 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ask somebody else please. I attempted to deal with that before, and was rebuffed. I'd rather not have that happen to me twice. -- Jayron 32 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, in the Australian vernacular (above) and in nice Wikipedia language, on the way you wrote up the WickWack issue at AN. You couldn't have been fairer and clearer. And just the right amount of detail. Now, as long as the thread stays on the issue of the aliases, and doesn't drift into other territory as these things so often do... HiLo48 ( talk) 08:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
| ||||
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi There Thanks for the advice...couple of questions: 1) The above title page is a disambiguated title, I have entered a hatnote to The Rumour page accordingly, is it possible to have both The Rumour and The Rumour (New Zealand band) come up in a google search? 2) How do I put in a "summary box" with photograph at the top right of the article? Thanks Jacques Koolen ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Jacques Koolen Jacques Koolen ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Google does. It is fundamentally of no concern to Wikipedia how Google treats article titles. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Search engine optimization, but be aware that Wikipedia has stringent policies against promotional editing, or working specifically and deliberately to use Wikipedia to promote an entity you have a direct relationship with. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you do have a reason to promote this band using Wikipedia. Regarding the summary box, those are called "infoboxes" and there is a guideline at Help:Infobox on how to use them. {{ Infobox musical artist}} is probably the specific one you want. I hope that helps some. -- Jayron 32 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I read the word endos right here: http://wiki-sentai.wikia.com/wiki/Dora_Endos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustar84 ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good for you. Now, why are we carrying this conversation on here instead of the reference desk? Don't answer that, just keep the conversation in one place, s'il vous plait. -- Jayron 32 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Manor > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fitzhugh > > Same topic 69.65.77.159 ( talk) 16:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Jayron 32 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| you are awesome! thank you so much! Paulhus15 ( talk) 23:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
Oh. I just noticed that it wasn't actually an over zealous archive bot but a user that blanked Talk:Richard Nixon. I'll contact that user to ask about it.
But in any case, archiving unfinished discussions doesn't make any sense unless they're causing some technical problem. Maybe if there's 100 sections, then the oldest should start being moved into archives. Otherwise it's just preventing people from seeing questions. Often the best questions are the ones that have to wait years before a sufficiently informed (or lucky) passer-by knows how to answer. Gronky ( talk) 03:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, 90 days is probably enough: There's a difference between discussions that have not finished, and discussions that will never finish, or that have already finished. Some article talk pages would become bloated, and too large for many browsers to load, if they were never archived. -- Jayron 32 03:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron: A user has started demanding an article layout be changed according to his desire against the vote of everyone else who has reverted the changes. It is really odd. I am a new and have no idea how to handle the situation. And is this type of thing a regular occurrence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath
I am also updating the page of Patrick M. Byrne which has extremely confusing Talk page requirements. Bhalluka ( talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The way to solve all problems is to talk them out, and give it time. Work on coming to a consensus solution everyone can agree with. Don't expect that agreement to come in 5 minutes. If you reach an impasse, try WP:DRN. -- Jayron 32 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
...for this! Spencer T♦ C 05:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
|
|
| Hello, Jayron32. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks for joining the project! Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
| ||
| Volume 6, Issue 1 • Winter 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- — EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Play calling system, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flanker, Bill Walsh and Ray Perkins ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering, since you are highly knowledgeable with chemistry, whether you could comment at Talk:Synthesis of precious metals#Why do we consider radioisotope synthesis?.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mmm. Sorry. I'd love to help out, but this isn't my area of expertise. I'm sure I may have known this stuff 5 years ago, but I haven't done this sort of stuff since college. --
Jayron
32 01:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't so much about the content itself as it is about the way the content is presented here.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! As a past participant in the U.S. portion of the USRD Cup, you may be interested to know that we are doing it again this year! Signups are at the above page and the contest will begin February 1. -- Rs chen 7754 10:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your
answers.
If the density have nothing to do with speed of sound, then why is it 8 times faster in solid and 4 times faster in liquid than in the air?--
YanikB (
talk) 12:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Read all of the words that I wrote again. Come back when you spot the difference between my answer and your question. -- Jayron 32 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jaryon32,
Recently you replied to a question I posed at the science ref desk, in which you provided a link to Google scholar searching for "exercise and sleep" with the quote of "check this out and see what you think". I felt that it was a bit demeaning, and like I had asked an incorrect question. I suppose you could have meant it as a "look it up and add to Wikipedia" sort of statement, but I don't know for sure. Can you tell me what you meant by your response?
Thanks, Sazea ( talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was there was information there which could answer your question about exercise and sleep. -- Jayron 32 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Why don't the the sunrise and sunset times go the other way at the solstice?
"...and the orbit is an eclipse."
You might want to change that to "ellipse". (smile) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, thanks ever so much for fixing that mess-up on the Wright brothers talk page. I still don't completely understand what happened, but I suspected it had something to with the Edit Request template. Thanks again. DonFB ( talk) 05:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- See my note on Wikipedia:Help desk. It had nothing to do with the template. Someone above you had used a backslash instead of a frontslash to close a ref tag; that messed everything else up after it. -- Jayron 32 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your patient, informative answer at the Teahouse about dealing with dead links. It told the guest just what they needed to know and gave them the right context and perspective for thinking about the problem in the future. We appreciate it!
Also, in case you were wondering, we're trying a new experiment centered around 'acknowledgements' in the Teahouse. If you see someone doing something awesome, find the Badge that fits best and share it with them. More details are linked on the Badge itself. Cheers!
|
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Ocaasi
t |
c 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Chi Omega vandalism
I saw your reply at the help desk about the Chi Omega section blanking. Thanks for your quick action. I wasn't sure if I should reply there or here, but I just wanted to ask if there's a way you can monitor the article, so that after the protection expires you can be aware if the section blanking happens again. The last three times was by the same IP, but there were several before that, including one from an IP in the city of the sorority's national headquarters. I appreciate your help on this. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 04:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Glad to help! --
Jayron
32 04:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! From reading other comments on your talk page, you're apparently a really friendly, helpful administrator. It's nice to know that people like you are here to help. Especially when others have no idea how to solve a problem. Have a nice week. :) --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify... is there indeed a way for you to monitor a particular article? And if so, can you do it for Chi Omega? Sorry, just wanted to make sure because it would be a relief to know that an admin is watching out for future violations. Thanks. --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist. If you
get an account you can have a watchlist too. It's free and east to do. --
Jayron
32 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming. And the info. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist. If you
get an account you can have a watchlist too. It's free and east to do. --
Jayron
32 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify... is there indeed a way for you to monitor a particular article? And if so, can you do it for Chi Omega? Sorry, just wanted to make sure because it would be a relief to know that an admin is watching out for future violations. Thanks. --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! From reading other comments on your talk page, you're apparently a really friendly, helpful administrator. It's nice to know that people like you are here to help. Especially when others have no idea how to solve a problem. Have a nice week. :) --
76.189.111.199 (
talk) 04:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1960 Buffalo Bills season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jay~
I liked your comment because I find it remarkable to find out that there are popular concepts out there applicable to situations about which I never though a popular concept would exist -- hope that makes sense -- but anyway, I didn't understand the point. Even after reading the gratis vs. libre article, I couldn't seem to understand the difference because the article makes too many references to software, freedom of speech and beer -- 3 things I don't really know too much about on the deep levels as used by the article. Would you be able to summarize the difference so that I'd be able to take it into my own hands to apply this concept to something like buying gas, babysitting or dental work, because, as it stands, I'm very fuzzy about the distinction. Thanks! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 14:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is caused by the fact that English uses the word "free" to mean two non-identical concepts:
- Free means "doesn't cost anything", in the sense that to get it, I don't have to lay out any money to get it. Free beer is a wonderful thing because a) it's beer and b) I didn't have to pay anything for it.
- Free also means "I'm allowed to do it", that is there are no rules against. That's what free speech is about. Speaking never costs money (that is, I don't have to pay anyone cash to make my vocal cords vibrate). What free speech means is that you're allowed to talk all you want, about anything. There's no rule against it.
- Here's a way to look at it as well. When I was 19, I went to a lot of frat parties. Once inside, the beer was free: that is, it didn't cost me anything. However, because I was below the legal drinking age, I wasn't "free" to drink the beer. Had a police officer come in and found me with a beer in my hand, I'd have found out that fact pretty quickly. So the beer was both free (didn't cost anything) and not free (against the rules).
- The deal with the software community is this: when someone writes a program under the guise of being "free", they mean that they will allow other people to see the source code: they aren't protecting the code by obfuscating it, and aren't demanding that no one ever use it under the guise of copyright protection. However, people who write that software expect you to pay to use it, if you are an end user. Thus it is "free" like free speech (no rules against seeing the code or using it to write your own software), but it is not "free" like free beer, in the sense that if you are running the program on your computer, you should have payed cash to someone for it. --
Jayron
32 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanx! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you know when Johanna Zorn gets deleted, or does it have to be requested? The template says, "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 13:58 on 30 January", which was about 12 hours ago. Thanks. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 01:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
People are making noises over in this part of the state about a meetup ... is Greensboro too far for you? (Some might come from Charlotte). - Dank ( push to talk) 20:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, depends on the date. Greenboro is not undoable, but it couldn't be like this weekend. If you give me enough lead time, and if I don't have anything else going, I'll try to make a go of it. Talk to
User:Jennavecia too. She's gone a bit inactive since her life has gotten busy outside of WP (and some stuff at WP has soured her a bit, sadly); but she's always been a catalyst for events like this and getting her on board usually helps. --
Jayron
32 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure thing. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You might want to weigh in with an opinion here: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Medical advice question removed at Science Desk -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
|
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Best. Answer. Ever. Guy Macon ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Well, thank you. I'm glad my input was able to break that deadlock in the discussion you were having. -- Jayron 32 00:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years.
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (
Grapple X (
submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years.
12george1 (
submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a
detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
-
12george1 (
submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article
Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
-
Buggie111 (
submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with
Marquis Flowers.
-
Spencer (
submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with
2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
-
Status (
submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with
list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
-
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with
File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
-
Ed! (
submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with
Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
-
Hawkeye7 (
submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on
Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
-
HueSatLum (
submissions) claimed bonus points for
René Vautier and
Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of
The C of E (
submissions), who may well have already written the
oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to
Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
|
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| For your fine work at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
can you collapse that section, rather than hiding it? I don't know how to do so. μηδείς ( talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Especially as unsought. Yes, I was annoyed on reading it, but no longer. Kevin McE ( talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a sensitive situation at the Teahouse and turning it into a thoughtful learning opportunity about verifiability. You helped a new editor with a close connection to the subject understand how Wikipedia functions in a deep way. Keep being awesome!
|
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Ocaasi
t |
c 15:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Understood, I will try to find a real picture of a hikikomori. Thank. Kotjap ( talk) 02:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
| This is still not the correct venue to solve this problem. Use the article talk page or WP:DR. I am not your mommy, and I'm not here to pick sides. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello Jayron32. Mr. Mustard made four reverts within 24 hours. But instead of blocking him you locked the article in Mr. Mustards version. I think that is encouraging that kind of behaviour. He allready linked FDR to Hitler [1] and it can´t be long until he carries out an edit-war on that topic. (Not to mention a couple of other articles that have to be blocked in his version for years). Mr. Mustard blanked out about 20 sentences based on sourced text (mostly from User:Christian L. Glossner). Additionally he added several sentences of hoax information that have been opposed allready in November by User:Qyerro an me. In November he allready set back the article on an earlier version by reverting every single edit of every user made within the last two years [2]. Now Mr. Mustard achieved a block of Social Market Economy in his version. I know that it was wrong to revert someone who doesn´t give a shit about any argument. But I know that user from german wikipedia, he does not whant to expand articles, he is just on a mission for cheap POV-pushing. Now that he got the article blocked in his version he is fully satisfied. There is absolutely no way of building consensus with this user (others than giving in). He carries out every dispute about his pov by edit-warrying until users or the articles are blocked. In German wikipedia Mr. Mustard got blocked infinitely for extensive edit-warrying and socket puppetry [3]. That underlines that there is no way one can work with him. What can I do? I would resolve that dispute with every single user but as long as Mr. Mustard blockes everything no consensus is possible. Is there any way a third party can decide that dispute? (Mr. Mustard himself does not care for any other users opinion). -- Pass3456 ( talk) 11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Hello, is there significant support? -- Pass3456 ( talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, there is absolutely no consensus for this ridiculous proposal. This proposal is extrem POV and you know this. You asked some users on their talk page to put their O.K. to your proposal
[5] and they did. My proposal is verified by much better sources than yours and I verified the opposite of your proposal. So your proposal for lead section can't be NPOV. Please stop this behavior because it isn't constructive. --
Mr. Mustard (
talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I invited every single user that contributed to Social market economy within the last six month to state his opinion. Some proposed minor changes to the proposal which I conducted. That is how consensus making works. -- Pass3456 ( talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I told the both of you that I am not here to pick sides. What you need to do is open this up to more users. Let me suggest you try some of the options listed at
WP:DR. --
Jayron
32 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seven users have allready stated their opinion. Request for third opinion would not work since a third opinion was allready stated. Might I pledge you to propose a specific option from
WP:DR? --
Pass3456 (
talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that bringing in fresh eyes, from people who have not contributed to the article, may help. Try asking for input from contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, or start a "request for comment" as described at WP:RFC. Or both. The key here is finding people who are both knowledgable enough, but uninvolved in the dispute to this point. -- Jayron 32 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seven users have allready stated their opinion. Request for third opinion would not work since a third opinion was allready stated. Might I pledge you to propose a specific option from
WP:DR? --
Pass3456 (
talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI -- Mr. Mustard ( talk) 13:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey there. Last week you contributed to the discussion at the now archived " Manometery equation" science reference desk question. I thought that you might be interested in knowing where the mystery 800 came from. It turns out that the question had been misstated, and the relative density of the fluid was 0.8, not 13.6. -- ToE
You are too kind, but thank you. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- That photo of you doesn't do you justice, if my long-held mental picture of you is anything to go by. But maybe a 50 pound lighter version would be closer to my truth. I'd give a lot to lose 50 pounds: I have a history of temporarily misplacing weight, but never really losing it. Will 2013 be my year? We shall see. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you have deleted the final paragraph that I contributed to the article entitled Christian Humanism? Christum ( talk) 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
- We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.
- We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.
- Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!
- And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:
|
|
Teahouse Host Badge |
| Awarded to hosts at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like
Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. |
- You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jayron, I have a question about MLB stadium refs. I was reading through Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Football League stadiums from nearly six years ago and I saw you comment about have a book with the complete history of all 30 MLB stadiums. I was wondering if that book is online or if there's a website about it. If you could provide a link or some alternative book or website, that would be great. Thanks, -- Astros4477 ( Talk) 02:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already asked this question on Science Reference Desk, and the discussion is very long. I know, no one would like to add anything further in that discussion. I have posted my last response there, but I don't think anyone would reply. So, I asked this on your talk page.
"Suppose, an electron gets attracted to the nucleus, it falls towards the nucleus, coming to a lower orbit and then to other lower orbits between the electrons's initial orbit and the nucleus. We know, for an electron to come to a lower orbit, it would have to emit photon. The attraction of nucleus for an electron is not so strong that it will make an electron to emit photon. Therefore, the electron doesn't come to a lower orbit. This is why electrons don't fall in the nucleus". Am I right or wrong?
Want to be Einstein (
talk) 06:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're wrong because the entire picture you're drawing here depends on an electron moving around a nucleus in an orbit. It doesn't do that. If you go back and read the comments I left directly to you (ignoring the silly tangent I had with StuRat, sorry about that), you'll see that the problem you are having is that you're still thinking about electrons as a little ball whizzing little circular paths around a nucleus like a planet does a sun. Electrons simply don't do that at all. --
Jayron
32 07:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- (
talk page stalker) Listen to your teachers and seniors on questions like, "When we twist our fingers, it produces sound. Why is it so ? Is there any suitable word instead of "twist" ?"
[6] None of them will answer that question for you, forcing you to go to the Science Reference Desk here on Wikipedia? Hmm...
Doc
talk 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are right Doc, but I know the answer to your question. Another term for "twist" is " Cracking knuckles" and it is due to Cavitation. Want to be Einstein ( talk) 07:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you learned that from Wikipedia rather than your paid educators, I weep for the future. Doc talk 07:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- (
talk page stalker) Listen to your teachers and seniors on questions like, "When we twist our fingers, it produces sound. Why is it so ? Is there any suitable word instead of "twist" ?"
[6] None of them will answer that question for you, forcing you to go to the Science Reference Desk here on Wikipedia? Hmm...
Doc
talk 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Who first developed the idea of atomic orbital? Bohr or Broglie. Sunny Singh 09:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba ( talk • contribs)
- Neither. It was Hantaro Nagaoka, though he still thought of orbitals as "real" orbits; like planets around the sun. Rutherford and later Bohr improved on this model, but the modern model of atomic orbitals developed mostly because of the work of Erwin Schrödinger. Schrödinger was the person who first developed the mathematical underpinning of the modern atomic orbital model; see Schrödinger equation. De Broglie also contributed, because of his concept of the matter wave, which provided the notion that a massive particle could also be modeled as a wave; which is what Schrödinger's wave functions do-- Jayron 32 18:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Any idea? [7] --[[User:FelMol|FelMol( talk) 21:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks, and no problem, in regard to [8]. I almost get annoyed by people who think the fact that I have disagreed with them in the past, even strongly, makes us enemies. Having had my sister die on me at 20 and the love of my life murdered, I do find it hard to take disagreement at Wikipedia seriously, and enjoy it immensely when people do take the time to point out agreement. So, again, thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 04:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. All people have a dignity, and I hope to treat them that way. I will call bullshit when I see it, but I am also equally willing to give props where due. It's only what is right. --
Jayron
32 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, "give props"! A great phrase I learned in my 30's. My favorite philosopher (not that of many others) and my second favorite author,
Ayn Rand, said the greatest social virtue was to give credit where credit was due. I agree it is a sin not to.
μηδείς (
talk) 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Etymonline dates "props" to 1999; but I'm sure I was using it in high school, which was many years before that. Definitely widely used by the mid-1990s. Plus,
Respect had the word "propers" with the exact same sense, and that song is 30 years older than that. It's a short step from "propers" to "props"; so it's probably a lot older than my awareness of it. Sorry. Geeked out for a minute there. --
Jayron
32 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I first heard "props" in 1988 from the college roommate of my brother-in-law, and all the time from people in NYC from '91 on. Dictionaries tend to use the first notable written example, so that means no white person is known to have written the word for pay until '99. I am sure it was used on Martin well before '99. I lived down the hall from Shenéné, she used to braid my hair. μηδείς ( talk) 05:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Etymonline dates "props" to 1999; but I'm sure I was using it in high school, which was many years before that. Definitely widely used by the mid-1990s. Plus,
Respect had the word "propers" with the exact same sense, and that song is 30 years older than that. It's a short step from "propers" to "props"; so it's probably a lot older than my awareness of it. Sorry. Geeked out for a minute there. --
Jayron
32 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, "give props"! A great phrase I learned in my 30's. My favorite philosopher (not that of many others) and my second favorite author,
Ayn Rand, said the greatest social virtue was to give credit where credit was due. I agree it is a sin not to.
μηδείς (
talk) 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
...A couple years ago, you became the first person to comment on the talk page associated with my user ID MacRutchik. Your comment was entitled "Howdy Stranger." I didn't look back there for two plus years. It was kind of warning about Wikipedia rules, but it became and remains the only topic in my talk page. In case friends look me up and get curious about what people talk to me about in Wikipedia-world, it's kind of unpleasant. I answered your comment immediately, asking explicitly for help keeping things neat and clean, but you never responded. So it still sticks out there kind of unpleasantly for other strangers who might wander there. I'd appreciate your help clearing this up. MacRutchik ( talk) 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and blank it. It's your user talk page. I honestly have no recollection of the message, I obviously left it, but it's over two years ago, and I haven't the foggiest idea what specifically prompted it me to leave it. You've read it, it's well past its usefulness after two years. You can manage your user talk page however you want. Heck, I archive my messages every month or two. So go ahead and do whatever you want with the message, you don't need my permission! -- Jayron 32 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. MacRutchik ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Damn, I was thinking before dinner "I better get an effing barnstar for this!" and here I get one without even demanding it be given me! On a lighter note, how do you like those ITN page nominators who can dish but who can't follow up? Lord knows I can be a jerk, but I do my own work. μηδείς ( talk) 05:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
| ||||
Sorry about the indentation error. I was about to correct it, but you beat me by seconds. :) — David Levy 07:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is unsigned. μηδείς ( talk) 21:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing about how to implement Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. A proposal is being worked on with general community support, where TAFI is put it on the left hand side, below the DYK content. In order to balance the Main Page, part of this proposal involves increasing the ITN content by one item per day. Since you are an editor involved in the process, I would ask if you could comment on the proposal. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've already commented when you announced this earlier. -- Jayron 32 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please just vote on the merits, Jayron. You are an admin, you know. KotJap's nonsense may have reminded me of the issue, but you know it is right on the merits, and the additional nonsense at the RfC is not helpful. You'll notice he is not attacked there by me, a non-admin, while I am by you. μηδείς ( talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, Medeis, being annoying is not, in itself, reason to treat someone's question as invalid. And I've not attacked you, I've reminded you that there is no compulsion for you to answer any question in no different way than you reminded the OP that there are search engines, which you yourself said that you believe he already knew about which then brings to mind that your answer was not to help them, but to chastise them. I only returned to you what you gave to them. -- Jayron 32 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You have mixed metaphors and been decisive recently in cases around banned user and serial sockmaster RealEarthquake. You might be interested in wielding admin powers over what I have posted here for want of a more obvious location. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like The Rambling Man has already taken care of it. Thanks for the heads up, and if you need any more help in this regard, lemme know. -- Jayron 32 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free file File:Munson 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Munson 2.jpg. The file is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Munson 2.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Mentioned here. LittleBen ( talk) 09:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you saw some of the older ones... but messages from earlier this morning show he's changed it back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Message added 05:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the
Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at
the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the
Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the
TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the
Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the
Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current
Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
Message added 12:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed this [9] as posted by the same editor that's asking about circumcision. I leave it to your judgment: Troll or No Troll? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The other questions from that IP seem to be reasonable. Let's just call that a momentary lapse of good judgement, and see where it goes from there. -- Jayron 32 14:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Wiz Khalifa vandalism (again)
Hi Jayron, you protected Wiz Khalifa last week and said to let you know if it happens after the protection expires. This article has a long history of being regularly vandalized (typically with childish, immature changes), so I was wondering if a much stronger measure can be taken to prevent the disruptive editing on a long-term basis? Thanks! -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I gave it a full year this time. If there's any more problems, let me know! --
Jayron
32 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're the best. Thank you. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
From 2012, I asked you a list of questions about your stance on the Southern Baptist. Well, I went away for a while and returned. The more I dug into Christianity out of personal curiosity and interest, the more I figured that it was a bit theologically inconsistent. I couldn't tell if you were closer to Arminianism to Calvinism by the wording of your responses. A Calvinist would probably say that all who enters the church hears the word of God, which seems to be what you suggest. At the same time, you seem to believe that people voluntarily become Christians rather than become elected by God and predestined to follow God. The notion of free will seems to be indicative of Arminianism.
Another thing that I would like to ask is that, since the United States is densely populated with churches (check Google if you don't believe me), it is quite easy to find a Christian church in any given neighborhood/community. At this point, one would think that Christians would not bother with evangelism and missionary work or advertise their church or parachurch organizations, since there seems to be no point in trying to "evangelize the evanglized". Nope. It's quite amusing that I would find a message saying "If you would like to make a first-time commitment to God today..." on a study guide pdf file on a local church website that I assume that it's intended that it's written to mainly Christian congregants. Apparently, the United Methodist Church (that's the church who wrote it) thinks its audience is non-Christian who has never made a commitment to God before, which I think would be quite rare in the US. In any case, I wonder if another Christian assumes that you were a non-Christian and tries to invite you to his/her church, thinking that you would become a member, even though you are already firmly attached to your own church. Pretty awkward, eh? 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most individual Christians don't get into naming their theology in broad (and somewhat antiquated) terms like "Arminianist" and "Calvinist". Also, there is a wide variation in terms of theology, worship style, organization, etc. from one Christian denomination to another, so the fact that there are several churches close together doesn't mean there's a whole lot in common between them. Also, regular church attendance in the U.S. isn't widespread, and while most Americans profess to be Christians in their broad beliefs, the number that actually regularly attend a church is considerably lower than that, and those that take an active role in the activities of their church beyond showing up for an hour on Sundays is even lower.
This poll by Gallup indicates significantly less than 50 % of Americans describe themselves as regular attenders of religious services (of all types, not just Christian, so the % of Americans attending a Christian church are even lower than that). Even among Americans that self-identify as "conservative", only 55% regularly attend religious services. Even more so, going to church doesn't make one a Christian. A good analogy I have heard is "Being in church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car". Christian churches don't expect 100% of the people who show up every Sunday to be Christians, and if they are doing their jobs correctly, then they won't be. There should be non-Christians at every church service, the more there are the better, that's what many Christian churches are trying to do; the goal is to get as many non-Christians into the church where they can hear the message as possible. Back to your first questions about theological positions within various denominations: Most of the Wikipedia articles on various denominations have sections on their theology. Baptists, in general, don't get too dogmatic over the "Calvinist vs. Arminian" thing.
Baptist#Baptist_beliefs_and_principles, just to pick one, has some information on core Baptist principles and theology: Generally, all Baptists hold to
believer's baptism over infant baptism (that's where the name comes from), they vehemently believe in the autonomy of the local congregation, and hold that religious conversion can never be coerced, and must occur via the free choice of the individual. Baptists have a long tradition of supporting the separation of Church and State, for example (see
Baptists in the history of separation of church and state) which fits with their strong belief in individual freedom of conscience, and most Baptist churches would support the
Five Solae as core beliefs, at least in principle. Other than those principles, because of the core principle of congregational autonomy, individual Baptist congregations show a VERY wide variation in theology, practice, and worship style. For denominations with a more centralized organization (such as the
United Methodist Church), you're likely to get more uniform and well-expressed theology and practices. --
Jayron
32 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, given that Christianity is a belief-oriented religion rather than a tribal religion, I suppose you do have a point. In a belief-oriented religion, people become adherents by sharing the same beliefs. In a tribal religion, people become adherents by being born in a particular culture and learning the way of life, which includes religion, ethics, cosmology, etc. So, practicing the tribal religion is synonymous as living the cultural way of life. As long as that person accepts the culture, he/she is still considered _____________. Such is the case with indigenous Indian religions (Hinduism), Native American religions, Chinese folk religion, and Judaism. The only way for a person to become detached from the religion in those religions is to dissociate oneself from the culture/family to which one belongs and not perpetuate any practices onto the next generation. Christianity and Islam are different in that they rely heavily on agreement on the beliefs. If a person does not believe the same things they do or believe in God, then one is not technically a Christian or Muslim. They may still be affiliated with the culture, though, but that just means from a tribal religionist's perspective to be a Christian or Muslim. In addition, just because a person does not attend church does not necessarily mean that the person has rejected the faith. I have a classmate who is of the Coptic Orthodox church, and recently she stops going to church. But she considers herself a Coptic Orthodox, presumably because she expresses loyalty to that particular church. (If one is a busy undergraduate student who has to study 7 days a week, then one may not have the time and energy at church.) To me, I do not consider church attendance very important. Private worship and the will to teach the children your way of life, to me, are more important indicators of religiosity. If Christianity is seen and treated as more of a tribal religion, then so-called "cultural Christians" would be considered Christians. However, since Christianity is really a belief-oriented religion, cultural Christians are not considered Christians; they are merely "secular individuals" who are not committed to God, Christ, or the church. In my opinion, the Western definition of "secularism" is meaningless. It is supposed to mean "no religion", but are these secular people really nonreligious? I am quite ambivalent about it, because Western secularists do seem to have a very Christian frame of mind - something you don't find in Eastern cultures. 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 00:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron. I just wanted to make you aware of this unresolved issue at the help desk initiated by Guy Macon. I thought perhaps you might be interested in giving your input. I mentioned to Guy that it would be good to hear from some editors with a lot of experience. Have a wonderful weekend. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jayron,
Could you please review this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. If not, that's okay, but please let me know what your decision on this is. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed a DYK nomination for years. I'm not really up on current standards; I would totally help you out if I were. All of the nominations do get reviewed in the order they were submitted, as far as I know, so someone will be along soon. It looks like others have already left some good tips regarding referencing and NPOV. Listen to them, and try to make the fixes they have recommended. --
Jayron
32 01:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, Jayron. Anyway, I was able to get Medeis to review this DYK? nomination of mine, but I have a question--could you please (since you're an admin here on Wikipedia) put the entire editing history of
Race and ethnic history of New York City into
Racial and ethnic history of New York City (it's the same article, but I gave it a new name and turned the other article into a redirect page). Thank you very much, and have a good day.
Futurist110 (
talk) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, as far as I am concerned, this is ready to go, especially in response to my own concerns and the previous reviewers' stated concerns. I would have marked it confirmed but am leaving it to you if you want further review--in which case talk me. If you do not have any real scary significant objections I suggest you do mark it confirmed and have it queued. And please see about the history move mentioned above whatever the case.
μηδείς (
talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, I haven't done any work at DYK for years. It'd be better to get someone with more recent experience to handle the technical aspects of this. --
Jayron
32 03:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Allright, thank you, Jayron. Futurist110 ( talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, I haven't done any work at DYK for years. It'd be better to get someone with more recent experience to handle the technical aspects of this. --
Jayron
32 03:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, as far as I am concerned, this is ready to go, especially in response to my own concerns and the previous reviewers' stated concerns. I would have marked it confirmed but am leaving it to you if you want further review--in which case talk me. If you do not have any real scary significant objections I suggest you do mark it confirmed and have it queued. And please see about the history move mentioned above whatever the case.
μηδείς (
talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, Jayron. Anyway, I was able to get Medeis to review this DYK? nomination of mine, but I have a question--could you please (since you're an admin here on Wikipedia) put the entire editing history of
Race and ethnic history of New York City into
Racial and ethnic history of New York City (it's the same article, but I gave it a new name and turned the other article into a redirect page). Thank you very much, and have a good day.
Futurist110 (
talk) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Since I've seen your name at the Help Desk forums, I thought I'd ask for your advice about this comment by User:Reisio which seems to cross the line of NPA: "It’d never come up if people like you weren’t attempting to delude others in addition to yourselves" [10] I've posted a complaint about it at ANI [11] because I think it's part of a pattern of disrespectful comments I've seen from him. El duderino ( abides) 03:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
One says Angular momentum of eletron is quantized. What does this quantize mean? And, please, give some response to question asked on Science reference desk under the heading "In what respect two protons (or any two fermion) are not identical?" since this question is related to your field. Thank you! 106.215.104.0 ( talk) 13:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- See Quantization (physics). The notion that some measurement or value is quantized is that the measurement has only certain available values it can have; instead of having a continuous set of values, it has only certain allowable values. For something like, say, an electron its angular momentum is defined by three numbers (one as the sum of the other two), those being the Azimuthal quantum number (l) (analogous to the classical concept of "orbit" in something like, say, a planet) and the Spin quantum number (s) (analogous to the classical concept of "rotation about an axis" in something like, say, a planet), and the Total angular momentum quantum number which is the sum of the two other quantum numbers. Note that the existance of these numbers does not mean that an electron "behaves" like a physical object like a planet, rather that an electron has measurable properties which behave like properties of a planet, in a mathematical sense; and that these properties are "quantized" in that they can only have certain allowable values. For example, the azimuthal QN can only have integer values constrained by the principle quantum number, while the spin QN can only have an absolute value of 1/2. The actual measurable values of these numbers are defined by mathematical formulas, for example the actual angular momentum of an electron is given by a mathematical formula related to both the wave function and the value of l. These allowable values are the only values that an electron can have for its angular momentum, it cannot have any intermediate values. -- Jayron 32 13:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron. Would you mind closing this this RfC? I have recently imposed a topic ban on the OP and he has now asked for guidance. I feel that a completely uninvolved admin should deal with the RFC, so I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at it. De728631 ( talk) 14:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that Chi Omega is the lone article in the protection template cats, which prompted me to take a look. It looks like a protection template was substed rather than transcluded when you protected it a month ago - I don't like to mess with admin-level stuff but could you take a look? Cheers. Le Deluge ( talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.
Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
| Metric | Control group | Teahouse group | Contrast |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) | 5.02 weeks | 8.57 weeks | 1.7x retention |
| Average number of articles edited | 58.7 articles | 116.9 edits | 2.0x articles edited |
| Average talk page edits | 36.5 edits | 85.6 edits | 2.4x talk page edits |
| Average article space edits | 129.6 edits | 360.4 edits | 2.8x article edits |
| Average total edits (all namespaces) | 182.1 edits | 532.4 edits | 2.9x total edits |
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|
|
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
From the first months, through its first birthday, you have stuck with the Teahouse, nurtured its community, learned and helped, shared and improved. Simply put, the Teahouse would not be what it is without you. Stick around, because we need your lovely attitudes, sincere dedication, sharp minds, crafty design, caring reform, technical wits, and good humor. Display this delicious badge with honor, for you are a Teahouse Founder.
|
|
Teahouse Founders Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to editors who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first months and are still participating a year later. To celebrate the editors who have been with Teahouse from the beginning through its first year, we've made you this extra special birthday badge! Teahouse continues to be awesome because you are still here all these months later, so thank you. You are the Foundation of this awesome project. |
- With the utmost cheer and appreciation,
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 23:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot ( talk) 03:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
-
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
-
Miyagawa (
submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
-
Casliber (
submissions), due in no small part to
Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with
Keilana (
submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
-
Sven Manguard (
submissions), whose
Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
-
Sasata (
submissions), whose
Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
-
Muboshgu (
submissions) and
Wizardman (
submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the
Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
-
Toa Nidhiki05 (
submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the
Casting Crowns studio albums topic.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a
curious contribution has been offered by
The C of E (
submissions): did you know that there is a
Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyediting request on FIFA Club World Cup
Hello. I have been editing a page that I believe deserves to be upgraded to a FA status. That page is the FIFA Club World Cup. However, it seems there are a few errors that I am not seeing and more than one editor suggested that I have someone copyedit the article. I looked up who did anything with sports and you seem to be the more active member of the two I found.
I would like to request that you copyedit the article. The FA nomination is still open pending that. If so, let me know when you will start. The article is detailed but easy to understand as I have provided detailed information in a balanced manner. I look forward to hearing your reply. EpidemiaCorinthiana ( talk) 12:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yo! Thanks a lot for your copyedit. It allowed me to see many things that needed fixing i.e. making sure every reference followed the same, exact model, removing a lot of the footnotes that were cluttering the article, ALT texted every image, translated every foreign reference, simplifying a lot of the sentences in the article itself and caught two references typed twice by accident.
- Could I ask for one last copyedit from you? I want to hear your opinion of how it is now and I would like a reply after it. I feel there is absolutely nothing left for it and it could easily be a FA now. If so, could you lend your support on the nomination? Thanks for everything and I can't wait to hear your replies. EpidemiaCorinthiana ( talk) 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your insight. I have just finished adding the dates of publication, authors, editors and formats of each reference provided the information was around. By going through each reference one by one, I saw a few more double-links and a handful of dead ones. Could you give your support to the nomination of the article to a FA? Thanks again. EpidemiaCorinthiana ( talk) 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.
--- The Old Jacobite The '45 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Heads-up about a discussion to up this to indef. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know that I have anything to add, but thanks for the heads up. If you have any specific questions, let me know! -- Jayron 32 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have The Mentalist (season 5) page unprotected? New episode and ratings information will be available soon after the airing of last night's episode. The content dispute in question is pretty one sided. User:Aeusetereleiea continuously adds the titles of upcoming episodes and refuses to provide any kind of source to back up the claims. Per Wikipedia's verification rules this is totally unacceptable. Any addition of upcoming episode titles or dates must be accompanied by a source, which Aeusetereleiea clearly doesn't care about. They have consistently flouted the rules, personally insulted me and demonstrated a pattern of disrespect toward the site. They clearly have no interest in learning the rules or co-operating with other editors. My hope in speaking out was that action would be taken against the user and not the page. A protection will do nothing to discourage Aeusetereleiea from further vandalism. I respectfully disagree with your decision to protect the page and would like to request that it be unprotected and that steps be taken to prevent further disruption by Aeusetereleiea. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 ( talk) 09:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, just get a consensus established on the article talk page among uninvolved editors, and when that happens then someone can unprotect the page. Also, please don't use the word vandalism unless you can demonstrate that someone else is deliberately trying to make a Wikipedia article worse. Aeusetereleiea may (or may not, I don't make any judgements in that regard) be wrong, but it appears they are trying to, in their mind, make the article better. They may be edit warring, they may not be citing their sources, but none of that is vandalism. So, please start a discussion, use
WP:DR methods if needed, and establish consensus and we'll see about unprotecting the article--
Jayron
32 11:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just set up a talk of The Mentalist (season 5) in discussion about new episode infomation. So we need to get the article unprotected real soon so we get the new episode and ratings infomation on that article. BattleshipMan ( talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to make a request to unprotect The Mentalist (season 5) so we can update the episode ratings, plot summaries and such. BattleshipMan ( talk) 07:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was not involved in that edit war in the past. It just Aeusetereleiea and SchrutedIt08 who we're. In any case, Aeusetereleiea is the one that should be blocked in case the edit war happens again. SchrutedIt08 was right that Aeusetereleiea did edit some future episode titles without referencing them for confirmation. I was not involved in that edit war in anyway, so you don't have to block me. I just thought you should know that before you start having a reason to block me. BattleshipMan ( talk) 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be keeping an eye on this article and if there is dispute that may happen, you will be notified. BattleshipMan ( talk) 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As the article says,
Twin cities are a special case of two cities or urban centres that are founded in close geographic proximity and then grow into each other over time.
In none of those cases does this apply. None of these are multipolar cities. They are single cities that happen to be bisected by a state line. If we're not careful, this list will quickly devolve into a list of all cities, since virtually all cities have more than one municipal government district, and these districts tend to be called "cities" in English. The rest of the list needs significant pruning as well, but I'm only confident enough to be bold with the North American ones... — ˈzɪzɨvə ( talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It really fits with my impression of a person who likes football. I am trying to imagine this person in a Southern Baptist church, wearing a Protestant clergyman garb. 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 01:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! There is no Southern Baptist clergy garb, BTW. Suit and tie, usually. That's about it. And I'm definitely not "clergy". Never been to seminary, never taken a single theology class. --
Jayron
32 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. What do you dress yourself to church then? 75.185.79.52 ( talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Jayron32. i edited Kai445's comment because it was his own personal opinion of the company and not a critic of the article in question. i don't mind genuine concerns over what i have written, these seem to stem from notation issues,but i do mind Kai445's own crusade against EnGeniux, i feel he overstepped the mark with what he wrote in the talk page. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony flaxman ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're quite free to say exactly that after their comments. What you may not do is to edit their comments to change what they have said. A person's words should not be changed to alter what they have said. If you disagree with someone, do so, but don't make it seem like they said something different than what they said. -- Jayron 32 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.
If you could get me a reply as soon as possible (about 15 hours), that'd be really great! I'm so sorry for the short notice, but this is crucial.
Thank you,
-- Jethro B 04:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the intrusion again. I emailed you again with a different email address to use, as my current one isn't functioning properly right now. Thanks. -- Jethro B 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you thank you again so much! I understood your procedure - I pretty much just didn't realize to do the first part, but thank you for your assistance. I really do appreciate it. --
Jethro
B 05:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
|
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| For truly having a brilliant idea! Jethro B 05:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
We came to an agreement on the last version lead in Talk:Social_market_economy#working_on_Lead_consensus. Five Users accepted that version, one User (Mr. Mustard ) still disagrees, one other users (Qyerro) made a single recommendation that was solved in the last version. So i guess we are good to go and hereby ask you kindly to unprotect the article Social market economy if and when you see fit. -- Kharon ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The user Gaming&Computing has removed a large portion of the ad-drivel, but I still believe GNG is not met. If you still support your initial !vote, please reiterate your support on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oton page. Thanks! - Kai445 ( talk) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Flash Gorden....is that you? LOL! (I kid...and couldn't resist!)-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You blocked me for 31 hours for what? disruptive question on the ref desk? I am sorry. But can I ask a question that I have on the ref desk now? 186.130.74.115 ( talk) 16:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
At User talk:NXTguru. I've placed it on hold for the moment. The request is a bit thin on details but presuming they are a young person four years is a pretty long time. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Go for it, per
WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap, and if they vandalize again, they can be quickly reblocked. I have no objections to you unblocking if you wish to do so. --
Jayron
32 17:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno, the guy who wrote that ROPE essay is a bit of a nut [12] but I guess we can risk it... Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.
-- Jethro B 21:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, it's very helpful and I truly appreciate it. I emailed you back just to confirm the answer to one more small, quick question. I hope that it's not an issue. Thank again. -- Jethro B 19:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You might want to look at the history of User:Timothyhere/AKA sock puppets Kotjap FMicronesian, et al, with his obsession on Israel being supported by US Pacific Island puppet states before you feed his newest incarnation again. Be aware the Solomon Islands are a Pacific island group just as is Micronesia. for example, see these questions on Islands and Israel and the rapid block of User:FMicronesian. μηδείς ( talk) 01:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. Will take care of that presently. I knew about that particular modus operandi, but it had slipped my mind for a moment. Damn me and my trustworthy nature... --
Jayron
32 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've researched this users contribs history:
[13] and it is a terrible match for Timothy here or any of his socks; in the first case it predates any of his socks by several years and in the second case it shows an article editing history which is in NO way a match for Timothyhere's interests or history or known locale. It was a good connection, but literally nothing else matches Timothyhere, so while I think the whole "pacific islander states supporting Israel" thing was a good catch, a deeper investigation looks to me like this is a mere coincidence, and NOT our resident Argentine ref desk troll. --
Jayron
32 01:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- But would a registered account that's lain dormant have been caught in a checkuser scan before? Even then, an innocent confluence of puppet state/UN/pacific islands/support Israel/named after pacific islands on the ref desk by a very sophisticated user with a rather short edit history is far less likely than 1/
Sagan's Number. Aren't there proxy IP addresses as well? (I don't know how that works.) If I am right you can order me dinner from
Spice and then get us a room on the Upper East Side to eat it because they don't have room for sit down dinners. (If I am wrong I'll ship you a case of Nathan's.)
μηδείς (
talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look, if you want to check further,
WP:SPI is the place to do it. From what I can see based on the accounts complete edit history, it is NOT a sleeper account of our recent troll; this account has always been editing India-related biographies, years ago and up to this week, and though it isn't very active, it has been consistent. It also has always (in the past going back a ways, and recently) consistently used a particular style of writing that shows an unfamiliarity with English which isn't coincident with Timothyhere. Could it be that Timothy here has been preparing this sockpuppet account for use for over two years by carefully making specific edits to India biography topics on a sporadic basis, and deliberately using an idiosyncratic style of English, again deliberately and specifically for this account, all the while keeping it clean of any association with him, JUST to spring it on us today to ask a question about Israel and Pacific Islands states? Under the "anything is possible" idea. But seriously, I'm just as likely to be a carefully crafted Timothyhere sock. But, if you are THAT convinced that this question is that suspicious (and it IS very suspicious taken in isolation), and so much so as to outweigh all of the rest of the behavioral evidence, ask for a checkuser to look into an SPI report for you. But I simply don't see it. I've been wrong before, but I'm not seeing it on this one at all. --
Jayron
32 02:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- And, anyhoo, I'm not a big hot dog fan. I'll settle for a beer the next time either of us is in the other's home town. Just a tall glass of something decent at any bar you wish. That's all I ask for... --
Jayron
32 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then, The Piper's Kilt, and their burgers are great. But that's one of those Irish bars I mentioned where the patrons all shut up if they don't know the new person walking in the door. PS, no need for talkbacks, I watch where I have posted for at least a week. μηδείς ( talk) 02:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- And, anyhoo, I'm not a big hot dog fan. I'll settle for a beer the next time either of us is in the other's home town. Just a tall glass of something decent at any bar you wish. That's all I ask for... --
Jayron
32 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look, if you want to check further,
WP:SPI is the place to do it. From what I can see based on the accounts complete edit history, it is NOT a sleeper account of our recent troll; this account has always been editing India-related biographies, years ago and up to this week, and though it isn't very active, it has been consistent. It also has always (in the past going back a ways, and recently) consistently used a particular style of writing that shows an unfamiliarity with English which isn't coincident with Timothyhere. Could it be that Timothy here has been preparing this sockpuppet account for use for over two years by carefully making specific edits to India biography topics on a sporadic basis, and deliberately using an idiosyncratic style of English, again deliberately and specifically for this account, all the while keeping it clean of any association with him, JUST to spring it on us today to ask a question about Israel and Pacific Islands states? Under the "anything is possible" idea. But seriously, I'm just as likely to be a carefully crafted Timothyhere sock. But, if you are THAT convinced that this question is that suspicious (and it IS very suspicious taken in isolation), and so much so as to outweigh all of the rest of the behavioral evidence, ask for a checkuser to look into an SPI report for you. But I simply don't see it. I've been wrong before, but I'm not seeing it on this one at all. --
Jayron
32 02:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- But would a registered account that's lain dormant have been caught in a checkuser scan before? Even then, an innocent confluence of puppet state/UN/pacific islands/support Israel/named after pacific islands on the ref desk by a very sophisticated user with a rather short edit history is far less likely than 1/
Sagan's Number. Aren't there proxy IP addresses as well? (I don't know how that works.) If I am right you can order me dinner from
Spice and then get us a room on the Upper East Side to eat it because they don't have room for sit down dinners. (If I am wrong I'll ship you a case of Nathan's.)
μηδείς (
talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've researched this users contribs history:
[13] and it is a terrible match for Timothy here or any of his socks; in the first case it predates any of his socks by several years and in the second case it shows an article editing history which is in NO way a match for Timothyhere's interests or history or known locale. It was a good connection, but literally nothing else matches Timothyhere, so while I think the whole "pacific islander states supporting Israel" thing was a good catch, a deeper investigation looks to me like this is a mere coincidence, and NOT our resident Argentine ref desk troll. --
Jayron
32 01:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "earnestly seeking" baptism? What would count as "earnestly seeking" baptism in the Catholic church? What type of reason would suffice? What if a person just wants to become a generic Christian but chooses the Roman Catholic Church because it is the oldest and largest of all? Does converting to Roman Catholicism mean that an individual agrees with Roman Catholic beliefs or just uses the Roman Catholic Church as a gateway into Christianity? Or would the Roman Catholic priest expect that the person must specifically have a reason for wishing to favor the Roman Catholic Church above the other churches? 65.24.105.132 ( talk) 22:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Talk to a priest and ask them. They'll be far more informed and will do a better job answering your questions than I will. If you have questions like this, find the nearest Catholic parish, ask to speak to a priest there, and see what he says. He'll probably gladly take a few minutes out of his day to answer your questions. --
Jayron
32 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I would try to look up the answers online, since asking a Catholic priest would probably lead to an awkward situation in which it would look like that I am interested in converting to Catholicism or Christianity, which I am not. Another option is to ask that young Catholic missionary, with whom I had a casual conversation, last Thursday, if only I could meet him again. 65.24.105.132 ( talk) 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Phil Ramone
|
| On 31 March 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Phil Ramone, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Spencer T♦ C 03:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! But The Rambling Man did most of the hard work on this one. But I appreciate the recognition! -- Jayron 32 03:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for steering me to WP:ARCA it appears to be just the right place to get help I needed! (duh, why didn't I think of that?) Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Great Answer Badge |
| Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate
Miyagawa (
submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's
Casliber (
submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with
WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist
Niels Bohr (
Hawkeye7 (
submissions)), on the
European hare (
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions)), on the constellation
Circinus (
Keilana (
submissions) and
Casliber (
submissions)) and on the
Third Epistle of John (
Cerebellum (
submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.
A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 22:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I am writing to you Jayron32 in an effort to have the Cape Coral Hurricanes page restored. If their was any problem with it, I would be happy to fix them so The page can be reposted. The Cape Coral Hurricanes are a professional soccer team in the NPSL and from Cape Coral Florida. ( Moose101094 ( talk) 22:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC))
- Go ahead and make a new page. The old page was so minimal, there was nothing worth preserving. Make sure that the article you create is well referenced and in depth enough. If you wish to take time to craft a decent article, do it as a draft before moving it into the main article space. Help:Userspace draft discusses how to do that. -- Jayron 32 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- just wanted to let you know in an unobtrusive way that your statement that "the core of the brain is the basal ganglion" is off the mark. To the extent that the brain has a core, it is the brainstem. There really isn't even such a thing as the "basal ganglion". There is a set of structures called the basal ganglia, which play a crucial role in decision-making, but it would be a far stretch to think of them as the core of the brain in any meaningful way. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- You should correct me in public then. It does no good to people reading a wrong answer to think I was correct. My feelings be damned, go set all those readers straight please. -- Jayron 32 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, Please could you restore my article and provide me with some guidelines as to why the page was removed so swiftly. The article was checked by the administrator who initially deleted it a few weeks ago. So I worked with the same administrator to get it right all this time, then submitted it but you've deleted it within seconds of it being submitted. The document is 'Not' identical and or an unimproved copy of the failed one which was there before. It had been improved and worked upon, please could you at least communicate with me first to tell me whats wrong before acting so swiftly a simple I'm open to a any discussion that can help me improve...Thanks.
G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"
The version I submitted was not identical nor was it a copy of the old one, Therefore why was it not excluded? JonS 13:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, Thanks for your response, Where you said "Please do not restore the article to the main space until Blak Prophetz have extensive, well-written sources in reliable, well-regarded publications"
Please reconsider based on the following.. Please define Well regarded publications. The publications in this article include Blues & Soul, Notion/Notionmag, ( http://www.notionmag.com/issue-archive/index.php) Hip Hop Connection, Echoes including that of Tim Westwood BBC. Are you saying that these are none reliable/well regarded publications?. This does not make any sense as this publications are global, known and specialist to the artist in the article. Please check the references throughout Wikipedia from known music artists who make reference to these very publications. The basis for deletion does seem a bit heavy handed or based on your personal acceptance for "well regarded". Please reconsider and work with me to resolve this as I have worked with other administrators to build this article who did not have any issues on the sources cited for the article, Please re-instate the articleJonS 16:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John shaftman ( talk • contribs)
- I think you haven't had a reply to the message here because you haven't put it on his talk page, and he provbably isn't checking yours Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Hi Jayron, If you can make a decision to delete an article, you can most definitely make the same decision to leave it as an article to be judged by others. You said it yourself that it is a far better article than before. So why the decision to delete it if you were unsure in the first place? Something does not make sense here, I feel as though my work is being held back for reasons which do not carry any real foundation. I admit my very first article was poor and it got deleted by a professional administrator for good reasons. I also admit that I was not happy with his decision but I conformed with what Wikipedia advises and went back to the administrator who initially removed the article and asked if he could work with me to repair and rebuild my article from which he did. What I'm now confused about is your sudden decision to delete my article 5 mins after it was uploaded, with a claim under G4 that it " was not an improvement and a copy of my old article " from which it clearly was not. I've made no change to the article since you took it down but a day later you now say that has " improved and now claim that you can't decide to put it back up as an article ". I respect you as an administrator but I don't feel that the work I've done is respected. I ask with much respect if you could please put my article back as an article and reconsider removing it."
JonS 09:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John shaftman ( talk • contribs)
- Thanks Jayron32, Then please put the article back up online as an article and allow them to do so.JonS 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John shaftman (
talk •
contribs)
- It is located at User:John shaftman/Blak Prophetz. I did this several days ago, and also notified you when I did so. -- Jayron 32 16:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayron32, Then please put the article back up online as an article and allow them to do so.JonS 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John shaftman (
talk •
contribs)
Hi Jayron32, I've been correcting and updating this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_shaftman/Blak_Prophetz If its OK with you I'd like to resubmit this after it has been worked over, Thanks. RapwriterWiki ( talk) 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big East Conference ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Sid Gillman.jpg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Ok, so this is what I don't understand.
How is
pH that important? How is proton transfer different and alike with pH? Why is proton transfer very common and exist allover the place, compared with H+
?
Curb Chain (
talk) 03:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Look, what a theory is is a way of looking at something. It's a perspective, an explanation, something that acts as a bridge to understanding how reality happens, especially where reality is way to complex to take it all it at once. You seem to be taking a misunderstanding about what the purpose of these theories are. I must reiterate again what I said previously: A theory is supposed to be useful. Understanding how ions in water work is very useful because most of chemistry happens in water. You're mostly water. So a model of acids and bases based on the self-ionization reaction is very useful in looking at what goes on in water with regard to acids and bases. I'm not really concerned with how electron pairs are moving between nucleophiles and electrophiles if all I want to know is how a particular drug works at
physiological pH. Let's get directly to your question. pH is important because it is part of the language of chemistry. If you want to be able to speak the language of chemistry, you need to know all of it. And that means knowing what pH is about and how it works. It's the language of how we discuss acid/base chemistry (along with concepts like pKa). Frankly, Lewis theory isn't itself all that useful as an acid-base theory, which is why we always use the qualifier Lewis acid to describe things like
borane, and we use words like that because when chemists say something is an "acid", they mean "it donates a proton" or "it's got a low pH". Context will tell you which meaning of "acid" you're working with, and thus you need to learn all three theories because that's part of chemistry. I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point as though you could convince every chemist that they are wrong. --
Jayron
32 03:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So in some cases, H
3O+
must be used because of the presence of water? So are you saying that H does not dissociate into H+
unless ithas itis in the composition of water, thus, it is able to react with other elements and compounds because of the ionization of water? Curb Chain ( talk) 05:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)- Except in the case of high-energy particle accelerators and perhaps in extremely high energy plasmas like in the Sun, H+ doesn't exist. A bare proton is just too charge-dense to exist for any arbitrary length of time before it stuck to some negative charge somewhere. Even if water wasn't present, for example if you were using some other solvent, you wouldn't ever find a bare proton; you would just have the protonated version of that solvent; whatever the analog of
hydronium would be for that solvent. Even H3O+ is a
heuristic representation of acid in water. See
Hydronium#Solvation which discusses some of the complex problems in trying to actually describe the physical structure of hydronium/acid. But no, bare protons do not exist in any chemistry you are ever going to handle in any context. Wikipedia does have an article about
Hydrons, which is a theoretical H+ cation, but it also notes "The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation."--
Jayron
32 05:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So HCl:
- Cl−
: Chlorine is highly reactive. Does it react with hydrogen in the atmosphere to created hydrochloric acid? Curb Chain ( talk) 01:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is very little elemental hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere. Atmosphere#Composition shows how little; probably on the order of parts per million. Chlorine is highly reactive. Chloride is not really, chloride is a very weak base, so weak that it will not deprotonate water to form hydroxide in solution to any appreciable amount, and other than a few cases, it is usually a spectator ion in all reactions (excepting where it precipitates with a few metal ions like silver (I) and lead (II).) Chlorine, also, does not really exist in nature; what chlorine does get into the atmosphere gets there via decomposition of Chlorofluorocarbon, and the atmospheric behavior of chlorine is well studied; work in this field led to the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, see Ozone depletion and the work of Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland. In the atmosphere, chlorine molecules (Cl2) will undergo Homolysis to form chlorine radicals (the same type of homolysis produces chlorine radicals from CFCs), and these chlorine radicals, among other things, catalytically decompose ozone as described in the ozone depletion article I cited above. HCl doesn't form atmospherically in any meaningful way. Most chlorine atoms on earth are in the form of chloride ions, and most of this makes up various salts, especially sodium chloride. -- Jayron 32 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- So then
Isis HCl highly reactive, or highly corrosive? Why apply a pH (Arrhenius) theory in a reaction where H
2O doesn't exist? Curb Chain ( talk) 02:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)- HCl is very reactive because the H-Cl bond is very weak, so it will readily transfer that proton to lots of other molecules very easily (mainly because that new H-X bond, whatever it is, will be stronger than the H-Cl bond). If HCl is a gas, the reactive species is HCl. If HCl is in solution, then there are no HCl molecules in solution because HCl is a
strong acid, which means it extensively transfers that proton to water. So HCl in water is all H3O+ and Cl- ions. If I am dealing with a water solution of HCl, I will discuss its pH because it is water based. If I am thinking about a gas-phase HCl reaction, then I would think of it in different terms. --
Jayron
32 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- See, this is confusing me. I thought Arrhenius theory dealt with pH, but you are using B-L theory with an (aq) solution.
Curb Chain (
talk) 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, why do I need to ignore one tool merely because I have another tool. I'm still allowed to walk after I get my driver's license, am I not? Don't get so hung up on trying to put each theory into a little box, as though you need to put one away before you can use another. You need to understand them all and be able to use any (or all) of them as necessary to explain anything. Your problem is that you keep wanting to try to treat each bit in isolation. Chemistry doesn't work that way. Chemistry, like any science, is a self-consistent system: that is, you should get the same answer regardless of which theory or model you work in. Stop trying to decide, before approaching the problem, which theory you need to use as though you couldn't use all of it if you needed to. That's just silly. It's all useful, so use it all all the time. It's important to understand which context a problem or situation best fits which models or theories, but also to know that there isn't a need to choose one and forget the others. --
Jayron
32 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you are telling me there is no one grand theory for the behaviour of chemical reactions, including the acid-base reaction area, and that these theories are an ATTEMPT at explaining the behaviour of these substances (
compounds and
elements), since they really are constantly switching from one theory to another to explain the behaviour of the ion, compound, (or) element(, or substance). Is this why the area of
Higgs is so important?
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Higgs is really unrelated to chemistry in any meaningful way. Well, sort of, but no moreso than chemistry is related to international relations. But yes, think in terms of theories as "tools" in your toolkit that you use to solve problems. So tools work very well for certain kinds of problems, some tools are highly specialized, some tools are more general use, some problems require the use of multiple tools simultaneously, some problems are straightforward and others require you to use your tools creatively. The beauty of chemistry, the deeper you get into it, is the complementary way in which concepts from different parts of chemistry work to provide you with different perspectives on a problem. You'll find the nice way in which different chemistry concepts work together. For example, the relationship between
Free energy and the
equilibrium constant, which are really two different numbers that approach a concept (spontaneity or extensiveness) in different directions, but nicely compliment each other in how they arrive at that concept in different ways. It's like taking two different paths to arrive at the same destination: you find if you learn to appreciate the scenery along the way, that both paths have value. Chemistry is like that. The same here between the various acid-base theories. The way in which they work together adds to the inherent beauty of a science like chemistry because they show how one can use different approaches to solve a problem, and how they all compliment each other in interesting ways. The real AHA! moment for me in Chemistry has always been discovering this underlying thread of connections that runs through the entire discipline, and how it isn't just an unrelated string of random facts about matter, but rather a highly interdependent series of theories and concepts that really provide a a picture of the world together that no one of them could ever capture in isolation. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- But you see, I'm seeing a lot of problems with these theories of chemistry. If you know about string theory, a documentary on PBS mentions (by the interviewees) that some people consider it convenient to solve the problem, that it is like a philosophy, and that it has little predictability power; it's like of an atom behaves a certain way, we will explain the behaviour in the conditions of the environment it was behaving in, but since the behavior changes so often, we need to make a new theory/"explanation" to explain this new behaviour. Curb Chain ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Higgs is really unrelated to chemistry in any meaningful way. Well, sort of, but no moreso than chemistry is related to international relations. But yes, think in terms of theories as "tools" in your toolkit that you use to solve problems. So tools work very well for certain kinds of problems, some tools are highly specialized, some tools are more general use, some problems require the use of multiple tools simultaneously, some problems are straightforward and others require you to use your tools creatively. The beauty of chemistry, the deeper you get into it, is the complementary way in which concepts from different parts of chemistry work to provide you with different perspectives on a problem. You'll find the nice way in which different chemistry concepts work together. For example, the relationship between
Free energy and the
equilibrium constant, which are really two different numbers that approach a concept (spontaneity or extensiveness) in different directions, but nicely compliment each other in how they arrive at that concept in different ways. It's like taking two different paths to arrive at the same destination: you find if you learn to appreciate the scenery along the way, that both paths have value. Chemistry is like that. The same here between the various acid-base theories. The way in which they work together adds to the inherent beauty of a science like chemistry because they show how one can use different approaches to solve a problem, and how they all compliment each other in interesting ways. The real AHA! moment for me in Chemistry has always been discovering this underlying thread of connections that runs through the entire discipline, and how it isn't just an unrelated string of random facts about matter, but rather a highly interdependent series of theories and concepts that really provide a a picture of the world together that no one of them could ever capture in isolation. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Moreover, they should be called
Arrhenius Explanation,
Brønsted–Lowry Explanation, and
Lewis Explanation, and not
Arrhenius Theory,
Brønsted–Lowry Theory, and
Lewis Theory, if they are not describing the behaviour of chemistry.
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- A theory IS an explanation. That's what the word means, almost to a synonym. A theory is a way of organizing the thoughts, laws, descriptions, and data about a concept in a way that provides meaning to it. It is an explanation. That's what a
Scientific theory is, entirely. Read the first sentence of the wikipedia article. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world," That's a very elegant definition of what a theory is. A well-substantiated explanation. I like that a lot. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- But what about
alzheimer's? Some causes of alzheimer's is due to genes, others are due to diet. Is this a theory, or explanation, of the diagnosis of a patient to alzheimer's?
Curb Chain (
talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, what? --
Jayron
32 21:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- If a patient asks "Why did I get alzheimer's?", do you give them a hypothesis of how the patient got alzheimer's when you know the likely cause of alzheimer's? Curb Chain ( talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, what? --
Jayron
32 21:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- But what about
alzheimer's? Some causes of alzheimer's is due to genes, others are due to diet. Is this a theory, or explanation, of the diagnosis of a patient to alzheimer's?
Curb Chain (
talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- A theory IS an explanation. That's what the word means, almost to a synonym. A theory is a way of organizing the thoughts, laws, descriptions, and data about a concept in a way that provides meaning to it. It is an explanation. That's what a
Scientific theory is, entirely. Read the first sentence of the wikipedia article. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world," That's a very elegant definition of what a theory is. A well-substantiated explanation. I like that a lot. --
Jayron
32 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you are telling me there is no one grand theory for the behaviour of chemical reactions, including the acid-base reaction area, and that these theories are an ATTEMPT at explaining the behaviour of these substances (
compounds and
elements), since they really are constantly switching from one theory to another to explain the behaviour of the ion, compound, (or) element(, or substance). Is this why the area of
Higgs is so important?
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, why do I need to ignore one tool merely because I have another tool. I'm still allowed to walk after I get my driver's license, am I not? Don't get so hung up on trying to put each theory into a little box, as though you need to put one away before you can use another. You need to understand them all and be able to use any (or all) of them as necessary to explain anything. Your problem is that you keep wanting to try to treat each bit in isolation. Chemistry doesn't work that way. Chemistry, like any science, is a self-consistent system: that is, you should get the same answer regardless of which theory or model you work in. Stop trying to decide, before approaching the problem, which theory you need to use as though you couldn't use all of it if you needed to. That's just silly. It's all useful, so use it all all the time. It's important to understand which context a problem or situation best fits which models or theories, but also to know that there isn't a need to choose one and forget the others. --
Jayron
32 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- See, this is confusing me. I thought Arrhenius theory dealt with pH, but you are using B-L theory with an (aq) solution.
Curb Chain (
talk) 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- HCl is very reactive because the H-Cl bond is very weak, so it will readily transfer that proton to lots of other molecules very easily (mainly because that new H-X bond, whatever it is, will be stronger than the H-Cl bond). If HCl is a gas, the reactive species is HCl. If HCl is in solution, then there are no HCl molecules in solution because HCl is a
strong acid, which means it extensively transfers that proton to water. So HCl in water is all H3O+ and Cl- ions. If I am dealing with a water solution of HCl, I will discuss its pH because it is water based. If I am thinking about a gas-phase HCl reaction, then I would think of it in different terms. --
Jayron
32 02:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Cl−
- So HCl:
- Except in the case of high-energy particle accelerators and perhaps in extremely high energy plasmas like in the Sun, H+ doesn't exist. A bare proton is just too charge-dense to exist for any arbitrary length of time before it stuck to some negative charge somewhere. Even if water wasn't present, for example if you were using some other solvent, you wouldn't ever find a bare proton; you would just have the protonated version of that solvent; whatever the analog of
hydronium would be for that solvent. Even H3O+ is a
heuristic representation of acid in water. See
Hydronium#Solvation which discusses some of the complex problems in trying to actually describe the physical structure of hydronium/acid. But no, bare protons do not exist in any chemistry you are ever going to handle in any context. Wikipedia does have an article about
Hydrons, which is a theoretical H+ cation, but it also notes "The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation."--
Jayron
32 05:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So in some cases, H
why did you remove my qusten about Selena gomez? (not saying you didn't have the right to, i just don't understand the reason.) 70.114.248.114 ( talk) 05:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC) p.s., could you (as an admin) see my ip if i had an account? thanks, 70.114.248.114 ( talk) 05:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BLP. We should not write things about people which casts them in a negative light, where that information cannot be backed up with reliable sources. Saying that everyone hates someone else would easily qualify as an unsupported negative statement. -- Jayron 32 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sports in North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.246.33 ( talk) 07:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but most of the event occurred on April 19, and we need not keep the article on ITN even longer than it will be anyway (i.e. a long time). -- tariqabjotu 01:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
nothing personal on being the swift first opposal. μηδείς ( talk) 02:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| For consistent high quality answers at the Reference Desk. Your answers are always well researched (or are evidence of prior knowledge that you have) and leave the OP with everything they asked for, if not more. Ryan Vesey 03:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC) |
Jayron, since you were such a valued contributor to the James Moore (Continental Army officer) article that I've recently expanded, I was hoping you may be interested in reviewing its current state, and seeing if there's anything you might change or add. As it is now, it's recently undergone (and passed) A-Class Review with Milhist, and I would like to nominate it for FAC. My end goal would be to build a Featured Topic around Moore and his relative, Robert Howe, and the three other NC Continental Army generals. If you're into that sort of thing, the peer review is here. Thanks! Cdtew ( talk) 18:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it looks great. I'm probably not the person to ask for a peer review, as you've more than exceeded my knowledge on the subject. Perhaps someone from WP:MILHIST maybe? -- Jayron 32 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I am red-faced. You may have thought I was talking about you. In fact, I had no recollection of your being some small part of that, and it was not my intention to show you up, or anything of that nature - merely trying to provide further illustration for the original poster. I hasten to add that not only do I have a high regard for you as an admin and editor, you are on my short list of go-to guys or what I have called "most trusted admins" for a reasoned approach to issues. I apologize if I caused you any harm here. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't sweat it. I know you meant nothing by it. I own my mistakes, and really, it's almost 4 years ago. Water under the bridge, and a good learning experience overall. I'm not upset by it, and you have nothing to apologize for. -- Jayron 32 02:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, I had the page with Paramahansa Yogananda's Samadhi poem on Wikipedia in my favorites. Haven't used it for a long time but when I wanted to read it today, I saw that you deleted the page on 20 January 2008. Can you tell me why you deleted it? Thanks and kind regards, Raymond RaymondR63 ( talk) 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's been over 5 years, so I had no recollection of that article. I had to do some digging to figure it out, but here's what I found. The reason it was deleted was that the article at Wikipedia didn't contain any more information than merely a reprinting of the poem. Wikipedia is not supposed to merely reprint poems and other works.
Wikisource is supposed to do that. In fact, Wikisource has a copy of the poem
here. So, since we're already hosting it in the correct place, there's no need to host it here as well, indeed even if it wasn't already at Wikisource, it still shouldn't be at Wikipedia, as that is not what the purpose of Wikipedia is. If you wish to create a new article, which is about the poem and its history, development, impact, etc. that would be fine, but Wikipedia should not be used to reprint text that appears elsewhere. --
Jayron
32 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks– RaymondR63 ( talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
ITN for 2012–13 Premier League
|
| On 24 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2012–13 Premier League, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--Thank you for making sure that article quality is important in ITN articles. Best, Spencer T♦ C 08:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it was posted long before there was any substantial update. I've been merely trying to correct that mistake after the fact. I'm also not done yet; I've only gotten through about October. -- Jayron 32 12:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay: first of all, it's not confirmed. Secondly, the 1998 one-off show did not make Leadon, Meisner or Felder a full member of the band again. Thirdly, see my talk page for how Leadon, if he in fact does rejoin the tour, would likely only be a "special guest". Doc talk 21:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
When they officially announce it, and I hope they do, we can go from there. I strongly suspect that it will be a Mick Taylor "special guest" thing, but if they start, say, publishing new photos of the five of them like they did when Felder rejoined, he will have undoubtedly "rejoined" the Eagles. Epic! Cheers :) Doc talk 01:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, when you delete, please always link to the deletion discussion in your deletion summary, even if the discussion isn't the actual reason for deletion. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion was located at
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Paul_Kevin_Curtis. --
Jayron
32 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I know that - the problem is someone who clicks the red link and sees an entirely out-of-process delete, for something they might not know was a redirect. This makes you look like someone who deletes stuff because you just feel like it.
Ego White Tray (
talk) 12:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are no article space red links. If you are concerned about the project space redlinks with this person's name, we can redact those. Given the BLP concerns, that may be a good idea too. -- Jayron 32 14:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I know that - the problem is someone who clicks the red link and sees an entirely out-of-process delete, for something they might not know was a redirect. This makes you look like someone who deletes stuff because you just feel like it.
Ego White Tray (
talk) 12:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 Premier League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Javier Hernandez ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have mentioned your name here. I hope the mention is okay. Not my place to request any action, just making sure you know the context in case any enquiry originates. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. If there's a violation of a topic ban happening currently, it should probably be brought up at
WP:ANI. --
Jayron
32 05:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- He is merely reporting—and repeatedly having reverted—things that originated in November, like this template. You should read his POV-pushing arguments. LittleBen ( talk) 07:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
| ||
| Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- — EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with
Sven Manguard (
submissions) claiming for the high-importance
Portal:Sports and
Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) claiming for a did you know of
sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place
Casliber (
submissions) and second place
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 15:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, let's talk for a second. I don't know what "trolling" are, but let's just assume good faith, talk it out. Now, what was so objectionable about my question that warranted its removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pewthle ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pretending to not know what trolling is makes it clear that you're trolling. Good day. --
Jayron
32 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You've got me at a loss here... I'm just going to go back to the board and re-adding my question, as your argument centers on a mythical beast. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pewthle (
talk •
contribs) 23:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I'm really confused. All I'm asking, if you insist on the question's removal, is that you comment on my talk page. Now, I know what a
Sockpuppet (Internet) is, but why these accusations? By the way, I'm still not quite certain as to the meaning of "troll". Let's discuss it. (Keep forgetting to sign)--
PEWTHLE
talk
contribs 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your dishonesty in not recognizing this shows me that there is nothing to discuss. The fact that you are an experienced Wikipedia user who created a new account recently to mask your prior identities does not engender me with a desire to converse with you. Unless and until you cop to your prior accounts/identities and you stop the charade of pretending like you don't know exactly what trolling is I have nothing further to add to this conversation. It is not going to happen so long as you maintain a stance of dishonesty. --
Jayron
32 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- The M.O. reminds me of Timothyhere ( talk · contribs)'s many socks. Although Pewthle has now "retired", a checkuser "sweep" might be in order, as he typically creates several socks at once. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your dishonesty in not recognizing this shows me that there is nothing to discuss. The fact that you are an experienced Wikipedia user who created a new account recently to mask your prior identities does not engender me with a desire to converse with you. Unless and until you cop to your prior accounts/identities and you stop the charade of pretending like you don't know exactly what trolling is I have nothing further to add to this conversation. It is not going to happen so long as you maintain a stance of dishonesty. --
Jayron
32 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I'm really confused. All I'm asking, if you insist on the question's removal, is that you comment on my talk page. Now, I know what a
Sockpuppet (Internet) is, but why these accusations? By the way, I'm still not quite certain as to the meaning of "troll". Let's discuss it. (Keep forgetting to sign)--
PEWTHLE
talk
contribs 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You've got me at a loss here... I'm just going to go back to the board and re-adding my question, as your argument centers on a mythical beast. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pewthle (
talk •
contribs) 23:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find the right way to create an article on the Serpentine font series. I tried talking to Shakescene about it. You can feel free to check my talk page and/or his. There might be some references. I feel there should an article on Serpentine font style. 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, the best thing to do is to create a user account first. See here for instructions. Once you've created a user account, you get access to a "user space" which is a part of Wikipedia that allows, among other things, you to work on draft articles on your own time and then, AFTER they are in a good shape, move them to the main article space. See Help:Userspace draft for more info on that. -- Jayron 32 04:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you checked my talk page and Shakescene's talk page? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see you've got the start of an article at User:Shakescene/Serpentine. When it's ready, we can move it to the main space. What you need before we do that is references. You need to find published works about this typeface, which discusses it in some detail, and which has a reputation for reliability, and then cites those sources to every fact in the article. The article doesn't have to be perfect, but even a stub article (which is what you have so far) needs at least one or two references. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for info on how to use and format references at Wikipedia. When that is done, we can move this. -- Jayron 32 04:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
On the subject of references, did you look at the ones I supplied on Shakescene's talk page? Would [15] and [16] be more helpful, as well? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- What you need is references that are completely independent of the subject. Since Adobe sells the Serpentine typeface, while the document is useful in showing basic facts about it, it does not establish that Wikipedia should have an article about the Serpentine typeface. The basic criteria for subjects that Wikipedia should have stand-alone articles about is that someone completely independent of the subject has written a significant amount of text about it in reliable sources The first reference is useful in providing facts, is fairly in depth, but cannot be used to show that the font is notable because it is not independent. The second isn't really in depth in any way. -- Jayron 32 12:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I found something that may be a little more helpful. Would [17] do the trick? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 03:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call that in depth. There's about 10 words about Serpentine in that document. -- Jayron 32 03:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've given you what I know about the Serpentine font style. What else is there more I can do? 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why your trying to convince me of anything. Either text exists or it doesn't. I'm not the Wikipedia approval committee, and my opinion doesn't mean anything. You wanted to know what you needed to create an article. What you need is a significant amount of reliable source text. See WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 00:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The other day, I watched a rerun of the "Mothers' Day" episode of NCIS. There was this sound effect like a boat horn. In addition there was also a foghorn. I tried asking at the Entertainment Reference Desk. But so far, I had very little luck. You can check my question there. There's a reference to the foghorn sound effect which I described. 142.255.103.121 ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Boldness is fine, but as I reminded you previously, please upload Commons images locally before transcluding them on the main page. And please remember to remove "(pictured)" from the item whose subject is no longer illustrated.
Also note that the "link=" parameter needn't be used to specify the transcluded file (which is linked by default). The "File:" prefix is unneeded (but equally harmless) as well.
Thanks! —
David Levy 07:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right. I did forget that. I usually do upload a local copy. Must've slipped my mind. Thanks for keeping on top of that! -- Jayron 32 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, I was in the middle of posting a reply to an editor in the AN/I discussion and when I clicked to post it, I noticed that someone had just closed the discussion. To say the least, I was shocked. This is a legitimate and important discussion because it affects all editors. I feel this premature close is very inappropriate. I also feel the closing editor's comment at the end of the thread, in which he attempts to speak for the editor I reported about, is very inappropriate. That editor can speak for himself is he chooses, and I feel the close is disrepectful to the participating editors and any other editors who would've been interested in commenting. It was only open for four hours. Now I don't know what to do. Thanks. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 08:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with the closure. This conversation happens about once a month, and the result is always the same: all users are free to manage their talk page how they wish. Having it again doesn't seem to me to be wise. -- Jayron 32 18:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stas Namin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenin Stadium ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience with this. (Me, I can't be bothered to figure out who said what, beyond agreeing that your analogy to seven-year-olds just about covers it.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look, the way I've always dealt with this sort of thing (been a parent for seven years, and a teacher for seven years before that) like this. Inconsequential things should be inconsequential. -- Jayron 32 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there Jayron32, I see a recent topic at the Humanities RefDesk has just been closed but did enjoy reading your academic take on it, didn't wish to imply your response was one of totality just that billions of dollars tend to rig any pure psychology--addictive or not. Happy editing and see you on the reference side! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
| hints are apparently not being taken |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
textbook case μηδείς ( talk) 00:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|
I've replied to your comment there.
...And now I feel like a damn fool. =| Kurtis (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, I just wanted to make you aware of this talk page discussion because I invoked your name. Thank you. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 15:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron,
You posted as response to my post on Ref Desk today, re Validity of ideal gas law - you objected that I did the OP's homework for him. If I recall correctly, you are a teacher of somekind yourself, so I can undertsand your concern. You made a good point, but (and there is a but)....
(I sometimes attract thank you's and I sometimes attract adverse squawks. But it is unusual for you to squawk on me. Is this Be Squawky To Wickwack Week?)
I didn't make an initial response, as the question did read as though it was copied out of an assignment. And it is a somewhat common question. However Dolphin posted with an incorrect answer (he thinks the ideal gas laws are good at near atmostpheric pressures and that's just not the right concept at all). Where an answer is likely to mislead the OP, I will post a correction if other citeria are met (e.g., I know the topic myself).
We don't know if the OP is a high school student or an uni undergrad. Or an Engineer or similar, who wants to do a quick back of the envelope calc on something he's rusty on. Did you notice that for a high school student, my answer will most likely be well beyond his level, perhaps even over his head? How many high school science teachers have even heard of the High Triple Point, let alone the critical point? So, the OP, if a high school student, cannot use my answer directly - but he just may be provoked into looking up the terms I used, or googling them. If he does that, he'll learn quite a bit. If he copies my answer, or just puts it in his own words, a typical high school teacher is going to think "Huh? What? Sounds right, but not what I was expecting, and where did he get it from?"
If he is a uni student doing physics, it should not be over his head. However, instead of giving a standard answer, I came at it with a direction, that while it is correct, is not that used in typical educational texts (how many graphs have you seen of temperature vs internal energy, with const pressure contours, in undergrad texts? In engineering texts maybe). So the risk is there that I answered homework for him, but it should still make him think. While correct, my answer should make him just uncomfortable enough to think about it, or search further to verify it.
We need something like Kainaw's Criterion for medical questions to guide Wikipedians on answering homework. If you look at the range of questions asked and answered, Wikipedians are very inconsistent in handling possible/likely homework questions. In some cases, I recognised OP's questions and wording as straight out of well known undergrad textbook end of chapter questions, and posted that the OP should not be answered, but others went ahead and answered anyway with an answer that will do just fine in getting good marks. Some OP's will say "This is not homework". As far as I am concerned, if it sounds like homework, smells like homework, and the OP shows absolutely no evidence that he had a go first, then we should not trust the claim. But many, if not most, Wikipedians do. By their responses, it seems that many Wikipedians think that homework means only school homework.
There's a whole page of guidance and example on answering medical questions, but nothing on answering possible homework questions. Wikipedians need to develop something to guide us, don't you think? Let's start the ball rolling.
Wickwack 120.145.193.132 ( talk) 15:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- See
WP:DYOH. It's been Wikipedia guidance since 2008. 5 years is hardly a new policy. --
Jayron
32 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I was unaware of that. But with good reason, as there is no link to it from the Ref Desk main page or the Science Desk page. It's an orphan. The article page is directed towards potential OP's. It does not tell Wikipedians how to consistently respond to OP's who may or may not be trying to get homework done for them, as the Kainaw Criterion does for Wikipedians considering answering medical questions. The WP:DYOH is no guidance to answering at all. The debate on the DYOH talk page seems to be obsolete - the main objection to answering is that Wikipedians main objective is writing encyclopedia articles. That's not relevant, many like answering Ref Desk questions, and some eg me only answer Ref Desk questions. The objection to answering homework is that by doing it for them, the OP will not have learnt as much as he would doing his own work. It's time to revisit this. It's all very well having a debate 5 years ago about something - if it's not working (and it certainly isn't), then it needs to be re-examined. Wickwack
124.178.154.86 (
talk) 00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a very often used template at {{
DYOH}} that is used many times on the ref desks. I don't often use it, because I try to usually hand craft every response (I find templated messages from live people somewhat rude). The proper response is "If something is an obvious homework question, tell them we don't answer homework questions, but we will help them get past sticking points if they can tell us what they have already tried to work out" This question was a reading comprehension question. It is answered in literally every single first year chemistry text book, and taught in every first year chemistry class. --
Jayron
32 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that template used from time to time. But you've missed my point. Wikipedians are inconsistent - some detect probable homework but others go ahead and answer it. So I think we need some guidelines to make responses more consistent by explaining how to detect homework - see above. The problem is not what to say, the problem is when to say it. I agree that OP's question is a common/standard one. But one that also occurs sometimes to people long past their school/college/uni days. Having said that, I orginally was not going to answer it, and was quite happy when I saw your response - it is most likely quite appropriate, although perhaps a bit off-putting if teh OP is not a student. But Dolphin then posted what was incorrect, and could mislead the OP. So I refuted that, and gave a response that was calculated to make the OP think. I notice now that Count Iblis has since given, in a slightly round about way, the usual textbook answer, so the good intentions of both you and I have perhaps been defeated. Wickwack 121.215.134.76 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a very often used template at {{
DYOH}} that is used many times on the ref desks. I don't often use it, because I try to usually hand craft every response (I find templated messages from live people somewhat rude). The proper response is "If something is an obvious homework question, tell them we don't answer homework questions, but we will help them get past sticking points if they can tell us what they have already tried to work out" This question was a reading comprehension question. It is answered in literally every single first year chemistry text book, and taught in every first year chemistry class. --
Jayron
32 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I was unaware of that. But with good reason, as there is no link to it from the Ref Desk main page or the Science Desk page. It's an orphan. The article page is directed towards potential OP's. It does not tell Wikipedians how to consistently respond to OP's who may or may not be trying to get homework done for them, as the Kainaw Criterion does for Wikipedians considering answering medical questions. The WP:DYOH is no guidance to answering at all. The debate on the DYOH talk page seems to be obsolete - the main objection to answering is that Wikipedians main objective is writing encyclopedia articles. That's not relevant, many like answering Ref Desk questions, and some eg me only answer Ref Desk questions. The objection to answering homework is that by doing it for them, the OP will not have learnt as much as he would doing his own work. It's time to revisit this. It's all very well having a debate 5 years ago about something - if it's not working (and it certainly isn't), then it needs to be re-examined. Wickwack
124.178.154.86 (
talk) 00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't ssay t his there, but usually an expletive of some kind LOL. Slang terms for the group are "Harperite" and "ReformaTories, which can't be used. The "FOO government" formation is controversial in Canada, it's like " Canada's New Government" as being seen not only as a rebranding of the Government of Canada, but like "CNG" it's also been forced upon bureaucrats, who object to it, and has been put on government web pages and also on huge cheques (as in physically huge) made for show-announcements. I've always suggested the titles of this series of articles should be "FOO policies of the Government of Canada" which is the traditional way to speak of such things, and "FOO policies of the Government of Canada (2006-present)" would be the way to title this. Media do tend to use "the Trudeau government" and "the Mulroney government" and so on, which confuses the issue, but it's only this government/PM that has tried to turn that phrasing into a brand. It's absurd to me that this series of articles was created when his regime was still in its infancy, on the premise, as was stated in the AfDs about them "I found he was really interesting"....as others noted the framework of the articles was POV to start with, and real balance hasn't come from others adding in criticisms and facts; the whole architecture and premises of the articles were POV to start with. "Well, someone else is free to create articles for the other Prime Ministers"....but no other PM has such UNDUE weight in Wikipedia.....I used to find name-drops of him in small town articles where he'd been there to shake hands and hand out cheques...my attempt to have this series of articles deleted or merged during the 2011 election ended in disaster - me being blocked as POV and, backed into a corner, argumentative. To me they constitute advertising, even in repeating that "FOO government" formation. Maybe a better title would be "Anti-environmental policies of the H government", given what's been done in the course of the omnibus bills....Trudeau and Mulroney, even, were more significant for environmental leadership, despite things like the CHMC credit you use; Lucien Bouchard was one of this country's best environment ministers ever and John Fraser and Tom Siddon in fisheries (or was Fraser in Environment after Bouchard left?). The AfD you can source and read; the upshot is that someone on the watch for POV-pushing by this lot was blocked during the election campaign and not allowed back in until after, by admins in other countries, many of them who admitted to right-wing bias/alignment openly; in response after being invited back in I boycotted Wikipedia until this last December or so, when I discovered all the POV ranting and political spin on Idle No More and Theresa Spence and came back in to ask responsible editors to help with those. "Neutralizing" these titles and taskforce-type revisions of these articles are necessary, as also are writeups on earlier periods of Canadian history/government; the opening of the Foreign Policy article, in its original form, made it sound like prior foreign policy had been shamefully weak-kneed and submissive and we're all strong and assertive now, for instance.....I've mused about starting the highly ironic title Democratic reform policies of the Harper government or Senate policy of the Harper government. Or "Parliamentary reform" about the centralizing of power in the PCO/PMO and the muzzling of MPs and so on.... Science policy of the Harper government would be a hoot, too.....there's that "34th Canadian ministry" article or whatever ordinal number he is, but it's not even a Canadian usage, I've never liked that series of titles, it's an imposed British-ism, but it's where regime-specific policies/conduct should go IMO. Thing is environmental policy, and other matters, are not creatures of the Prime Minister of the day, but of bureaucrats and stakeholder groups (until Harper's folks declared them "foreign-backed extremists" and took measures to exclude them from processes such as the Enbridge hearings). "Canadian environmental policy 1968-1984" and "1984-1991" and so on would break it down by "regimes" but timespans not directly linked to the elections/regime changes seem less POV to me and are more realistic (Joe Clark didn't really change anything that Trudeau did; Chretien didn't really change course or revert anything Mulroney had done). On other matters e.g. "Privatization policies of the Canadian government" re CN and Air Canada and such didn't start with Harper and are as much Chretien and Martin's doing as Harper's. Environmental policy in general came from the populace and the scientific/academic community, and federal policy largely reflected that when Canada's legislation and behaviour was research-based rather than ideologically-driven as it is now. I'm glad to see you and the other editor come along with pointed questions; I'll mostly hold my tongue because of my voluble style, which too many find "aggressive" and "against wikiquette".....while pushing POV views/defences....my observation is that political acumen is in short supply among Wikipedians, sadly often among admins, including those who close politically-oriented discussions. These were obviously started as spin-pieces and come right from the period when Harper's p.r. machine (paid for by taxpayers) was doing the "Harper government" rebranding thingamawhatzit. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think you've mistaken me for someone who cares about Canadian politics. This is also NOT an answer to my question. This is an answer to a question you wished I had asked so that it would give you the opportunity to rant. Instead, focus on answering the question I actually asked. Let me restate the question a bit differently. How does one refer to "a collective set of Ministers, officials, and policy makers tied to a specific government or time period in Canada, so as to draw distinctions between different such sets?" Also, don't answer it here. Answer it on the article talk page instead. --
Jayron
32 02:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was simply explaining to you the issues of such names and articles, and the history of previous attempts to rename these articles; invariably Canadian politics matter when a series of articles, and their titles, are launched and framed on POV grounds/views. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, I responded to your answer of my question in the Teahouse post but I just wanted to personally reach out and say thanks for taking the time to review my page. I found your feedback to be very constructive because it was very direct and clear, with specific examples. Many admins just point me to general WP policy pages, with no specifics behind their feedback, which makes it hard to properly address their criticisms. I'll do my best to correct things and look for more reviews so I can improve the content. Thanks and enjoy your weekend. Frank -- FGuerino ( talk) 02:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron. Thanks for contributing to the "Low controversy ITN/R items" discussion. TRM has closed the discussion and the items are now "cited". You mentioned that you were considering doing a second collection of items? Can I encourage you to do that, it'd be great to have your input in this exercise.
Cheers! --
LukeSurl
t
c 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I specifically asked at ANI because I wanted someone else to step in, not wanting to add any more myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I've been re-reading my small collection of McLuhan for the past week, trying to find the source of one of my favourite quotes (I eventually found it online, not in any of the books I own, and added it to wikiquote and to the discussion at meta which was my primary goal all along. It's been part of my User:Quiddity/How it Works for years!)
So far I've appreciated his short form / collaborative / primer style-pieces more than his academic length works. But all I have are: The Medium is the Massage, War and peace in the global village, Counterblast, and The Gutenberg Galaxy. (The first 3 go nicely with Bucky Fuller's I Seem To Be a Verb, and Buckminster Fuller to Children of Earth. Solid all-age epiphanies! I buy duplicates for gifts whenever I can.) What would you recommend I look for next?
(replying here, so as not to overweigh or tangent the refdesk thread). – Quiddity ( talk) 01:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I last read anything by McLuhan in 1999 for a grad school class, I'm only familiar with his works in a broad sense. -- Jayron 32 01:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
List of auxiliary Interstate Highways may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Asking for reasons and quotes as to why political leaders ignore the feelings of their electorate with regards to the EU is a legitimate question and not a debate. Just because it's a contentious issue with differing viewpoints doesn't mean it has to descend into chaos. You might be an unquestioning Europhile but I'm not and neither are a lot of other people -- Andrew 18:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a what? --
Jayron
32 18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why else wouldn't you want legitimate questions about the European Union posted on the ref desk. What I asked for where facts, quotes ascribed to national leaders as to why they continue to promote the EU against the wishes of the people who elected them. That isn't a request for debate, it's asking for quotations. If it descended into a debate, that isn't my problem. -- Andrew 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Projecting your desire to find political enemies onto me is not going to solve your problem. I am not interested in either side of this debate. -- Jayron 32 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well your on the side that wants to censor the reference desk for no real reason. Asking for information as to why leaders support membership of the EU isn't politically biased at all, but when your own electorate show that they're discontented, it doesn't make much sense to ignore them. Personally my only problem is Wikipedia at the moment, censoring legitimate questions -- Andrew 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that only they can really say why they support whatever it is they support; we can't know for sure, and it's not the place of the Refdesk, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, to speculate on their motives. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm on the side that doesn't want to turn the reference desk into a place to use circumlocution to mask a political debate as a question. The internet is filled with places where that behavior is expected and encouraged. The Wikipedia Reference desks is not one of them. Being opposed to using the reference desk as a political forum doesn't mean I oppose your particular political stance (or even care one wit about the debate one way or the other). The world is not divided into people who are for or against an issue. Some of us just aren't interested in seeing the reference desk turned into a soapbox for any political issue, irrespective of the politics of the OP. -- Jayron 32 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't understand your point about how a request for quotations of national leaders risks inciting debate, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree -- Andrew 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nowhere did you ask simply for quotations. You're being disingenuous when you now paint your question in such terms. In fact, the word "quotations" does not appear in your question at all. It was prefaced by an extensive outlining of your own position and your own dissatisfaction with the status quo. Clearly you didn't come there to elicit referenced information, but to convey your feelings and opinions to others in an attempt to convert them to your thinking. That is soapboxing, and it is an abuse of the reference desk. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) It is worth noting, in the final analysis, that I was not the only person to think that what you were doing was political soapboxing in the form of a question. I was not even the first person. Nor the second. The fact that you place a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it not an attempt to make a political statement. Your statement above "when your own electorate show that they're discontented, it doesn't make much sense to ignore them" makes it clear that your building evidence to defend one side of a political argument, not asking a neutral question. If you can't be intellectually honest with yourself that you care about one side of this issue, when several of your statements have expressed exactly that (including calling someone, apropros of nothing, and whom you've never met or interacted with before in your life, an "unquestioning Europhile" speaks volumes as to the intent of your question. -- Jayron 32 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, pls see my reply. Attleboro ( talk) 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayron, would you please review, and, assuming you agree there's consensus, post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Liberty_Reserve? I was the major cause of the delay and pull, and I want the article, I believe fixed, reposted, rather than sitting in limbo because I for a time strongly objected. If you can't, can you ask another admin to judge? Thanks. 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ask somebody else please. I attempted to deal with that before, and was rebuffed. I'd rather not have that happen to me twice. -- Jayron 32 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, in the Australian vernacular (above) and in nice Wikipedia language, on the way you wrote up the WickWack issue at AN. You couldn't have been fairer and clearer. And just the right amount of detail. Now, as long as the thread stays on the issue of the aliases, and doesn't drift into other territory as these things so often do... HiLo48 ( talk) 08:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)