User talk:Jerzy/Archive 2

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

Your forgery accusation

I've copied the following content to the colleague's talk page, complied with the request, and expressed regret.
--Jerzy•t 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You recently posted on my talk page a level 2 warning claiming that I had forged Template:PRODWarning in order to put an extended middle-finger graphic on a user's talk page. As you'll be able to see by this edit, what you described was not the case; I did not alter the template posting, but rather someone else had vandalized the template itself, and I (unknowingly - I was working through Twinkle and never saw the user's page result) had posted the warning during the period that the vandalism remained in place.

I applaud your well-intended efforts to police such inappropriate postings. In this case, I would appreciate your verifying the information that I have just given you and posting a comment in the section you added to my talk page, retracting the accusation. I am an active editor in good standing and would prefer not to leave that accusation standing baldly there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Russell Smith (prisoner activist)

I have nominated Russell Smith (prisoner activist), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Smith (prisoner activist). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fences&Windows 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jo Parkerson

Re Jo Parkerson:

Hello, Jerzy. I wanted to tell you that this article has tags on it, including as unreferenced, and may soon be nominated for deletion. You created it a long time ago, but if you're able to add references, it should be alright. Thanks for your help with this, Markiewp (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

   Interesting walk down Memory Lane. I may analyze further the bizarre edit that it led me back to!
   I don't remove orphan tags until there are three links, myself, but i ditched the Blitzer 'graph; don't know if you're interested in reviewing that call.
--Jerzy•t 11:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on it, Markiewp (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Three-point turn/standard swap

Thanks for the talkback there. The thing is with these refs (three-point-turn used as a metaphor for standard swap) that they are kinda the ones that I kind know I have read somewhere, where in context it quite appears it was meant as a usual term, i.e. is stated as "the usual three-point turn" or somesuch where it appears that the term is common use already: i.e. the best kind of etymology. Right now I can't think of exactly where, so I will sleep on it a few days, that usually helps. Fortunately now all my books are at home, so when I remember where I will be able to find quite quickly. (I have a kinda photographic memory for that, but need a bit of context as a trigger.)

Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

re from my talk

excuse me sir, I feel as If I dont deserve the incivility warning after someone lies about my actions after two adminstrators told him that it was not the case. I was calling a spade a spade. (Reply on my talk or here which ever you prefer.)Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering there.
--Jerzy•t 03:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame. Since you had some involvement with the Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

lol i swear this is not personal Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CycloneSIA

Template:CycloneSIA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

re: Copyright vio at Ron Eldard

Re article Ron Eldard:
The text in the following box appeared as User talk:Yllosubmarine#Copyright problem: Ron Eldard and was removed by that talk page's owner with a reversion summarized
Undid revision 387057009 by Jerzy (talk) no copyright violation
depriving the succeeding discussion of its context.

Copyright problem: Ron Eldard
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ron Eldard, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://williamfichtner.org/seven/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=63, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Ron Eldard saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jerzy•t 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The text you've tagged as a copyright violation was added four years ago, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to template me at this point. Further, seeing as how the direct quote was correctly attributed and cited -- albeit not to the most reliable website on Earth -- I don't see how you can claim it is a copyright violation. Simply remove the quote if you don't think adds anything to the article, and don't template the regulars. María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   You've certainly misunderstood my intention. Your citation of DTTR suggests you've "taken [my msg to you] as rude by being impersonal", and if that is so, i regret it. So let me tell you my actual intention: The template in the article is not addressed to you, but to the need that copyright violations be clearly labeled (and, when judged appropriate by our copy-vio specialists -- who BTW do not include me -- removed not just from the text but from the edit history). I would not have made the considerable effort needed to determine your identity as the adding editor if {{copyvio}} did not instruct "Place {{no thanks}} on the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material"; i assume {{no thanks}} adequately shares the tone of an editor doing a colleague the courtesy of informing them that deletion of their work is likely after applying a {{Db}} or {{Prod}} tag to it. Even if you find that tone has been neglected by the template's authors, i urge you to treat my use of it that way.
--Jerzy•t 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
   Your choice of removing my msg from your talk page by reversion will have to speak for itself, as it is more important that i make a reasonable attempt to convince you that your accompanying judgment "no copyright violation" in this instance is utter folly.
  1. You appear to imagine that COPYVIO's purpose is to eliminate plagiarism from WP. In fact, plagiarism and violation of an author's copyright protections can each occur without the other, and direct quotation, attribution, and acknowledgment of copyright are incapable, in any combination, of ruling out a violation of copyright. And diligent removal of copyvios is vital to the project.
  2. IANALB i am sure failure of a copyright holder to enforce their rights does not absolve the violator of liability (and in fact i'm pretty sure that every republication of the infringing material -- i.e., every time a server transmits the page -- is a new violation).
  3. If you are suggesting that the late arrival of the {{copyvio}} template makes the reality of the violation implausible, you should consider that the year without an evaluation, and the three years evaluated as "Start" class, are evidence of the inadequacy of the attention it has received. We are speaking of a neglected article whose copy-vio could have gone on indefinitely.
I urge you against further comments on any page's copyvio or non-copyvio status, pending adequate study of copyright-related issues.
--Jerzy•t 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Material placed on User:Jerzy & User talk:Jerzy by IPs, nominally on behalf of User:The Rogue Leader

(Concerns Jerzy (talk · contribs) & The Rogue Leader (talk · contribs))

The former sections "Not Fair" and "So this is how U treat me?" have been moved to User talk:The Rogue Leader#Material placed on User:Jerzy & User talk:Jerzy by IPs, nominally on behalf of User:The Rogue Leader.
--Jerzy•t 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Julpisanty on hold

I have to tell you this seems like a very poorly justified block. You indefinitely blocked a user six days after their one and only edit, without even attempting to discuss the matter with them. I was sorely tempted to just unblock before consulting you. I am hoping you can provide a more compelling or detailed reason than the one recorded in the block log, which appears to be a highly speculative and very much assuming bad faith on this user's part. New users often do not know how to use page histories and if we assume good faith, this user simply removed some obvious vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you. I welcome both your feedback and whatever independent action your judgment dictates.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I was hoping you would tell me there was more to the story that was not obvious from the block log. Since there apparently was not I must tell you that this was a disgraceful, completely unjustifiable block. I hope in retrospect you can see that you jumped to completely unwarranted conclusions and ignored several of the most basic policies we should all keep in mind when blocking, namely WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:BLOCK. I sincerely hope you do not make a regular practice of using your admin tools in such a haphazard and irresponsible fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Browsing through your logs I see you do not block users very often, but that you made a similarly unjustifiable block on User:Demcaps last year that was also overturned for essentially the same reason. And in that case you simply tagged them as a blocked user without using one of the standard block notices or otherwise informing them of how to appeal the block. As an administrator you are supposed to be aware of and abide by our blocking policy. One of the things it says there is "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a block that may be controversial, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." Either you ignored this advice, or even worse you had no doubt that these two outrageous blocks were justified by the one edit a piece these accounts made. It seems you lack either the policy knowledge or the judgement to determine when to block and when not to. Only you know which issue caused you to make these bad blocks. If it was your own judgement then I don't know that that is a problem that can be fixed and you probably should just recuse yourself from using the block button and rely on other admins whose judgement in this area is more sound. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot

I just noticed that you moved it to Judeo-Christian views of Lot. While I'm not that concerned over what the article is named I think that a discussion should have been first. The primary reason for having a discussion is that there are a possible 16 other articles with the same titling concern. These are

  1. Islamic view of Adam & Adam,
  2. Islamic view of Noah &Noah,
  3. Islamic view of Abraham & Abraham,
  4. Islamic view of Ishmael & Ishmael,
  5. Islamic view of Isaac & Isaac,
  6. Islamic view of Jacob & Jacob,
  7. Islamic view of Joseph & Joseph (son of Jacob),
  8. Islamic view of Job & Job (Biblical figure),
  9. Islamic view of Moses & Moses,
  10. Islamic view of Aaron & Aaron,
  11. Islamic view of David & David,
  12. Islamic view of Solomon & Solomon,
  13. Islamic view of Elijah & Elijah,
  14. Islamic view of Jonah Jonah,
  15. Islamic view of Zechariah Zechariah (priest),
  16. Jesus in Islam Jesus.

There are 5 other prophets from the Qur'an and the Bible but the articles are differently named,

  1. Yahya ibn Zakariyya & John the Baptist,
  2. Shoaib & Jethro (Bible),
  3. Al-Yasa & Elisha,
  4. Dhul-Kifl & Ezekiel,
  5. Hud (prophet) & Eber,
  6. Idris (prophet) & Enoch (ancestor of Noah).

As an aside the identification between Hud/Eber anbd Idris/Enoch is uncertain.
--Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

   I trust you'll not be offended by my reformatting you for clarity. (And perhaps you said "5" and meant "6".)
   I don't know whether you find it relevant, but the whole picture includes my creation of a new page Lot (Sodom) with the edit summary ‎"Needed overview of common core elements; Still a stub, i expect".
   I assumed that the rename (not a move per se) would be non-controversial, since i found there had been no pertinent discussion of implications of the core NPoV policy at the time of the original naming, and since NPoV is foundational in WP policy and pretty unambiguous. After about 3 weeks, no one has objected to the change (altho you've implicitly questioned the process), so i was probably correct that it's non-controversial and we just differ as to what level of caution should have been applied.
   The asymmetry in the names of other Abrahamic superheroes' articles is not IMO an issue bcz they form a set only in the views of various WikiProjects relating to religious figures; the Lot articles, for instance, are equally parts of sets of articles that are special concerns to projects concerned with sexuality, mobs, geological catastrophes, and tales of supernatural intervention in human affairs; some of them would be better accommodated by names that don't parallel the other Abrahamic-lore titles.
   On the other hand, it is my opinion that the same arguments apply to most or all of the articles you listed, and i would support your carrying out the corresponding work on those you are interested in. You seem to carry admin status, but should there be any technical issues around renames and attribution-maintenance that stand in your way, i probably can be helpful.
--Jerzy•t 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem with the formatting. I suspect that, given nobody else has commented on the name change, any perceived problem is mostly my imagination. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:20-cen

Template:20-cen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vasco Horta e Costa (politician)

The article Vasco Horta e Costa (politician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Three point turn/Standard swap

That was a good move to create Standard swap.

I think "Three point turn" is just one of thosejargon phrases I use all the time as a software engineer of now about twenty five years but is very hard to source. My feeling is it is somewhere in Knuth, but I also though somewhere in Brookes, and probably wrong on both counts it is just very hard to source it even though used every day. Perhaps I invented it myself as shorthand for it, uin which case it may be in a copy of ACCU magazine, but most likely not. Will try and source it some time.

Very good to create a separate article for it, at least it is a start eh.

Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portals view: Technology

Template:Portals view: Technology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Portals view: Technology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foresight (management)

The article Foresight (management) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient sources on which to base a full article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Elonka 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 02:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Obama Administration Miranda-warning legislation

The article Obama Administration Miranda-warning legislation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The executive cannot introduce legislation. In any case, source is primary and lack of attention from independent, reliable secondary sources means that this topic is not notable. See also WP:CRYSTAL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Penetrant vs. penetrating item

Alter: Penetrant ist der bessere Terminus Technikus in diesem Fall. Ich habe aber vergebens versiucht das zurückzubewegen. Kannst Du mir helfen das zu reparieren? MfG, --Achim (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is my translation of Achim's German-language msg above:
?? [Alter confuses me; "old person" or perhaps "age" would be Alte, and IIRC, Älter (or älter, other than at the start of a sentence) would be "older".] "Penetrant" is the better terminus technicus [IMO, a Germanized spelling of a Latin term] in this case. I have tried [I assume versiucht is a typo for versucht.] in vain [I'm vague abt the meaning of vergebens, but it fits and sounds a bit familiar.] to put it back. [[D]as zurückzubewegen is not what i'd have chosen for "to restore the old version of that", but then i'm not a native speaker.] Can you help me to repair it? [I draw a blank on MfG. (Or would it have been mfG in the middle of a sentence?) It's likely that f stands for an adjective or preposition and G for a noun; meine... or manche freundliche Grüße e.g. would be "my..." or "many friendly greetings".]
IMO talk:Penetrating item is the appropriate place to work this out.
--Jerzy•t 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jaanwar

Request that Jaanwar (1983 film) be redirected as Jaanwar as its more popular than other two films with same name Jaanwar. currently it shows that you had moved the page jaanwar 1999 as Jaanwar.Paglakahinka (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

   I've started a broader & perhaps more populous discussion at Talk:Jaanwar#Is there a primary topic for the WP title "Jaanwar" ? where your further thots would be valuable.
----Jerzy•t 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

response

oho what happened? i did not see your message. it seems you are angry or hurt from your message. i really did not intend to... be clear in what you say. i did not understand what am i supposed to do. 

what you had asked me to do?Paglakahinka (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Response on your talk page.
--Jerzy•t 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Wanted to see what you thought of my comment on the discussion page re: the dubious topic on an oft cited reason for three cent coins going out of production being "confusion" of vending machines. I really want to clean this page up to address your concern. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Sammybenny (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for your attention to the matter. I should manage to refresh my memory & respond, somewhere between 2 and 48 hours hence; i'll then note doing so on yr tk pg, but let's keep our substantive discussion here, in one place for clarity. Tnx again.
--Jerzy•t 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
   Substantive response at Talk:Three-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)#Dubious.
--Jerzy•t 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shahsi Kapoor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shashi_Kapoor_filmography -This contains full list of 170 films of Shashi Kapoor as ACTOR. But that needs to be put in format in wiki page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashi_Kapoor_filmography. I want 6 columns in Shashi Kapoor Filmography page

Year Film Role Actress Director Producer Notes

Can you put all the names of the films and year in that format? Rest of the detials in other 4 columns i will fill up.Paglakahinka (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it...

I note you've moved your new list from "South Maluku" to just "Maluku". I don't understand what you are trying to do. But I also note that List of Islands of South Moluccas actually still exist with my last two edits to that list as the only edits - i.e., it seems I am the creator not you. What's going on? --Merbabu (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, that was an odd sort of edit conflict. Feel free to tag List of islands in the South Moluccas for speedy deletion.
    I can tell you don't understand what i am trying to do. Please stop causing ed confs by trying to undo it, and listen to what i've been saying on talk pages.
--Jerzy•t 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
   Before i give in to incoherency, i should clarify that what i did to List of Islands of South Moluccas was to follow up, in view of your apparent lack of interest in doing so, on my earlier suggestion that it could be renamed and broadened since you did not like that title. You apparently had started editing, but before you saved, I renamed it, and in light of it being so new (but perhaps unwisely) specified moving w/o creation of a Rdr since it had been linked to for such a short time. Instead of you getting an edit-conflict handler when you saved it, your save was thus treated as a creation of an article with a name that was not in use, even tho you'd started from my revision (which was no longer at that title).
   I'm adding more on my talk page, twd our continuing collaboration. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 09:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
   Oh, this --Jerzy•t 10:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)is my talk page.
   What will help me is to know whether your objections to the See also entry on the Dab page reflect in any degree my inattention to terminology about the Banda Sea islands we've been discussing: my assumption was that South(ern)/south(ern) Molucca(s)/Mulaka(s) (Islands) are interchangeable in the context of disambiguating them: anyone using any of those variations may need Dab help, and which one they chose doesn't depend on whether they have used a correct or confused term. Have you been arguing against that?
   For my part, what's crucial here is that, whether they are using one of terms correctly or not, they might be using said term for the part of the province that has stayed under the same name, without intending to refer to the province; that it's a natural term (which we don't have to endorse, and don't, by using it as a Dab entry, especially below "See also") and even if they're stupid for using it, the Dab has to help them find what they're looking for. (I think that will still make sense to me after sleeping.) I'm less interested, for now, in whether you agree than i whether you can either agree or disagree: do you get the question? Later, must go.
--Jerzy•t 10:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld

The article H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary dab

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User1 plus

Template:User1 plus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ucucha (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WPT:V/First Sentence

Just curious why you re-factored my comment on the straw poll at V/First Sentence? I was under the impression that comments came after the !votes in their own separate section, however, I'd have no problem including it as a # !vote if it's a big deal. Personally I thought the datestamp in my sig was evidence enough of when I posted it. Cheers! Crazynas t 04:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

   I also considered just striking it through, thus, since the section has a clear purpose, offering an opportunity to be heard for those who consider the topic not worthy of their detailed attention: your remark amounts an uncollegial, in fact insulting, refusal to let them be heard on the terms of "our minds are made up, and we'd rather keep at our work than trot out again the reasoning that has been persuasive to our proven colleagues for ten years, to satisfy people who appear not to grasp the nature of the task"; you imply not only that your supposed insights about the terms they've chosen to endorse make those terms absurd, but that they need you to explain the meaning of what they've already concluded they agree with. That position on their part should require no response. (And BTW it's also a shame that some chose to half endorse something that was intended for those who wanted to say "no" without qualification, and presumably get back to work editing; I may go back and move them to a subsection for those who sorta want to be confused with those the 1st graph specified.) In any case, one thing i've learned in my 8 years here is that some do have the patience to recruit those who seem bent on disruption -- so i limited my attention to the more acute problems you created.
   (BTW, i have no idea what you mean by !vote, and i don't want to know, tho our polls are not votes: they're opportunities to contribute to determining whether a consensus to establish new policy is likely to be feasible.)
   I construed your remarks as relevant to the 'graph that began the section, and reckoned adjacent positioning as being less disruptive. I urge you to consider reducing the copy of your comment at the bottom of the section to at most an annotation about the material being moved.
   But if you really think it will work better at the end of a section than next to what was explicitly relevant (or better imitate some structure you feel you've been prescribed) far be it from me to dictate you do it my way. Hidden in wiki-comment markup i left some mechanism -- visible only while editing -- for reducing confusion on the part of editors. What i do insist that there be some mechanism, at least for avoiding blocks of sigs in response to the stated purpose of the section being interrupted by your remark,which is the almost inevitable consequence of your formatting: people would sign below your comment, and start a separate list & sub-count of people who intend to agree with Jclemens but can easily be construed as agreeing with your complaints about that colleague's wording.
   Altho the basic point is not the fact that you had no business adding fundamentally contrary marks to such a section without starting a subsection like "Critique of the preceding position", a good solution is for one of us to retrofit it into that structure (i being a candidate only if you consent). I did not consider doing that unilaterally bcz you might reasonably construe that as removing your remarks to further from what they addressed and thereby making them easier to miss, i.e. muffling you; both the logic of the structure and making your criticism almost as visible as what you criticized seemed likely to give you the least occasion for offense.
   (The real basic point is that the way you transformed it was doomed, before long, to causing disruption and misunderstanding, which is why i tried to intervene in what i hoped would be a non-disruptive way.)
--Jerzy•t 07:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your insightful reply to my query, thank you also for trying to keep what you perceived to be a formatting problem that would eventually lead to confusion at bay. Upon further thought and in light of what you said here, I realized that my comment might have been a bit more pointy than I intended, I have reverted your re factoring and struck the comment ATM as an interim solution.
Regarding the comment itself, I feel that the entire subsection (no compromise or change needed) is itself somewhat pointy on a page dedicated to change. The attitude that 'we are right' and 'nothing can be done to change our mind' seems to say you can do what you want here on the sub-page but the 'cabal' will maintain the status-quo regardless. This is also one of the few polls I have encountered thus far that appears to implicitly prohibit Disagree responses.
I realize that this is a topic that people have gone round and round again, although the entire idea of a wiki encyclopedia makes me think (and has for years) of a bunch of mice running on their wheels. I realize that there may be frustration at what some view as a doomed proposal, however that doesn't mean that change can't happen.
Regarding your above reply, I'm curious what you meant by ...that some do have the patience to recruit those who seem bent on disruption -- so i limited my attention to the more acute problems you created. I was never recruited, I found this entire quagmire on the village pump (I think). I don't think that the reasoning in it's current form has been like that for ten years. When I first arrived at WP (2005) "Verifiability, not truth" had yet to make it on the policy page. A !vote is a 'not vote' (see !), I refer to any numbered ':#' poll as a !vote as opposed to ':*' which I consider to be a discussion (see also WP:RFA vs. WP:AFD). I am somewhat a cynic regarding 'voting' vs. trying to reach consensus since I feel their is a critical mass wherein true consensus building becomes impossible and evaluating based on the !vote is the only way (see RFA again). I do appreciate that you were trying to help, thank you for pointing out that my comment as currently formatted would lead to problems. Cheers!
Crazynas t 17:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
   Please don't bother explaining exactly what form of recklessness on your part resulted in your deleting my sig, as i don't intend to throw good time after bad.
--Jerzy•t 02:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
? Crazynas t 02:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please glance at Hanlon's razor, then take a look at [1] considering that your sig did not have it's own ':#' and followed directly after a comment you made about my comment, I thought you were just signing to attribute the fact that you refactored MY comment, so my apologies about reverting that. It wasn't recklessness, I was simply trying to correct (without unnecessarily confusing other editors) a problem you brought to my attention. Crazynas t 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User2 plus

Template:User2 plus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RM-bot minor fault

Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at HardBoiledEggs's talk page.
Message added 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RM bot - multiple move notices

Just a quick update - I've restructured the notice text so that the destination is a bit more obvious, but for now I've gone with "Article name - Requested move". I've tested this on User talk:HardBoiledEggs/0. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of scientific end-scenarios

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of scientific end-scenarios. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - [[:]]. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at [[:]] - you might like to discuss new information at [[Talk:|the article's talk page]].

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)

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

See also Talk:Günther von Schwarzburg (opera). --Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Sinanthropus (genus)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sinanthropus (genus), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. LinkTiger (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dump job

The article Dump job has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a a misplaced dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is an entry for dump job in Wiktionary, so this page should be deleted.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Braincricket (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Larson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Larson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greenmaven (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation mis-categorized

Jerzy, received your msg about my categorization error -- I understand completely, and appreciate your help. thanks! --Lockley (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

   I wrote at User talk:Kermanshahi#Disambiguation:

   Thanks for your interest in WP and your efforts.
   Please study Dab and MoSDab. I assume you care about whether you are editing constructively, and that implies that you have no idea what a Dab page is. You added a few acceptable entries to Islah‎‎ in your next-to-last edit to it, and they are appreciated; however, most of your recent editing to it will be reverted, and it's a shame to see your energy being wasted in this fashion. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 22:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

eliciting the follow reply here:

I have no idea what I am supposed to have done wrong on the Islah (disambiguation) article, as far as I know it's just like any other disambiguation article on wiki. And looking at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, I don't think there is anything wrong the article, either. Kermanshahi (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

--Jerzy•t 07:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking this time.
1.   If you haven't gotten to "MoSDab" yet, it's not that surprising that you'd experience some puzzlement. "Dab" is more about the general principles involved, and "MoSDab" more about specific practices that we've found further those principles. For instance, i grant you that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Dictionary definitions doesn't by itself actually rule out the one dictdef involved here, but Dab alone is not definitive, and MoSDab is much more specific at the section "Linking to Wiktionary".
2.   On the other hand, Dab itself does say at WP:MoSDab#Individual entries, 4th bullet point after the first example box,
  • Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.
which was part of the most visible fixes i made when my summary included "DabCU done", and was what i assumed it would be obvious that i meant when, after your next edit, my summary referred to "forbidden extra links".
3.   Clearly i saved without remembering to add a ref justifying the pruning of your descriptions, in that same edit, and closed the summary w/ "[removing] (IMO) excess description per [...]" and omitted to indicate that the same section applied in that respect as well: the second point you will find after the second example box reads
  • The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.
and if you had gotten to "MoSDab", you should have noticed the clear analogy to the second example-box's struck thru bad-example line reading ""Dark Star" (song), a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead", where rather than just undoing the excess links, 6 or 8 words were entirely discarded: removing such "[(in my opinion)] excess words" is what is meant by "description associated with a link [being] kept to a minimum".
4.   It appears to me one of your recent contribs to the page was constructive in adding 3 relevant links to the page (and the need for -- so to speak -- pruning them is no problem, and part of our "many eyes" collaborative-editing process). That is one of the reasons i want you as a colleague.
5.   I don't know whether you superficially consulted the first page i cited, before saying "... I don't think there is anything wrong the article, either" (and didn't bother to acknowledge skipping the second), or studied them both and failed to grasp their relevance. I don't regard recklessness in editing on the Web as requiring bad faith, so i don't hesitate from saying that falling in the range that those two extremes span appears reckless to me. And along with constructive work you've also been (regardless of your presumed good intent) editing on this Dab unconstructively. Please step back, take a hard look, and figure out whether and how you can keep your work on the page we are discussing constructive.
   Thank you for your patient attention to my regretfully frank words,
--Jerzy•t 07:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Jerzy, I understand what you are saying, what I don't understand is how my edits conflicted with that. See I created that page, and almost all the links there were added by me. It seems from your edits that the explenations I provied for the terms were too long? Was that the problem? And there are not supposed to be any links in them except to the article itself. Because that's not what I've seen in other disambiguation pages, but than again, they may be wrong.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
   Thanks, Kermanshahi, that's helpful. Yes, the key idea is that Dab pages are fundamentally different from articles, including both the aspects you cite, which rest on the need to separate the functions of providing information on a circumscribed topic (altho the links to other articles are an important secondary aspect) and that of rapid navigation to the focused topic that the user was hoping to find an article on.
   I'm not sure what you were getting at in saying "See I created that page, and almost all the links there were added by me." Say more about that if you like, but in case you're not aware of WP:Own, do note that the licenses we grant, every time we click "Save page", give away our content to everyone in the world, with the exception that each contributor is promised that the page history will document the fact that the new material they added came from them. You and i are each entitled to have our IDs appear at the Islah edit-history page, but it is WP policies and guidelines that control what can or can't be changed or discarded, not any rights you or i get for having contributed.
   I noticed several days ago that you've been blocked, which lessened my sense of urgency (tho not my long-term interest in dealing with the matter more thoroughly). I'll save this for now, without trying to recapture the thread of my thots on the Islah matter let alone proceed to the point of being sure i'd responded to everything i can at this point. When (and if) you return to editing, i hope you'll consider our discussion merely delayed.
   Thanks again for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 01:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Toensing (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic (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) 10:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bird dog (person) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bird dog (person) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird dog (person) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CTJF83 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of War Democrats (2000s) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War Democrats (2000s) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Democrats (2000s) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Revising and expanding the "Quaker Universalist Fellowship" article

Friend,

I'm Mike. I'm a long-time convinced Friend (Quaker), and I recently joined the steering committee for the Quaker Universalist Fellowship (QUF). Colleagues on the committee have been trying to correct and expand the Quaker Universalist Fellowship article. Unfortunately, they didn't know about the Conflict of Interest rule. I was advised about COI when I queried User:SwisterTwister, who had removed most our edits because of that rule.

Now I am trying to find someone from outside QUF who would be willing to help us revise and update the article without violating COI. I'm contacting you simply because your edit to the article is the earliest one I can find.

I have left messages on the article's talk page Talk:Quaker Universalist Fellowship and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), asking for collaborative help to edit this article, but it doesn't really look like anyone has been substantively involved with either the article or WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) for several years.

Can you give me some suggestions on how to proceed?

We would like the article to be more thorough and informative for readers, and we are stymied by the COI rule.

Thanks much, Crippled Wolf (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ransom F. Shoup II for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ransom F. Shoup II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransom F. Shoup II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jerzy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"In analysis,...."

Hello.

Please notice my recent edit to Decoupling (analysis). If you say "In algebra,..." or "In geometry,..." or "In number theory,...", the lay reader will know that mathematics is what it's about. If you say "In category theory,..." or "In topology,...", they usually won't. And "analysis" is what Freudian psychiatrists do, and sometimes what chemists do, and sometimes any of many different other things. It doesn't at all get across the idea that mathematics is what it's about. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

   Good, prol'ly an improvement, and hard to conceive any problem; tnx. (If you have the interest, you might look at Decoupling (disambiguation) -- which was what drew my attention to it -- with a similar eye.)
--Jerzy•t 03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of molecular formula disambiguation

Greetings! Based on your participation in creating the category, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Prequel

There is a discussion at Talk:Prequel relating to the definition of the word "prequel". You were the last person to revise the actual definition on the page, in 2009, so maybe you could weigh in. Barsoomian (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited James Fenton (farmer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forth River (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) 10:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Archive_2&oldid=1087647988"