User talk:Alvestrand/Archive1

Archive of Alvestrand's talk page from The Beginning to 2007-04-30

CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I disagree. The freedom of others to express views that I do not agree with is important to me; I believe this is necessary for learning. --Alvestrand 01:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MEINER THEORIE section

Hi Alvestrand. I agree that the ToC of Talk:Albert Einstein looks awful. It was even worse, though, IMO, when it had dozens of separate sections covering the Einstein, Hilbert, Lorentz, and Poincaré dispute, because it was difficult for a newcomer to see which sections were and were not related to that dispute. There should probably even be an entirely separate talk page to discuss that dispute so that people can effectively discuss other content issues for the Einstein article. Anyway, the MEINER THEORIE section is part of that dispute, right, or have I missed something? The Rod 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod! I've tried to push the debate towards the "disputes about..." page, but since Licorne won't budge, it's kind of hard. In my opinion, there should be one talk page for "debates with Licorne/De kludde" and one page for "the rational discussions". But that depends on Licorne's cooperation, which is not forthcoming, it seems. Is it time to archive the page? --Alvestrand 06:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could ask the talk page participants to support moving the dispute sections to the "disputes about..." talk page and leaving only a link to it on the main talk page. If a consensus results, we would be justified in moving subsequent similar dispute posts to the new talk page. However, it has been suggested that somebody first summarize the existing dispute in NPOV terms. Are you up for such a challenge? The Rod 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existing Wikipedia dispute, or the larger dispute about Einstein & co? I've tried to make the "disputes about" (now "Priority disputes about") page as NPOV as possible, but it's hard to make a NPOV summary of a debate between one rabid outlier and a slightly rough consensus..... --Alvestrand 15:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the Wikipedia dispute, but I see the good work you've done already on the "disputes about" page. At first glance, that page appears to cover the major points made in the main talk pages, so I'll start straw polls on the main talk pages to see whether there is consensus to use the dispute talk page going forward. The Rod 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about making a summary of the Wikipedia dispute - I started collecting some stuff on User:Alvestrand/POV-history, but so far, it's more about who's involved than about what it's about.... --Alvestrand 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon69/Fölsing

Alvestrand, see my talk page for the response to your question. Also, as you have contacted John Stachel, would you be willing to contact Albrecht Fölsing (Einstein biographer quoted by CRS) as well? He might be a reasonably neutral witness to ask about the question whether or not the cut off part of the printer proofs is relevant to what CRS claim in their paper.De kludde 01:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'd ask him - I contacted Stachel to hear if he had an online copy of his original article (he didn't). But he seems a little more reclusive than Stachel was. Do you have contact details for him? --Alvestrand 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice comment on the article. I hadn't really realized how much I had on the guy until I started writing it down! By the way -- which Stachel article are you referring to above? If it is the original Corry, Renn, Stachel article, it is available at http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/science.html. --Fastfission 01:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's exactly what I was looking for! Will add to references list! --Alvestrand 05:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have contact details for Fölsing. He does not seem to work for a University, but I think he can be contacted via the publisher of one of his books.De kludde 13:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bell_(instrument)

Thanks, I was trying to edit it to remove the [edit][edit][edit] bug that cropped up in the middle of the paragraph, and sort out the order of headings. Got confused when someone re-edited it and ended up screwing up! Sorry! But thanks anyway. 129.67.53.254 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:De kludde

Something I stumbled across today: User:De kludde at the "White Nationalist Wiki". Just in case anybody had any doubts about motivations. --Fastfission 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's sad when respect for facts is subordinate to bias. --Alvestrand 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alvestrand, could you explain where I show disregard for fact in the WN Wiki articles I linked? You may not like my conclusion of my article on the GRT priority issue, but I point out the facts and try to explain why I come to the conclusion that Einstein probably plagiarized Hilbert. You may not support this conclusion but it seems that you found the list of references useful and accepted the way I represented the facts.De kludde 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have an example of disregard for fact, you may have one in the Wikipedia naming Hilbert's action functional the Einstein-Hilbert action. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Einstein developed this independently of Hilbert, even if you believe the CRS claims.De kludde 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, speaking about political motives, why do you think Renn & Co don't have political motives of their own? After all, Renn published a polemic against Wuensch in a newspaper, with some of his pupils writing an article about German Physics on the other page and Renn claiming that one has to keep the antisemitic intentions of Lenard and Stark in mind when considering the objections raised by Wuensch and Winterberg?De kludde 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main point where I think you show bias and not respect for fact is on the front page, where you claim that Wikipedia has a strong Jewish bias. Of course my opinion on matters like the "reality" presentation in the "ZOG" article on WNWiki is rather strong too. I even object to the term "White Nationalist" being appropriated by racial bigots - I'm white, I have great care for my nation, so I may fit both labels - but I can never, ever use them together, because the Jew-hating, racist bigots calling themselves "white nationalists" have appropriated the term.
All that said - I think you personally, in this case, have done a reasonable job of presenting facts, drawing conclusions I disagree with, and keeping the two separate - something I admire you for, even though your choice to associate yourself with the "white nationalist" label as it is currently used means that I am likely to find very many opinions of you to dislike.
And of course Stachel has a definite interest - he wants to keep his job as "Einstein professor". That doesn't mean he can't be right, of course. I don't know anything about the background of the others. --Alvestrand 15:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alve, Was your suspicion that De kludde might be Licorne based on De kludde appearing when Licorne is banned? I notice after a long silence De kludde is back, while Licorne is banned for 72 hours. Just a coincidence I guess, or did you notice a similar pattern? E4mmacro 01:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partly - but de Kludde apperaed first (Feb 6), Licorne appearing on Feb 12. What I thought first was that 66/69 had created the De Kludde account, lost the password, and then created the Licorne account. But they have been working concurrently at times, and their behaviours are somewhat different, as noted above, so I no longer believe it. De kludde may be avoiding conflicts with Licorne, however. --Alvestrand 06:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: protected Henri Poincaré

I kind of think the protection has outlived its usefulness.... the other page in the dispute, Albert Einstein, is unprotected, and Licorne's edits get reverted pretty quickly when they're undocumented or POV - as is the case most of the time. The protection has also made it impossible to insert a link to Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories, which I think is where the discussion belongs. But if we have to wait until Licorne gives up, I don't know when one can unprotect the page. Thoughts? --Alvestrand 20:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose that now the RfC has started, continued bad editing will just provide more evidence. I'll leave a note on the talk page, and if there are no objections in 24 hours or so, I'll unprotect. For future reference, WP:RFPP deals with unprotection requests aswell as protection requests, if the protecting admin is not available. --bainer (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

care to open the straw poll you suggested, so that we can get our list of Licorne sock-puppet IP addresses refreshed? Or do you think it's better to wait until it's become obvious that Licorne won't respond to his RfC? (I'm not at all clear on how the RfC process is supposed to work...) --Alvestrand 07:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne's IP addresses will probably be investigated as a result of the RfC. Few people have expressed any enthusism for moving the talk page dispute discussion to the new talk page, and a straw poll does not seem very useful if the RfC results in a restraint for Licorne. If you don't mind, then, I'll wait either for more suggestions regarding the move or for the RfC to conclude. The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dean Mamas on altcosmology

Particularly interesting is the following:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/altcosmology/message/120?viscount=100

More participation seen with:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/altcosmology/messages/101?viscount=100

--Pallen 16:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne

This one is really an interesting character. Now, is this the same guy that has been going aroung claining to have a proof that Godel's incomplteness theorems are wrong or is that another one. (?:--Lacatosias 18:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's recent, it's not likely to be the same one - I've scanned the "contribution" log of both Licorne and his 2-3 most common IP addresses, and they don't touch on anything related to Gödel. Guess there are more "interesting" characters in the world... but point me to a contribution you're thinking of, and I'll have more of an opinion.... --Alvestrand 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alvestrand. Some people seem to think Licorne is Bjerknes. In a few places you have indicated that you know how old Licorne is and when his PhD was awarded. What information do you have? A Ph D "Dean Leo Mamas" was award by UCLA in about 1979 or so (this from UCLA library catalog, and I think it has the year of birth). There are three papers around the same time in good journals where D L Mamas is one of the authors. I cannot find anything recent. The "Dean Mamas" who emails me told me he lives near or in St Petersbug Florida. There is an unlisted telephone number for D L Mamas in the St Petersburg phone book. E4mmacro 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fastfission's info is the stuff I'm using - the post where he admits to his name, the PhD record. I'm occasionally mixing it in with my comments to see if I can get Licorne to confirm or deny it. The collection is on my "POV-pusher" page. No really original research.... but it all seems to fit. I felt strange realizing how much information I could find about a complete stranger starting only with his name..... --Alvestrand 08:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a thought, I'm not sure the sockpuppetry charge works. 1. Sockpuppetry usually involves trying to pretend you are not the same person as the other accounts which come in (i.e. to stack votes, pretend there is more opinion on your side than there is), and in most cases Licorne's 69/66 accounts are obviously him and he doesn't deny it; 2. For the accounts which are not obviously Licorne (17/67/64) and could be reasonably considered sock-puppets if they were indeed Licorne, it seems like it would be difficult if not impossible to show that they actually were Licorne. So I think it is somewhat of a weak charge, and probably unnecessary (the POV pushing and insults are more than enough), and might be worth removing just to keep things focused? My fear is that we'll get bogged down with discussions about whether he is or isn't those other accounts, and since the involvement of those other accounts is so minimal, it doesn't seem to be to be worth it to bring them up. It might also look like we are looking for "anything we can get" on the guy, which isn't the case at all (the evidence of his POV pushing and insults could fill a novella). Anyway -- just my two cents on that particular point, though I do appreciate your help in compiling the evidence (I am very busy this week -- I am under a number of deadlines with my own work -- so am only poking in when I get the chance). --Fastfission 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One reason to keep them in the case is an episode when he was banned for a while - he surfed in under one of his sockpuppet IP addresses and did some editing; being able to point to pre-made notes saying "this is a sockpuppet" was a Good Thing. But I'll put a marker on it saying "not important". --Alvestrand 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think you might be right on this sock puppet thing, when he gets banned and whatnot. Might be worth noting, after all. Check out [1]. --Fastfission 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our admin friend is on top of it.... I don't think he likes people evading blocks :-) --Alvestrand 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like he came home drunk and decided to let it all out at the keyboard, now that he's losing it anyway. Sad. --Alvestrand 07:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block case

Someone posted this on my talk page this morning. I responded that it seemed to me that he(she had ben properly banned. But the same person has reposted and has written something about being repressed because of his non-religious beliefs (this is something I take VERY VERY seriously and personally, if true). I have gathered that you are an admin and have probably been around here much longer than I (two months). So I'm asking you if you find any merit in this feloww's complaints or is he/she just being a troll. --Lacatosias 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to ask for your help (or an admin you know?) to help with this discussion. Karl Popper has been one of my favorite philosophers and your background seemed well-suited to assist me.

[[User talk:Eldon hoke].

No, I haven't been around for long either - only really active since mid-December.... I do find the admin's behaviour puzzling, in that he blocked the guy without giving him a day to think over why he was being flamed.... User:Essjay gave him 4 hours to recant, which is a bit less than we've given Licorne.... and I can't find in Essjay's contrib logs any note saying he reported the incident. I'd talk to an administrator (we've got some involved in the Licorne case) and ask whether this is abuse of admin privilleges or not. User:William M. Connolley is the one who's blocked Licorne once, so he knows that case at least... --Alvestrand 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels category listing - definitive list to discuss

thought I ought to draw your attention to the debate about this starting atWikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Novel_categorization. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Interesting! --Alvestrand 12:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note of thanks

No problem. You can see the complete stub template hierarchy at WP:WSS/ST. --Bruce1ee 12:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about Licorne. I had hoped that I might be able to help him, but with these facts it appears that this is quite impossible. Delta 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downbelow Station

Thank you for starting this book article. Just one point: Downbelow Station was the first novel Cherryh wrote in the Alliance-Union universe, but Heavy Time and Hellburner, although written after Downbelow Station, are prequels to it. Perhaps that sentence should be amended to read something like: "It was the first novel Cherryh wrote in the Alliance-Union universe, although she did write prequels later." --Bruce1ee 12:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (I also want to go back and reread the book - I thought I remembered it well, but when I tried to summarize the plot details, I found that I couldn't... how time flies...) --Alvestrand 13:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Cherryh fan editing BCP, nice... ;-) -- Omniplex 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Book

Just to let you know the latest on this is the addition of the Series parameter - which due to no comment either way, I have implemented. Are there any other aspects of the Book card - or any other ideas you particularly wanted to include - before we move on to other things. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make the ISBN go to the magic ISBN page, just like {{ISBN}} does? Or perhaps it already does? That's the only thing I've thought of... --Alvestrand 17:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2's revert

I think I'd have to disagree with you there, the bot didn't catch it on content it caught it on syntax, that filter that caught it has been pretty effective on catching some 50 instances of vandalism all legit reverts. I really don't see how that content would even be relevant on the talk page, looking at the users history, they don't have the greatest record. If you have any other reasons why I should pull the filter, I'm open to them but right now I see the positives outweighing the negatives -- Tawker 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I wanted to call it to your attention so that you could look at it. I'm happy to have you keep the filter on - the specific comment has no value to the world, IMHO. --Alvestrand 09:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm kind of glad people actually monitor changes. Tawkerbot2 isn't perfect, it's about 99.9% accurate and I'm glad people point out stuff that might be in error. I just ran a check on every revert triggered under the rule and they're all good, let me know if any other auto reverts seem suspicious. I've tested the filters in debug mode on a couple hundred edits minimum before putting them in the commit que but the oddball case does come along every now and then. -- Tawker 09:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duty of care

This is a big subject to capture in two sentences, but here goes. In tort, liability in negligence depends upon the court imputing a duty of care owed by one person to another simply by virtue of the activities they happen to be undertaking at the same time, e.g. both driving cars on the same stretch of road. This is completely different from a legislature imposing a duty of care upon a person by virtue of the office that that person holds. The latter duty is owed all the time the person holds the office. The former duty is only owed to those people who are foreseeably at risk during the time they undertake whatever activity it is. Hence, although the terminology is the same, they deal with completely different ideas and so a link in the See also is better. If I had left it embedded within the text, a person without any legal background might have been confused. David91 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seems to me the Duty of care article could use another section, so that it describes both concepts, since they have the same name.... --Alvestrand 09:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Path vector protocol
Unicode and e-mail
Interior Gateway Protocol
X.509
Zone Routing Protocol
Woldemar Voigt
Inertial frame of reference
Crutch
Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol
IEEE 802.10
Distributed Universal Number Discovery
Ray Tomlinson
Alexander Alexandrovich Friedman
Church bell
Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
Mesh networking
Charisma
Bell character
ZX Interface 2
Cleanup
General covariance
World Wide Web Consortium
Metric tensor (general relativity)
Merge
PARC Universal Packet
Multicast
Spanning tree (networks)
Add Sources
CorNet-IP
Sterilization (microbiology)
Security through obscurity
Wikify
Hyperbolic quaternion
NTDR
R2 signalling
Expand
IL Protocol
Programming language dialect
Snake River Canyon

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorne block

I am not worried about it. The ArbCom voted to block him on account of his editing activities, none of which were ridiculous enough to warrant an indef block on their own. Being a POV pusher and occasionally attacking others is not a reason for an indef block alone, of course. However his reaction to the ArbCom is definitely enough for an indef block, and he is not repentent in the slightest (see, i.e., [2]). I'm happy to list it on WP:AN and see what others feel, though, if you are concerned about the procedure of it. Whether he is ultimately reformable (I see no evidence of it at all) is not really the issue here -- the issue is whether he's gone far enough to warrant his never being welcome back at Wikipedia, and I think he's well passed over that line. --Fastfission 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of the City inquiry

Thanks for the question on Soul of the City on my Talk page. It's one of the original twelve anthologies for the series (#8) and is listed on the Thieves World page in the correct location (under "Original Anthologies"). If you'd like to see some more details on this anthology in particular, you can try this link. Let me know on my Talk page if there's anything else I can do to clarify! Cheers, Fairsing 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting World Wide Web

I just created a major rewrite proposal for the World Wide Web article which is currently a shameful mess. As you recently contributed to the debate, I'd like to invite you to join our efforts. This article needs some love: come and submit your ideas! -- JFG 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taynor

_ _ Re yr edit summary on him, good call IMO. I found only 3 hits, all in foreign languages, no WP article linking to the name, no deleted revisions in the blank history for the title, and no internal-search hits.
_ _ IMO, also a textbook contrast with the "Taymor" entry i mentioned in summarizing the edit of the same page preceding yours.
--Jerzy•t 03:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished LoPBN T

I already thot this was great, before i realized how far you'd gone. I'll be continuing to try to catch up with the subdividing of pages and sections as demanded by the wealth of remedies to prior neglect that you've provided. As to what i call the non-section headings, i've been meditating, & experimenting with larger groups at the deepest level, which may or may not strike you as addressing the aspects of your objections that i hadn't tried to address before. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Looks like I clicked the wrong page when trying to revert the Tawkerbot2 discussion history thanks for spotting that. I'll be more careful in the future! ~~ Pete 10:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Thomas

I feel sure you'll be in a better position than i to figure out how the garbled entry i removed got created. (FWIW, i note there was a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Thomas.)
--Jerzy•t 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustaining Collegiality at LoPbN

_ _ Our work together on LoPbN has, for me, been in satisfying contrast to the sporadic structure-related activity of User:Hemanshu starting almost 2.5 years ago. That archive might appear to have lost its context, but the context Hemanshu gave it is complete bcz they never responded to either me or (at least publicly) to User:Angela. (And if you'd to like to see the (long since repaired) context of broken-and-abandoned pages i referred to, i'll dig out URLs for them & point out what happened.)
_ _ (I hasten to mention that Hemanshu has been a prolific contributor of LoPbN entries, and i have no criticism of those edits.)
_ _ Their most recent round of structure edits began with the recent history of a bullet-heading-ed LoPbN page. Experience suggests that their most recent session may be the beginning of a series of sweeps thru the structure, and ignorings of requests for discussion and civility, until active opposition to their aggressiveness are abandoned.
_ _ I would be grateful if you would consider some kind of attempt to dissuade Hemanshu from this disruptive behavior. I think two editors sharing a concern in such situations can be much more influential than one alone.
--Jerzy•t 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped him a note asking him to come talk about it. Let's see if that helps. --Alvestrand 06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C._J._Cherryh NPOV tag

I have added my reason and suggestion to the article talk page here.

Mergenames Dups?

List of people by name: Tra-Tre (but oddly enough, seemingly not List of people by name: Trf-Trz) has an unusual number of apparently identical entries. Could this be a mergenames artifact? I'm ignoring them for now, which may slightly ease your investigation.
--Jerzy•t 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a mergenames artifact. I was fighting a bug around there, and thought I'd managed to not insert any bad ones, but apparently not. I'll go clean them. --Alvestrand 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edits

Your right that it's not worth editing these pieces of text, and in fact they should be avoided, like quotes, template names, image names URLs etc.. The difficulty in doing this is one of the reasons that there are not more bot edits. However I am working on code to avoid these edits, and I believe others may be too, so this should be a thing of the past in due course. Rich Farmbrough 21:16 25 June 2006 (GMT).

Benjamin Chew Tilghman

Hi, I'm fairly certain I got a lot of material from the wheelabratorgroup.com web site but I see that there is much less about Benjamin now than there was. Google turns up a long article, '1993055 A Tribute to Benjamin Chew Tilghman' which I don't remember seeing before which I guess could add a lot to the article.--Rjstott 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The State of the Art

You mentioned back in Jan that you were planning to read this. Have you, yet? My motive is that if you have I thought you could review The State of the Art and see if you want to add anything. --Guinnog 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - haven't even sent the order yet... it doesn't appear to be on the shelves in most shops... --Alvestrand 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans

Well, Special:Lonelypages only lists 1,000 pages at a time and I don't think that's going to change. So to get new articles to tag on the next refresh, I list them temporarilly on my user subpage... this technically de-orphans them, but realistically they are still orphans until actual articles link to them. It's kind of a crude method, but it works... eventually special:lonelypages should just list under 1,000 orphans at a time (less than 1,000 seem to be created per 3-4 day period, which is how often the page refreshes). If I can tag all articles orphaned in the last 3-4 days,the creators/recent editors will be more likely to see the tag and create links. If it's added 90 days later (which is common, given the state of the backlog) the creator will probably never see it.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense. My hope is to eventually move the list out of my userpage to the project space, and also to have the bot automatically remove the template (and thus, the listing) when any article has incoming links from other articles. --W.marsh 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, actually this answers a question I'd been wondering since I started doing this... "Where are all the dab pages going?" (from special:lonelypages) I guess I know now. Did you know that Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages exists? That might be a better place to create links. --W.marsh 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer! I'll move my collection to the common list - pooling resources is a good Wikipedia tradition! --Alvestrand 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for you

The Working Man's Barnstar
This well earned barnstar was brought to Alvestrand today by the letter "T". Thank you for all your hard work! — Catherine\talk 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Alvestrand 01:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-3

... good news :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

A Transwiki is a transfer of an article from/to Wikipedia from an allied wiki (say Wiktionary, or WikiBooks, as is the case here). The article was deemed inappropriate for the source wiki and sent here in the "Transwiki" pseudo-namespace. Articles that appear this way are supposed to be either merged into existing articles, or wikified into a Wikipedia type article and renamed to a proper name. Or deleted if we find that it is not worth keeping.

Look at the

etc.

- 132.205.45.148 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IDEA licensing information?

In response to your message on my talk page:

hi, since you added info on licensing of IDEA to the Pretty Good Privacy article, could you add it to the International Data Encryption Algorithm article too?
Also I'd like to see more details & references - last I heard, it was licensed freely for non-commercial use, which means that I can use it at home, but not at work..... if that's changed, it would be nice to know! --Alvestrand 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have no idea where I recalled the fact that IDEA was freely licensed. A search on Google came up with [3][4], so I guess I was wrong after all. Sorry for letting my bad memory compromise Wikipedia, I'll revert the claim now and hope this won't happen again. :) -- intgr 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American

I noticed that you recently added a link to American here. American is a disambiguation page as the phrase has many uses including a person from the Americas or the United States. In the future, could you link the term to one of the articles listed on the American disambiguation term, that would be great. As an example, if you're linking to something related to the United States, you would input [[United States|American]]. Thanks! --Bobblehead 07:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember. (only exception: when I'm not sure what the original author meant, I'll leave it pointing to the disambig.... but I think this one was just laziness). thanks for the reminder! --Alvestrand 07:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (not an American of any sort)[reply]

Orphan T Project

Hi AlvestrAND, how cool I just noticed where you live totally nice! NO problem helping you finish the orphan T list,when I saw you handling 400 you seemed pretty brave so I thought lets get the batch off the list once and for all.... I don't know about you, but I have to take lots of breaks and only do 10 at a time. Best regards from California Goldenrowley 04:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Unix

It's partly a dicdef, partly a stub, and partly a disambig. I think any could be successfully argued. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Zygosity

You proposed this for deletion. Would it be better for you to merge with Zygote and turn this into a redirect to Zygote? If not, I'm happy to delete.--Runcorn 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan turned up no information not present in other place, and it was linkless. But if you like a redirect better, feel free. --Alvestrand 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: limit

Er, if any have no incoming links from articles and are still tagged, feel free to remove the tag as they're not really orphaned anymore. There are apparently about 50,000 orphan articles on WP, the bot has tagged (almost) all of them finally, it was recently doing some catchup work. Sorry it tagged that one article... you can remove the tag from it. --W.marsh 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well 2 links is better, yes. The bot is working from a cache so there are some mistakes. --W.marsh 15:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The invincibles

The Ashes is also used of rugby league though the cricket usage is older and far better known. The invicibles was a rugby league team. The word 'team' needs inserting, rugby league is the name of a sport.GordyB 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The integrity magazine

I think you should leave a notice for the one who added the copyrighted material, in this case User:Yolodo, so he or she can fix the issue. --Pizzahut2 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Junglies / User:Ewan4me. --Pizzahut2 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I blame my own laziness. In the case of data entered by an IP address or a one-shot userid, I don't think there's much point, though. --Alvestrand 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe you're right, however I checked the instructions and it says you should notify the "uploading editor" before you add the copyvio tag. Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions: "After notifying the uploading editor, add {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}" --Pizzahut2 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't specifically mention this in the case "if all revisions have copyright problems", so whatever you think is better. :) --Pizzahut2 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Add the Maintenance use only text at the bottom of the now-blanked article to the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material" - the text referred to is a "subst:Nothanks" template, so I guess the instructions are clear enough. My laziness.
The reason I've come across a fair number of these recently is that I'm working my way through part of Wikipedia:Dead-end pages/L-Z - pages with no outgoing wikilinks are in many cases cut/paste jobs from other websites, it seems. --Alvestrand 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the kind of user that it doesn't seem to be much point in warning, see [5]. But I've done it anyway. --Alvestrand 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan

Yes, you're right, but I am hoping (eventually) to make "orphan" the main template and "linkless" the redirect, two main reasons: people often think "linkless" means it has no links in the article, and the categories are called "orphaned articles". What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 20:14 9 December 2006 (GMT).

Would be nice to be consistent. Where should the debate be held? --Alvestrand 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Template talk:Linkless is the obvious place, some discussion already. You are now 1968th with 5965 edits (as at 30th Nov.) Rich Farmbrough, 21:10 9 December 2006 (GMT).

Dave Holland (drummer)

In all honesty, describing Scott Travis' drumming as 'crisp' and so on while dismissing Holland as someone with a 'simpler' style seems quite opinionated to me. The truth is that Holland's always been exactly what I put down originally, a groove-oriented player who aimed for the feel, never allowing the drum track to overshade the song itself. I would rather appreciate if you could find a better suited word instead of that bland 'simple' (and if you have ever heard Holland outside of The Priest, you would have known that actually, he could be, and quite often was, anything but simplistic...).

All in all, I can understand that we're viewing the situation from two totally different angles: me an old-school hard rock connoisseur, you most probably a contemporary metal aficionado. I could have very well pointed out that to my taste, Scottt Travis' rather mechanical drumming suffers from a serious lack of feeling and taste, but I somehow tried to stay true to the neutral POV. I wish you would at least keep the neutral POV policy of Wikipedia in mind while doing your subsequent edits on similar issues.

Thank you for your attention, Max Dagger 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - all I did to the Dave Holland (drummer) article was to insert a link to The Flying Machine (UK band), as part of cleaning up that article. For the actual content of the article, I suggest that you Be Bold and fix it up. The article is not in an encyclopedic tone in my opinion; if I ask myself "can I verify the facts from the references listed", I think I'm likely to fail. Check out WP:V. --Alvestrand 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entschuldigung Sie bitte, then - I guess I must have clicked on the wrong version of the article which showed your username as the one responsible for the 'diehard metalhead'-style edits. You're correct about the rather superfluous nature of the reference links, I should invest more work into them (even if I know that no one but myself probably finds this article of any importance). Thanks, --Max Dagger 01:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating WP:DEP

I have at my disposal the means to update WP:DEP with a dump dated November 30 2006. The downside of this is that it is huge, and slightly out of date and thus full of redlinks. Would you prefer I refreshed it now, or waited until L-Z is finished? I'm asking you since you seem to be a frequent contributer to the dead-end pages work, and I want to get some opinions before I just go ahead and add thousands of more entries. Thank you. Salad Days 12:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T'skrang

I split of that article from Earthdawn before I saw in edit history you merged it per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I would like to disagree and insist T'skrangs are notable enough to deserve their own article - they are a major fictional species in the Earthdawn setting, which contains dozens of role-playing books and several normal books.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go edit the "Earthdawn" article then - if the article made it plain that multiple pieces of fiction set in this universe existed, I'd not be as opposed to it - but as the article is now written, it sounds like a single game only - and there are no references in either article speaking to someone beside Earthdawn's publishers and players thinking that the universe is notable - that would be a requirement for WP:NOT, in my opinion. --Alvestrand 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me a msg if you reply to me on your userpage, I rarely check them as they don't generate a 'new message' note for me. Replied on article's talk page, and check external links (poor's man references) if in doubt.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, oops! Salad Days 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOMA

Please check the talk page for TOMA article and delete "notability" tag if safisfied. mixer 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References need to go on the article page, not the talk page.... --Alvestrand 10:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)

You misunderstood my point. Please see the comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations).--Jorfer 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American TESOL Institute

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article American TESOL Institute, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

This is the standard courtesy notice for PROD deletions. I know you had struggled to keep this neutral. --A. B. (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About time. I've grown less tolerant of unsourced articles as time has gone by. Thanks! --Alvestrand 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add a Template:prod2 tag on it. Also, I raised the general issue of spambait with TESOL articles at:
--A. B. (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: American TESOL Institute

An article that you have been involved in editing, American TESOL Institute, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American TESOL Institute. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) --A. B. (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Courtney Fraser

Please don't prod nonsense articles like what you did with Thomas Courtney Fraser. Place a WP:CSD tag instead so it can be deleted quicker. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will try to add those to my tag repertoire. --Alvestrand 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting TheYack.com

Hello,

I'm wondering why you deleted TheYack.com from Wikipedia. I went over the criteria for deletion, and it doesn't meet them. Yes, it's new, but it also has merit. It's the first social networking site on the Internet exclusively for everything literary. It has been covered by Publisher's Weekly, the book industry standard. And it is growing at a rate that compares with older sites. So I think it deserves inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha1906 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Show the references. Everything about Wikipedia is related to WP:V. If it's been covered by Publisher's Weekly, cite the issue number and page number, and say what Publishers Weekly has to say about it. Don't look at the criteria for deletion, look at the criteria for notability, in particular WP:WEB. If you can make an article that fulfils the criteria for notabilty, it will stay around. If not, not. --Alvestrand 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Rusty Robots

Hi, unsure why I tagged it last September as nn, it's a clear WP:CSD#A7 and i've now deleted it. Thanks/wangi 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the database dump anymore; I deleted it because it uncompresses to 8GB. Did you want me to try to recreate Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages? Salad Days 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be easy for you - but I don't think there's a big hurry. If you can think about it the next time you pick up a dump on behalf of the dead-end pages, that's certainly early enough. --Alvestrand 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good! Salad Days 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Gangs

I said it was protested on my talk page, not that *I* protested it. The protest is right above where you commented on my talk page. As for reasonings, none need be given. WP:PROD is only for uncontrovesial, uncontested deletions. A single protest, before or after deletion, is all that is needed to make the article unsuited for deletion by PROD. The protester need give no reason, they simply have to protest. I deleted it, the anon protested, I restored. PROD is a shortcut for simple deletions, to delete without the full AFD process things that can be deleted without going that route. But the ability for a single protest to block PROD is key. If there is *any* controversy, then PROD is no longer the appropriate way to delete the page. I'm sorry, but if you want the page gone, you are going to need to open up a full AFD discussion on it's removal. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I understand - I did not see that you were acting in the role of admin, I thought you were acting in the role of the protester; I did not see the delete & restore in the article log. I've tried to follow the full AfD process (for the first time, so I may have messed up something). Thanks! --Alvestrand 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thomas Chamney

I updated the Thomas Chamney entry which you had flagged questioning his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.1.58 (talk)

Thanks - he looks much more interesting now - but I hope someone can find some references for him soon, too! Verifiability is important! --Alvestrand 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bot stopped?

Hi, thank you for letting me know about my bot. I've been busy with my computer in the past week or so (formatting, re-installing everything, etc) and completely forgot about the bot. I've started it up again, and it should now run again every day. Cheers, Jayden54 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphan Tags

Surely the fact that you state that only incoming links from other article, and not from categories, means that more than half of the pages on Wikipedia should have this tag on them then?? Please respond to my user talk page. Dreamweaverjack 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on User talk:Dreamweaverjack as requested. --Alvestrand 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that you have made on this issue surely means that around a third of all Wikipedia pages would need the orphan tag. My understanding of the category pages was that they were there to group information by relevance to a certain subject matter.
The reason why I say this, is because most people access this website to research topics, and surely the categorised lists are the best way of showing all of the articles which are relevant to the subject being looked for! --Dreamweaverjack 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understading of the wikipedia website was that it was supposed to be an online encyclopedia-type reference tool. So why does it need to use the Orphan tag when every encyclopedia that I have every seen has pages listed alphabetically without all of the topics needing to have links to them on other pages. Most just have a title and a list of relvant articles in the same way that the category pages operate!! --Dreamweaverjack 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Since you've started removing the discussion from your page, I'll reply here) In my opinion, because other encyclopedias have failed to exploit the power of the Web. WP:NOT - Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia. --Alvestrand 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way that I came about the figure of a third is to do with the amount of pages which are already within the orphan tag section!! --Dreamweaverjack 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clear something up, I am only removing the orphan tag from pages which contain at least two items in the category display box at the bottom of the article, as I consider these to be two links. --Dreamweaverjack 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will continue on Template talk:Orphan. --Alvestrand 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages along with dead-end pages today, per your suggestion. Salad Days 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! And the DEP project is helping too - this regen added "only" 200-odd pages to the "T" section, which is much less than last time. --Alvestrand 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles

Not having any in-line citations does not mean an article is non-cited, the episode /is/ the source (the "primary source"), it's "self referencing" to the episode, though I agree that it's going to require some verifiable secondary sources as well. The televisions series is notable, the episode is inherent. --Matthew.

just adding a timestamp here for the archiver... --Alvestrand 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]