User talk:Dominus/Archive (2009)


"Gadomski spam"

I'm not sure what you mean by "spam." I don't see the same editor adding this information. Do you mean that the sources are not reliable, or that it's been refuted perhaps? --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gadomski habitually adds many references to his own work, which is either unpublished or self-published. The additions always come from his own computers at enea.it. If I have erroneously removed a reference to Gadomski's work that was definitely added by someone else, please revert the change. —Dominus (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to go through them. I just wanted to point out that removal of sourced information like this should be done with care. Minimally, the editors that added the information should be notified. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The "sources" are in almost all cases self-published papers hosted on Gadomski's own servers. I agree that I should have used greater care in choosing what to delete, and I promise to use more in the future. —Dominus (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
To Dominus: What's your search string for "Gadomski spam". I only remove it from articles where it's not clearly relevant, but I think some of the edits you've reverted wouldn't trigger my filter.
To Ronz: As Dominus points out, almost all the additions are from IP addresses at enea.it, now that his primary account has been blocked for spamming. I think it's safe to say that they are all him, or possibly his colleagues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have suspected for some time that User:Overix is a Gadomski puppet, since his entire Wikipedia career has been devoted to adding and maintaining mentions of Gadomski in prominent places. I found some of these articles by searching for "Gadomski" (and then ignoring the obvious false positives) and for "TOGA meta-theory", a non-notable invention of Gadomski's that he persists in mentioning. —Dominus (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ribosome.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Ribosome.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC) --Papa November (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sambo

I notice you have reverted the etymology part of sambo. The details given there are valid. As an indian I can say there is no other explaination of the name sambo for an indian name. what is your point of view about the etymology of indian name sambo? Do you have a better definition?

24.7.57.172 (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this up at Talk:Little Black Sambo#Is_Sambo_really_Shambo.3F. —Dominus (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

It is a pleasure. Nishanthb (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A fine summary, I'd say so there except that I am sure that people are as tired of reading me as I am. The amazing interpretation of process of some of the deleters is more troubling than these deletions; I think many may look more closely at CfD after this.John Z (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale-bread rebellion

I got that information when I was doing research on Marmaduque Grove. It seems that while he was a navy cadet, he led a group of students from the naval academy in a protest for the quality of the food that was being served to them and to the sailors in general (as compared to what was being served to the officers). The protest was probably based on the "Battleship Potemkin" incident of 1905. It didn't include people from outside the naval academy, but caused a big scandal at the time and meant he and other students were expelled. He subsequently joined the Army and the rest is history. I will look for the sources, but sadly, lost most of my documentation in a computer crash, so can't find it readily. I translated the name directly (la revolución del pan duro) and I don't believe I have seen any citation in English about it. --Mel Romero (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll see what I can turn up. Having the Spanish name will help immensely. —Dominus (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

I too am worried about the issue of metadata with regards to dates, and am not sure what you were referring to that alleviated your concerns. Since I no longer use this account (but it was the one I used when I got involved with the dates discussion, which is why I'm using it now) and in the interest of keeping the information in one place where other people can see it, would you mind responding on the poll page and expanding on your reasons? Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the reasons in the Metadata fallacy section of the "statement against" persuasive. —Dominus (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't sure if that was what you were referring to, or some comment by a previous editor. The poll page includes a bunch of sub-pages, and depending on which sub-page you're looking at, people might see your comment on a page that doesn't include the "statement against" part. If it matters to you, I'd suggest making it a little more explicit in your comments. I apologize for having brought on the flood of other comments below, by people trying to "counter" my "attempts to influence your vote." Have a nice day! --Sapphic (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I already clarified it. No need to apologize for things other people do. —Dominus (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Dominus! I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. Having one in your userspace could deter unwanted canvassing on your talk page. ;-) You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a userbox that tells people that I do not want spam on my user talk page? —Dominus (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh snap! — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reuben Sandwich

Hello! I have no objection whatsoever to that picture being removed; the photo, which I took a long time ago, before I had a good camera or a good eye, should be deleted. --Polylerus (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Parasitic Numbers vs. Palintiples

Actually, I don't believe I did anything on Parasitic numbers. I think you're remembering Palintiples, numbers that can be multiplied by an integer by reversing their digits. If you consider them encyclopedic, go boldly. I suspect that as nearly* the only source of original research on the subject, it would be in poor taste for me to edit on the subject, but GIYF.

(*)There's some intriguing related work by L. A. Graham, probably in The Surprise Attack in Mathematical Puzzles. I suppose I could edit on that if desired.–Dan Hoeytalk 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. —Dominus (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (a couple days late)

I saw from here that it's been seven years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)