User talk:GDallimore/Archive 7

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Vacuous comment

I'm sorry If I irritated you with my comment on Talk:Steorn. In actuality, I didn't even know where you were going with this thread. But it just had occurred to me much earlier that Steorn could make all possible efforts to create a system that could move for a long time with a minimum of energy input, including using magnetic bearings. So I theorized that if they would go all the way to minimize friction, they would demonstrate their device in a closed box, that could be pumped vacuum, so they wouldn't even have friction from moving through air. And lo and behold, their "demo" used a closed box, and they seemed to be able to power their device with a single large D-cell battery for six weeks (which seems reasonable enough, without breaking any laws of physics). So when I read you assumed the device must be able to overcome air friction, I replied in this way. No hard feelings I hope. Mahjongg (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave up because your statement that "a closed box has no air resistance" (or words to that effect) is, frankly, bonkers. Now you mention the creation of a vacuum inside the box, but this is something which Steorn clearly hasn't done and, in fact, I was quoting their words about air resistance directly, not making assumptions. That just shows you didn't bother to read what I said. Sorry if I get annoyed by such unhelpful comments. GDallimore (Talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Err, what part of "a box...which might well be devoid of air" didn't you understand, so that you did not think I was talking about a box which was pumped vacuum? I had read the thread, but frankly couldn't see the point you were heading to. Why do you assume that "Steorn clearly hasn't done this", do you assume perhaps that everything they say is the full truth? Have you tested the air pressure inside of the box? I was just trying to be helpful, but okay, now I give up "throwing hands up in the air...". With best regards. Mahjongg (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Because STEORN SAID that there was air resistance. What part of that do YOU not understand? Also, if you'd taken the time to watch the videos you'd have seen that the rotor was not in a sealed box anyway. I'm fed up with people trying to interpret what Steorn said in a way that makes sense when they are just talking rubbish. GDallimore (Talk) 01:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I was talking about the "six week test", where the rotor was clearly enclosed in a box (which for the six week duration, might have been pumped airless, so the DC-cell had enough energy to power it). I see now that the february tests were not done using that same setup. My bad! Yes, I did not see the video, (I also hate to sit through Steorn's tripe) or I would have noticed. That is all there is to this misunderstanding. I'm certainly not "trying to interpret what Steorn said in a way that makes sense", I think they are talking rubbish. Wake me up when they have a cheap "home generator" that can create a few kilowatt of "free energy" for nothing. Mahjongg (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Silicon/silica

Hi. I noticed that you reverted by citation needed template in the article on Ball lightning. Please refer to my response the discussion thread on that page. Thanks.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your ANI report

I've replied there, but wanted to be sure you got my reminder about edit warring and the consequences thereof. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but this wasn't a problem with an opinionated editor: it was an editor who refused to enter into discussion and resorted to petty insults as the first recourse. I did follow BRD to the extent possible in that I reverted to the last stable version, started a discussion on the talk page and asked him to discuss it there. GDallimore (Talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook newsfeed patent

GD, Have you looked at Facebook's newsfeed patent US patent 7669123? It seems to me that claim 1 reads on a Wikipedia watch page. Were these around before 2005? (earliest priority date)--Nowa (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My first counter-argument would be that Wikipedia is not a social network. The key point of novelty seems likely to be "limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users", which is also something Wikipedia doesn't do. But I've never done much social website stuff so am not very familiar with the prior art - although I see plenty was cited. I also see they didn't bother filing in Europe. Probably a sensible decision.
Has this patent made it into the news? If so, it's ripe for adding to the List of software patents article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only is it all over the news/blogs/tweets, but there is even a mocking video by "Mosspuppet]" (And I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I would argue that Wikipedia meets the definition of social network outlined in the patent and it does limit watchlists to users, but that's neither here nor there.)--Nowa (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
EdColins came up with some very good prior art. see facebook talk--Nowa (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Orbo.PNG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Orbo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BNP

I see I wiped out one of your recent edits while trying to revert vandalism (why it didn't edit conflict I don't know), feel free to stick it back in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Busy article, lots going on and I think there might be a server lag at the moment. GDallimore (Talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

{{ref patent}} / {{cite patent}} merge

Hi,

I see you've been active on these templates in the past. I've finally gotten around to adding backwards compatibility to {{ref patent}} such that it can be merged with {{cite patent}}, but I'd like to get some further input before making an editprotected request. Can you have a look over the code, or suggest where best to bring this up? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Testing: EP 0123456 
Seems to work. Hadn't thought of solving the duality issue the way you did. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 21:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Intimate Exchanges

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood historical inaccuracies

While I much appreciate your comments and views, I think that it would have been more appropriate to tag the section until a consensus had been reached on the talk page. May I request that you restore the section, with a suitable tag, and continue the discussion on the talk page?--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a consensus on the talk page. Three people saying it should be deleted with good reasons. Nobody saying it should be kept. GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not quite right. There was one person other than myself who was strongly in favor of keeping it. Also, as I've tried to point out in my latest post, I really don't agree that the material is either original research or synthesis, in the sense of Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What I said is absolutely right. When I removed the material, there was not a single comment supporting keeping it. As for your views on OR and SYN - you appear to be in a minority, so I suggest you read up on them. GDallimore (Talk) 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic Telepathy

Please do not move the section on Mind control. I am currently working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.241.179 (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

work on it on the talk page.GDallimore (Talk) 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
As per your notice on my talk page. I have listened to you and determined that you are unqualified to edit the article. You demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the technical processes or methods and should refrain from such activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.241.179 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point - said my view on AFD, we'll see how it turns out. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

UGG Trademark

Hi, I noticed that you are a patent attorney. I made some revisions to the ugg_boots trademark dispute and I'd like for you to check them for accuracy. Basically I added that the UGH-BOOTS mark was removed for non-usage rather than being generic. I think this correctly sums up the decision. Any advice from someone close to the law as to how to improve this entry would be a great help.--Factchk (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Pseudoscience

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikiquette alert

Hello, GDallimore! This is to inform you that a discussion involving you has been raised at Wikquette alerts: "jerk". Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


Sutton Hoo GA review

Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. You have been a contributor to the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork *YES! 10:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

The addition of the words "considered inadmissible" here did not really add much to the article, I admit (and I won't reinsert these words). But your comment "if the opposition was inadmissable, there was no opposition" is actually wrong IMHO. See e.g. Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-iv, 1.2 or Visser, ed. 2009, p. 227, if you have it. An opposition can only be rejected as inadmissible if the opposition has been first deemed to have been filed, and, if it is deemed to have been filed, the opposition exists, even if later the opposition is rejected as inadmissible. It makes at least a difference for the refund of the opposition fee. --Edcolins (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the opposition is at least deemed to be filed, but no comments are made on the validity or otherwise of the patent so it is wrong or at least highly misleading to link inadmissability together with rejection of the oppositon and maintenance of the patent unamended. GDallimore (Talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow Sculpture

It passed many of the criteria, but not all of them. I removed it because I judged it was an inappropriate hook. Worse things happen; calm down. DS (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Steorn

I have reverted your removal of the fully referenced and independent information I added to this article. It was not from a Steorn publication so it is hardly "spin-doctoring by Steorn" as you claimed. You seem to have a bias against balancing this article, evidenced by your earlier edit summary which said "removing Steorn rubbish ". Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by removing relevant material which is adequately referenced from a source other that Steorn. Moriori (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article if you can think of one good reason for including it. Otherwise, per BRD, I'm reverting your edit. GDallimore (Talk) 23:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PRECUT NDA project

Instead of continuing to trade undos with you on the Non-disclosure Agreement page, I thought I'd ask if you'd be willing to help out with the PRECUT "open-source" contract form project. D. C. Toedt 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dctoedt (talk • contribs)

Re:Thrud

Ok, thanks for the reply. I don't have much online time right now, but I'll happily take another look if Sandy reopens (if I get a chance). J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Victoria

Why don't you look for references? Your argument for deletion is strengthened by reporting that no coverage could be found after a good-faith attempt at locating coverage. I gave you hints as to where coverage can be found. If you don't have access to those publications, then you are not capable of judging the notability of the topic. Lastly, don't contact me again regarding Victoria, I am not a 3D graphics artist and I don't have the time to do an acceptable search for references. Rilak (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Steorn

Fair enough, I'd missed those earlier IP comments, thanks for highlighting. Editing someone else's comment to show what they really meant is a bit off, though, isn't it? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not under these circumstances, I don't think, though. GDallimore (Talk) 09:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, I had to check the page history to work out what on earth "fixed above" meant - given that editing other user's comments is so clearly prohibited, I didn't think to reread it to see if it had changed. And I now look like an idiot in my comment, to anyone else who doesn't understand or notice the "fixed above". Your call, though. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. GDallimore (Talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Kung Fu Jimmy Chow for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Kung Fu Jimmy Chow, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Fu Jimmy Chow (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (Pam Northman page move)

'preciate you taking the time to move the article & talkpage. Original title never made sense to me!

best regards, — DennisDallas (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ross Berkal

I know you're good at article deletions. I hunted for references for this article Ross Berkal and couldn't find anything in newspapers, magazines, even Christian-oriented sources. It's possible that there are sources; but even when I did a search with just his name, I went through about 5 screenfuls of stuff without finding anything. Just letting you know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You're testing my good faith again, but it's very easy as long as nobody cares enough to save it. GDallimore (Talk) 14:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
:) My intention was not testing your good faith but rather acknowledging that you have a skill here in the deleting-articles department, that's all, and when I came across this article I realized your skill in this department might be applicable in this case, that's all.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Another dubious article here: Chonlathid Krudthiang. I did numerous passes looking for references in Thai newspapers (in English), with different spellings, in sports publications, didn't find anything, suggesting WP:Notability concerns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't care. I've shown you how to deal with them. Deal with them. GDallimore (Talk) 10:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of free images with nonfree

Hello, you may not be familiar with the nonfree content requirements. Free media must not be replaced with nonfree, even if the nonfree media is thought to be of "higher quality" or the like. However, if you disagree, you may request a nonfree content review to check. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Knowing a lot about sonic

I do,I have been learn about the series my whole life,I been to places like Sonic Retro,Sonic Channel,Sonic News Network,and many more.~74.163.16.27~-a.k.a. Tailsman67 of Sonic News Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.27 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm the guy on the top.~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Delta3D edits

I am requesting your opinion - looking for suggestions on how best to update the content without conflict.

In rewriting the Delta3D page I have found myself, once again, being verbose. Following is an excerpt of a modification that I am working on - in this case specifically related to the "Features" section.

Please comment so I may avoid possible conflict before updating Wikipedia. Note: since I have not updated Wikipedia you can go to the original page to compare.

Draft (verbose):

Delta3D, at its core, is an API to other open source modules. Therefore, the features available are limited to the modules integrated, the operations available to access features, and any "customization" implemented by the user.

As a "value added" product, Delta3D provides a number of options to make use of the features available in the modules that make up the "package". Some are internal (code accessible only) and others external, stand alone applications.

Revised (terse):

Delta3D is an API to open source modules. The features available are limited to the modules integrated, the operations used, and "customizations" implemented by the user.

Users may make use of the features internally (code accessible only), or externally, using stand alone applications.

- again, this is an excerpt, not a complete section or replacement for Delta3D. Jambay (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of being verbose or otherwise. It's about being easily readable and digestible. Phrases such as "value added" are neither, as should be evidenced by the fact that you felt the need to put the phrase in quotes. Also, wild exaggerations such as "If you want to be a game developer, Delta3D is likely your answer; amateurs and professionals alike" are always going to get quickly deleted.
You don't need to be brief to the point where the meaning is hidden. "...internal (code accessible only)" in both your proposals is pretty obscure in its meaning. Be clear without waffle, realising that sometimes being clear requires using more words. GDallimore (Talk) 10:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Yep, going to have to avoid the "flowery" marketing style content - was trying too hard to be creative. As for "value added", it is a common term (i.e. Value Added Reseller), and subjective, as to the the "value", so thought quotes appropriate. The "...internal (code accessible only)..." could be explained as "internal (user generated code/functions)". Perhaps something to refine and discuss once the full article is ready for review. Jambay (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta3D has been significantly revised - need help with "organization", especially the references. Any formatting or content you can contribute is appreciated. Jambay (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Jambay (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As the article stands it's a candidate for deletion. You say you need help organising the sources. There are no sources! There's a few links, but only one of them is a reliable source independent of the topic which provides detailed coverage. The websites you link to might have some useful content on them, but you need to link to that content specifically not the main page of the website. They key is to write articles BASED ON sources, NOT on your own knowledge. If you do that, you will have no problem organising sources because you can add them to the text as you go to show which source that bit of text was based on. GDallimore (Talk) 11:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Software patent debate

Hi GDallimore, you reverted my change to the wording in the 'Software patent debate' article. In the sentence "Organizations should be able to profit from their intellectual property.", you changed the words 'profit from' back to the word 'protect'. Can you please clarify the meaning here of 'protect'? Michael9422 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for discussing this in a civil manner. Most people wouldn't bother. However, I'm copying this to the talk page of the article in case anyone else wants to comment. GDallimore (Talk) 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Dunn

I was in the midst of rolling back those edits you undid and got an edit conflict. I dropped a note to the user on his page before twinkle got done doing its thing and I realized the conflict though. Just wanted to let you know in case you were planning on doing something similar. Cheers.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 23:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Holograms, magnets, and other wearable snake oil

I like your edits on Hologram bracelet, so keep up the good work. Regarding the title of the article, I used the name Hologram therapy to be consistent with Magnet therapy, as there really was no name for the idea. While the name Hologram jewelry doesn't sound quite right, keep in mind that Hologram pendants have also been available, and the original product was sticker to put on your surfboard. Heyzeuss (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not convinved I like my new title either, but I've mentioned in the article as many other forms as I can find on sellers websites and it's the bracelets that have proved the most popular with the public so it seemed like the best and most easily recognisable option. I'm open to other suggestions so long as they don't make even a hint at a suggestion of some beneficial effect :).
I've never come across the news that they originated as stickers for surfboards. Have you got a source for that? The stabmag article is the only one that discusses surfing and the history of the "stickers", but doesn't mention this fact, at least not explicitly enough to go into the article. Some more history behind the origins of the product would be great. GDallimore (Talk) 11:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Free-to-play

Rubbish about WP:EL and WP:OR? Please read the two pages. #1 at Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided is the point that you want to look at in particular. The articles in EL are just links to articles that, as you said, can be used as references. They don't provide unique sites that cannot be integrated as references in the future. These articles can be found with a search engine, just like the thousands of others that exist. And OR, see Wikipedia:Or#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position for examples on what is considered OR. There is little to no OR in the current article; you are correct to mark then as {{cn}} for citation needed for some key facts that may or may not be true, but they are certainly not OR statements since they CAN be proven true or false with a simple search for some references. Finally, regarding the deletion statement, the article would certainly not be up for deletion if the ELs were removed. Please see Wikipedia:Notability; essentially, the article is notable based on its subject and how notable it is based on existing reliable sources, which don't necessarily actually have to exist in the article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to look at your editing style because it is highly destructive and creates more work for other editors. Removing ELs which should be added into the body of an article, for example, is pointless, not in keeping with ELNO despite your protestations, destroys the work done by searching for reliable sources amidst the Internet's crap, and makes more work for a future editor who wants to improve the article by adding in references.
Similarly, articles with a single source are ripe to be voted for deletion, so your removing links makes it likely that someone will nominate it, making work for lots of people to find sources and discuss whether the article should be deleted enough. All pointless and completely avoidable if it weren't for your silly edits. GDallimore (Talk) 14:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL again before stating that it goes against that guideline. In fact, I believe the reason behind not including too many links in EL is so that it doesn't get spammed with many relevant, but ultimately unused, links. Yes, your links can be used in the future to expand the article, but that argument can be made for every single article, since every article will always be a work-in-progress. And the fact that articles with fewer sources are more likely to be nominated for deletion shouldn't be the reason to include more links in an article, otherwise articles that should be deleted with plenty of external links would more likely be saved, which thankfully isn't usually the case.
In any case, if you want to include relevant links in articles, then you should probably take a look at creating Further reading sections instead, which are usually discouraged but still have more relaxed guidelines than External links sections, which generally should only include official links, links that for some reason cannot be integrated into the article, etc.
In addition, you seem to imply that I am just going around and editing random articles to remove external links as I please. If you look at my editing history, then clearly this is the only time I've removed external links from an article in probably a few months, even with a few thousand edits. The level of outrage that you have shown is pretty disproportionate to what was actually done ("need to look at your editing style", based on one edit? "highly destructive"? Really?)
Regarding the links in this article specifically, the first one should link directly to the editorial rather than an article talking about the editorial, found here (that isn't the original link, however; it appears the original was hosted here but is no longer available). I suppose that it could be considered reliable; if the original, which should be hosted at Gamasutra, is found, then that would be better, though. The fourth link is hosted at MMO Hut, which is generally not considered reliable (per WP:VG/RS); the article is short, anyway, and so the Gamasutra and Techradar links can easily replace it. I don't think the last article is from a reliable site, either. The two remaining links should have no problem being integrated into the article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

SODIS important information

Hi! Thank you for your answer. I'm sorry, I didn't noticed that the information was already discussed! I wrote that because I read about generic substances that could be released in the water, I found in particular "Bisphenol A": maybe it is not the case of the PET bottles, but this could be useful for people that doesn't know about "Bisphenol A", and it could be useful to let the people know that there could be risks also for other substances. I am looking for many informations on water purification systems for volunteering pojects, I am not an expert, so I read about UV lamps to have drinking water, I thought it could be better than SODIS, but now I am realizing that SODIS could be more important: both of them could be very useful, UV lamps are more rapid, but SODIS could be useful where there isn't an UV lamp. I "attacked" strongly the SODIS method becouse I read about toxic subtances and I thought it could be dangerous. Now I realized that it was already discussed, so it is all right. I'd like to know if you all could be interested in discuss about this outside Wikipedia, an exchange of informations about water purification systems. I am interested in this, I read on WHO's website that UV lamps could get drinking water with a cost of 2 dollar cents for 1,000 liters of water. OK, maybe I am doing something "illegal", but I am looking for people interested in sharing informations about drinking water, for example, it is very encouraging the fact that with an UV lamp and, for example, a sand filter you could get drinking water very easily. I don't know if I could ask you to discuss about this outside Wikipedia, but I am happy for now that you can see that I writed that information because it is VERY important.
I wrote this to you 3 that I met in this discussion.
If it is not possible to discuss about these systems outside Wikipedia, than I hope that I will write something else that could be useful to get drinking water, and so we could meet again and collaborate for drinking water. --93.150.52.156 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

YEC

Thanks for the assist with adding 'Muslims', I am not looking for a edit war, but it makes no sense to talk about those viewpoints against YEC in the openning, it should not be there. Let me know your thoughts on this..Simbagraphix (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the correct place for a discussion. I've already started one on the talk page. GDallimore (Talk) 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Davison Associates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davison Associates 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/Davison Associates 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. Edcolins (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Two things: First an apology about good faith. Your user 'went red' when I wrote the first reply. Which raised the lights. I don't know why or how that happened. In any case I apologize profoundly. Please forgive me.
The second issue: You wrote 'End of Discussion' until I find a reliable source. I followed your advice. Please see my response on the Davison talk page.
Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

GD, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is a terrible mess. My thought is to let it sit for a month and then dive in and start cleaning up. How do you feel about it?--Nowa (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like one of those "debate" articles which can NEVER be fixed. In any event, it's a debate I have more interest in reading about than trying to write about. Sorry I can't be of more help! GDallimore (Talk) 23:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: ArtistShare patent section - I thought we were discussing these things before editing. Can I add/remove things as well? What is the protocol? Thank you. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the ArtistShare page entry. Please let me know about the protocol for Wikipedia. Who has the final say on matters concerning content in Wikipedia articles once all wikipedia guidelines are met? I thought wikipedia was a collaborative effort. It seems as if you have more authority than others. Is this true? Please clarify this for me so that I can continue my editing. Thank you. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ArtistShare

You moved the patent-related section from ArtistShare to Brian Camelio. I am fine with it, but I am not sure this is fully appropriate. See link to complaint here. I leave it to you. --Edcolins (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given up on both the articles really. The reason being that I think neither of them are particularly notable and they need merging, at least for the time-being, but I haven't got the interest to see that process through. Merging would also solve the problem of whether the patent case is more about AS or BC. GDallimore (Talk) 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... not sure about the merge. Maybe: "The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short" (Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale), although I am not an expert in merging... --Edcolins (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Decision time...

Nowa wishes an explicit keep or delete from you, here: Talk:Brian Camelio#Decision time... --Edcolins (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. After a day I went ahead and made the change.--Nowa (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

HoJo motor

Came across this the other day. There is no shortage of people selling free energy motors on the web, but this one has a great sales pitch in the video. The Howard Johnson motor is not a million miles different from the Orbo wheel, which is also described as a "permanent magnet generator".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's about the worst energy "suppression" delusion I've seen. Some people are just so nuts. GDallimore (Talk) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bells of Aberdovey (sic)

See my post on the Aberdyfi page. As you posted the words, I would appreciate your views on creating a new entry (viz Men of Harlech) on the history and details of the song.Jrfw51 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Languages and literature

Hi GDallimore. You mentioned that the {{GA/Subtopic}} wasn't working properly in your edit summary. Can you tell me what the issue is, I can't see anything wrong. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it works now because I fixed it! The previous links weren't working because the section heading on the GA page is "language and literature", not "languages and literature". GDallimore (Talk) 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It appears you've broken it again by reverting my edit. Go to Talk:A_Guide_to_the_Scientific_Knowledge_of_Things_Familiar and click through to the GA page and you'll see what the problem is. GDallimore (Talk) 22:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the talk page heading so it links directly to the right section. If the template does not match the bot it will not put the article into the right category, it will instead end up in Miscellaneous. AIRcorn (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is the WRONG thing to do for several reasons: 1. as a section heading it makes no sense; the topic should clearly be "language" not "languages" 2. as a section heading it was not what was proposed on the GA talk page, "language" was proposed not "languages", 3. even the GA maintenance bot thinks it should be "language" and has reverted your edit to the GA page! GDallimore (Talk) 22:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with you to a certain extent about the name, but it is what the bot recognises. I don't think it is a big deal, but you could ask Chris G (talk · contribs) to change it if you like. I did a test with the subtopic as "Language and literature" and the bot ended up putting it under miscellaneous.[1] I think this is a more pressing issue than the link from the talk page. Geometry guy (talk · contribs) has offered to help at the templates talk page so hopefully he can fix it so it works properly. AIRcorn (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Good cop, bad cop

Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page, but it was a little disappointing to find that after I'd gone to considerable lengths to bite my tongue, ignore mastodons, assume good faith and be friendly to a clearly upset and confused outside user, you weighed in with a "LOL" about his preferred version of the article, said how it was "unlikely" he could be persuaded to see my point of view, and demanded that he apologise to me in the same outraged tone that I'd tried to defuse from him. As a result, his subsequent talk page response was messily defensive, and mostly about you and your "uncomfortably quick" support. It's possibly even driven him to "take this up with Wiki" (perhaps wasting someone's time at Wikimedia) instead of discussing it further on talk pages.

I know you and I see eye-to-eye on other subjects, and I'm sure we have the same suspicions about what might really be going on with this guy and the helpful third-party sockpuppeteer he's never met, but I think you may have made the wrong call on this one - although he was being massively obnoxious, he wasn't edit warring or impinging on any other editors, and I'd like to think that sheer politeness might have helped him to listen and understand why the article was changed. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Unfortunately, I didn't see your comment on his talk page until after. But, frankly, anyone who accuses someone of acting maliciously doesn't deserve the patience you gave them. GDallimore (Talk) 00:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in my experience, a bit of studied politeness is often the quickest way to wake someone up to how unreasonably rude they've just been. There's also the risk that responding in kind will just send them tromping off to pester other admin or Wikimedia staff, or escalate a trivial issue into legal threats, edit wars or clumsy sockpuppeting, wasting unnecessary time and attention all round. But your mileage may vary. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review update

I've posted here asking about an update to that GA review. Would you have time to work on it soon, or would it help if I said more there? Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been some movement at the GA review. In my view, the article is close to GA, but if you have time to comment there, it would help me decide whether to close it now or wait a bit longer. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As you are previous editor of List of longest novels, I would like you to respond to a call for consensus. Specifically whether or not fan fiction entries should have a place on this list. It will be open for one week; but any and all input is wanted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

ArtistShare and Brian Camelio again...

You may want to comment on this edit. Was there a particular reason for moving the "patent dispute" section from ArtistShare to Brian Camelio? Frankly I don't remember. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. --Edcolins (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Last Exorcism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Agency (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) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Used your image in a newspaper

Dear Sir Dallimore, I am Tam Hanna from Austria, and wanted to inform you that I plan to use the image of Bump Mapping which you have provided in an article in a German newspaper.

If you are interested in shader programming and can speak German, I would be honoured to send you a proof copy. I have credited you as Geoff Dallimore, Patent Attorney.

Sadly, I am not a registered Wikipedia user. So, please, use TAMHAN at TAMOGGEMON point COM to get in touch with me if you have any request or I can aid in any other way!

All the best Tam Hanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.181.122 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
I award this half barnstar to you and the other half to Tenebrae for working together and addressing the title confusion at The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh. I'll take that in good humour... :) GDallimore (Talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sahgal

Any suggestions as to what to do about Sahgal (talk · contribs)? His changes from z to s are a mess in themselves, but I can't find much good and quite a bit bad in the rest of his editing. I think that sometimes he doesn't really understand what he edits, and his writing itself leaves something to be desired. Most of his edits have been reverted by a variety of editors. ANI may be necessary (he hasn't responded to my talk page posts which is a bad sign) but maybe he can be help? Thanks. I'll post this to a couple of other editors to see if anyone else can give him some helpful advice as well. We have an enthusiastic editor, I don't want a block if we can channel that enthusiasm. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't noticed that you'd already posted to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis does not publish Creation ex nihilo. An "acknowledgement" is insufficient for copyright purposes: another party owns the copyright. Answers in Genesis would need to display proof that they hold a licence to duplicate the content owned by another body. They do not do this. Further, duplicating another body's "opinions" do not make them the opinion of the organisation. Copyright violation is serious business on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering the severity of edit warring to re-isnert copyright violations, I have taken things to arbitration enforcement. See here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GDallimoreIRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite patent

Hi GDallimore. Per these efforts, would you please reply to my request here. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail not a good source?

I'm American, not British ... is the Daily Mail really that questionable as a source? HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the worst tabloid in the UK, but it's at the bottom end. You can tell by looking at how many pictures of semi-naked women there are on the side banner if you go to their website. It can sometimes be dubious quality and there are so many better sources out there that there's no need to use it. GDallimore (Talk) 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GDallimore. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 05:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Uniloc v. Microsoft

Thank you for the edits and changes on the page! It was my first time working with patent law cases and Wikipedia as well. The edits made were good changes and the comments made it easy for me to look over them. Greatly appreciate the help! Kevinkgong (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No problems. Good job, just a few misunderstandings of patent law, I think :) GDallimore (Talk) 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Answers in Genesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You won't even bother to take it to the talk page. You prefer edit warring instead. There has been a conversation started at Talk:Answers in Genesis. Engage there or someone will block your ass. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't you read edit summaries? You're the one edit warring and not following BRD. Why not put the article back to its stable version before starting a discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

But everyone's acting like an idiot. How is it possible to make any progress until people recognise their mistakes? GDallimore (Talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)