User talk:NapoliRoma/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:NapoliRoma. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bob

I see you've reverted my edit to the Bob dab page, stating in the edit summary that "[the] shilling article mentions the term is used for other currency". I can't see where it does that. Could you please show where in the article it says that? Vilĉjo (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

At Shilling#UnitedKingdom (emphasis mine):

At decimalisation, the shilling was superseded by the new 5 pence piece, which initially was of identical size and weight and had the same value, and inherited the shilling's slang name of a bob.

As I noted in my summary, there's no citation for this on the shilling page, but for dab page cleanup I tend to be a little lazy and by default consider the page being linked to be accurate unless there's an obvious problem (especially since it's inappropriate to add citations directly to a dab page).

Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought you were giving implied credence to the highly dubious claim (in the version you rightly changed on Jan 20) that "bob" is a recognised slang term for "pound" – which would certainly require a citation were the claim to be inserted into the Pound sterling article. The 5p piece, of course, effectively was/is simply a renamed shilling (i.e. 1/20 of a pound). Since the term "bob" was attached to the 5p piece as being the successor of the old shilling – and no other meanings are attested – I wonder if it might be better to say "originally the shilling" rather than "including the shilling" – the latter wording seems (to me) to imply a greater range of possible meanings than just "shilling and its successor". Vilĉjo (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was actually intentionally aiming to be very non-specific as to what currency the nickname applies to, neither mentioning nor excluding the pound. I figured since there were different coins that "bob" was said to apply to, both the old shilling and the new coin not called a shilling, that my phrasing was accurate. Beyond that, I'm certainly not a subject-matter expert. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this bobs and shillings thing, I can definitely say the term "bob" has never referred to five new pence. It was only ever used for old shillings, but the term is still used in an anachronistic way in the UK, Australia and New Zealand as an unspecified term for money - eg, someone might say "I booked that online and saved myself a few bob". The term is also used in Kenya for Kenyan shillings, incidentally. Therefore I think my edit should stand, and I'll look out for any other errant misuses of the word "bob".Gymnophoria (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. I would start by deleting the above-mentioned phrase from Shilling#UnitedKingdom. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the comment about five new pence inheriting the nickname "bob" looks to have come in at this edit.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of computer system manufacturers

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of computer system manufacturers. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer system manufacturers 2. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Peening

If you're so concerned about it, just add "also called Ultrasonic Peening (UP)" to the beginning of the article. But the article doesn't even mention anything about peening, let alone establish that it is a synonym for the topic and that it is commonly abbreviated as "UP". Propaniac (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm "so" concerned; just didn't see any reason not to have the entry in the Up dab page. There are references to peening in the "references" section of the article.

I'd be glad to add "ultrasonic peening" explicitly somewhere within the body of the article. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(more) In general, I see dab entries that lead to articles where the entry in question could be but presently is not directly referenced within a relevant article to be the equivalent of redlinks in non-dab articles -- which is to say, they're OK to be there, as they do help readers go to a relevant article, and they serve as an inspiration to editors to add more content to the destination article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, there was one reference to peening, and the fact that an article cites a reference that uses the phrase X in the title, does not establish that X is a synonym for the article topic, or that the article is a good place to send users looking for information on X.

In regard to the entries you describe, the issue is that, as the dab-page-cleaner-upper, I do not see it as my job to go do research about whether the article IS a good place to send users looking for a topic that isn't mentioned in the article. For all I know, you (or whoever originally added that entry to the disambiguation page) are completely wrong and it's not a synonym for the article topic. Or it is a synonym, but nobody actually refers to the topic as "UP" (the vast majority of disambiguation pages for two- or three-letter acronyms are full of entries for any name or phrase with those initials). What I'm trying to do is clear out the useless entries to make it easier for people to find the content that exists on Wikipedia and that they're trying to locate. Propaniac (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the entry, but when I encountered it as part of a general cleanup on the page, I did a quick Google to see if the term was in use and associated with "UP", which it was. I then found an article that best fit the usage I saw in teh Goog. Minor difference in approach; I don't think it necessarily makes either of us right or wrong. However, when I reverted, it might have been OK to AGF on my part, as I had explained why I reverted.

I've done my share to remove plenty of wacky entries and other clutter from dab pages, but in the end I am more of an inclusionist when I see an entry that's worth salvaging -- meaning that there's justification for why it might be useful to readers, of course. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Frank Roche (journalist) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Frank Roche (journalist), 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/Frank Roche (journalist) 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. NW (Talk) 14:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Labyrinth game box.tiff

A tag has been placed on File:Labyrinth game box.tiff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Labyrinth game box.tiff

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Labyrinth game box.tiff. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Labyrinth game box.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Labyrinth game box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discworld task force

Your edits to Discworld-related articles have been noticed, and are appreciated. A few of us are trying to establish a Discworld taskforce to monitor and improve Wikipedia's Discworld coverage. If you are interested, please go here and leave a comment that you wish to participate.--Mobtown Mongrel (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sun acquisition by Oracle - notice of revision

Hi, I noticed that you've been active in the past on the Sun acquisition by Oracle article. So I thought you might be interested that I just significantly revised and updated many parts of it. It hadn't really been updated since March 2010 so it had missed the big events like OpenSolaris shutting down, suing Google over Java, and LibreOffice. Also the formatting was terrible. But I didn't get to every section and I'm no expert. So if you have input, I welcome it.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: New Safe Confinement

I'm not sure as to whether or not the tag should remain or what edits should be performed, I'm not the best person to ask. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, NapoliRoma. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possessives and contractions

Contrary to your edit summary on the Obama birth certificate page, the possessive "its" does not take an apostrophe. The contractive "it's", meaning "it is," takes the apostrophe. I suspect this is what you intended to say, but this gives me an opportunity to exercise my urge to be officious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right, of course. That's why I hate that you can't edit edit summaries. Well played, fellow pedant.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Stemboat Pirate

Hi NapoliRoma- The handful of historical accounts of the Pirate refer to it as the Steamboat Pirate, therefore anyone doing a google search for the boat would probably use that term. I know the article naming convention for vessels is "Name (type of vessel)", but I wanted "Steamboat Pirate" to be high in the intro so it would be seen by google. Thanks, Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tauriel

Hi. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did with these edits to Tauriel. Sources are not "implicit", they're explicit, usually in the form of inline citations, as indicated by WP:V, WP:CS, et al. Given your experience on Wikipedia, you should know this by now. As for your comment "The implicit source for this is the article for the movie, just as it was when there were believed to be only 2 films", you should know that one Wikipedia articles cannot be sources for information in another one, as this is circular sourcing, and at no time was any information in the Tauriel ever sourced by another Wikipedia article. I know this because I'm the one who wrote it, and if you examine it, you'll see that everything in it is supported by secondary sources, and not other Wikipedia articles. If you want to add material about a third film, then please feel free to do so, but only if that information is accompanied by proper citations. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it would have been better to have an explicit source for this. Perhaps I was guilty of trying to make a point, which was that the article originally did not have a citation for "two part." (It's mentioned in sources you use for other elements, but no source is connected to that particular datum.) It's not a particularly profound point, and I apologize.

(If you want to work on missing cites, the one that's most glaringly absent currently is support for Tauriel meaning "daughter of Mirkwood." I made a brief stab at trying to find one, but didn't see any RS.)

Finally, I think it would have been more appropriate to CN-tag my one reference to "three parts" rather than revert the entire edit. (Ditto for the previous editor's attempt.) Just doing wholesale reverts in that way starts to look a little WP:OWN-ish. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Workday logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Workday logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on MS Surface.) Tuntable (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)