User talk:78.26/archive2012

Mockross Stream
Hi talk78:26. I am very dissapointed that the article on Muckross Stream has been deleted without being given adaquate time to address the issues raised. I beleive the reasons for deletion are not founded as much as the facts are. The stream did exist and it was difficult for me to source written prove in the short time given to the debate. I have put a lot into local knowledge research and geographic mapping and based on the word of one contributor does not warrent the proof of its existance. The stream existed a lot longer then the 40 years of censor ww2censor. I would have liked a lot more time to prove its source. I am a volunteer with limited time for research and I've put an awful lot of time and effort into sourcing local knowledge on this topic. It will be a travisty if this information is lost for future generations, given its geolical and geographic input into the main river dodder. I would have liked more time to get the proof needed and thus a speedy removal has quenched my desire to publicise my research. I have not deformed nor altered anybody or any place just recorded what I have discovered by local knowledge and backed up by unidentified documentation.

Regards

Sean Brennan Tradmusicman (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tradmusicman, Very sorry this article was deleted after all. Unfortunately, things do tend to happen when one takes a wikibreak. Sorry for slow response, I've been on a wikibreak myself for a good share of this month. There's nothing inherently wrong with the article subject. However, there was no way to verify if your information was correct. You really need to find the name of that book you found the map in, then you've got something that will stick. Please don't give up on Wikipedia, I think you've got a lot to offer this place. I don't feel I've been very helpful, but will do my best to help out if you need it. Thanks for writing! All the best,  78.26  (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith & Montgomery
oops sorry. I wasn't meaning to be accusatory. 98.223.149.135 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Col 3-10471.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Col 3-10471.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Byron Melcher passes
Hello,

I am a close relative of the organ player, Byron Melcher, and see the you were a contributer to the creation of his wikipedia page. He has passed away on the 16th of March at the age of 83. I am unclear as to your relation to him, but if you can help get the word out for anyone that would like to come pay respects, his memorial service is to be in Houston this Thursday and a VA burial in Dallas on Friday.

PerformerGenes PerformerGenes (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cricket Records
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Please remember to WP:AGF in your edit summaries and to seek consensus on talk pages. 50.53.110.121 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Good advice.  However, if you've got a specific instance in mind, it would be helpful to understand what you are referencing.   78.26  (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your recent summary on Billy Vaughn wasn't especially helpful and might suggest (to some, not necessarily to me) a case of WP:OWN, especially since the IP has posted on the Talk page with chart data that seems to warrant discussion, not cursory dismissal. 50.53.110.121 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. That came out differently than I had intended, and I should have been more careful.  I have attempted to rectify on the talk page.  I don't see where he posted on the talk page prior to my revert, but he did subsequently reply to my post, and I hope a constructive discussion will be the result.   78.26  (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Deletion discussions
Thanks for the Barnstar very much appreciated. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Welcome
Thanks! Finally, if I have a question, I can ask instead of guess. By the way, I assume that the typo I corrected by Template:Intellectual Property was just that. I imagine a sleep-deprived editor's head hitting the keyboard in fatigue, and then, when they awoke a few hours later, yawned, and pressed the "Save Page" button :) Nzk10 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's very WP:AGF of you! I would say chances are that it is WP:VANDALISM.  Sorry about late reply, I'm usually quicker than this, but I'll be slower than usual for the next week or so.  Do feel free to ask any questions!  If you need an immediate answer, place "" (including curly brackets) on your talk page, and usually someone will have an answer for you very soon.  Hope that helps.  And again, welcome!  All the best,   78.26  (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's Only A Paper Moon
You're probably right. Thanks for the message. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 13:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oreo
Not that it's a big deal, but was curious as to why you reverted my edit. It's probably an MOS thing I'm unaware of. My attempt was to make the page more aesthetically pleasing by having the outlines of the infobox and the picture below match up, giving consistency within the section. Is there a rule regarding thumbnail size that would prevent this? 78.26 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't look very closely at the edit or your name, and assumed you were an IP making a random unneeded edit. I reverted my revert.--Asher196 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, friend, and thanks for the explanation. It's not the first time it's happened.  I should have put in an edit summary.  Have a great day!   78.26  (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

IP socks
Take a look at the editing history of blocked user 86.151.183.104, 86.161.235.134, and 86.147.11.24. (there may be more.) Does Wikipedia care about IP sockuppets? The editing style of these seemingly related IPs is very similar. My background in statistics suspect a pattern! Can anything be done about these remarkably persistent hoax edits? Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bring it up at WP:SPI. Mdann52 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

plant pathology
Thank you for your welcome. I added a little bit more to the plant pathology page, since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidelight12 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're here! So nice to see good information from reliable sources being added by a new editor.  I'd recomend you take a look at the web citation template.  Also, notice the minor change I made to the plant pathology page.  When citing two separate references to support a statement/paragraph, give separate " " tags for each.  All the best,   78.26  (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing
Hello 78.26, my editing on "List of animated television series of the 1990s", you mention it didn't make sense. I wrote that in the page because they made alot of cartoons in the 90s. Many cartoon creators tooke time creating more animation then. I just wanted to let readers know that fact.(67.171.195.24 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC))


 * Hi 67.171.195.24! Thanks for asking.  Your sentence said "In fact, the 1990s cartoons were best known for the cartoon of the decade due to many of them being on air."  Which decade?  Since no other is mentioned, it is assumed you mean the 1990s.  Unfortunately, that leaves a redundant sentence that means nothing.  Kind of like saying "The color green is the most important color of green because of it's green-ness".  Now, your explanation to me makes much more sense.  However, it still has two basic problems.  The first is that you don't list any source, so therefore it appears that it is your own opinion, and can not be verified.  The second is that this page is a list, not an article.  Therefore, showing that more time was taken in 1990s animation is entirely appropriate (when sourced) in an article about 1990s animation, or about animation in general.  However, usually such information doesn't belong on a page whose title begins with "List."  I hope that helps.  If so, let me know if I can be of further assistance.  All the best,   78.26  (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Now I understand the issue. Maybe I wasn't very specific about the year. (67.171.195.24 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

Undid revision 506217045 by JHunterJ (talk) - 100% of Settlers of Cartan players are male.
Find one woman who plays this game and I will accept your revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.109.167 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work that way. The unacceptable revision is yours, so you can use Talk:Settlers of Catan to see if there is consensus for the ludicrous claim that women don't play Settlers of Catan. Also, see http://techbot.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/settlers-team-in-action.jpg, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1382603/the-settlers-of-catan, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1209741/the-settlers-of-catan etc., etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ is absolutely correct, but I will not reply to trolls.  78.26  (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records
Do you still feel that "CBS Records" as it existed prior to 1991 does not deserve an article? I agree any incorrect links should be fixed, but that leaves: where do we send the 1,300 links that do not belong to 2006 or International. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richard Arthur Norton! Thanks for writing. I'm not partucularly dogmatic about any of the solutions, as they each have their own drawbacks. The biggest problem I see with creating a separate article for "CBS Records Pre-1991" is that this would result in having two separate articles for a single entity, one article for "CBS Records" and another for "Sony Music Entertainment". They are the same company. What I'd really like is an elegant solution. Unfortunately, it's not an elegant problem. In any case, I appreciate the interest you show in the topic. You've added a lot of really valuable, obscure information. 78.26 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation advice pls
When a wikilink goes to a page called METAR (for example) hovering over the link METAR doesn't help you to understand (without clicking) but hovering over the link METAR does. So I thought that preferable. But if Meteorological Aerodrome Report is redirected to METAR you lose that info (the hover text reverts to METAR). In this case should METAR be renamed Meteorological Aerodrome Report and METAR made into a redirect? Not something I think I have the ability to do. Should the full name of an abbreviation be used for it's page on wikipedia (as in Global Positioning System in that way the hover text behaviour can be made useful GPS. --Light.olive (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are very good questions, and I think someone should answer them, someone who is more familiar with aerospace navigation than I am. The general rules would be to consider how the subject is generally referred to.  Do people generally refer to "METAR" or do they generally say "Meteorological Aerodrome Report".  For instance, people generally say "RADAR" but usually have no idea that it stands for something.  If both terms are used, it would be my opinion that the page be moved to "Meteorological Aerodrome Report".  This is what the talk page is for.  I'd post this very well-presented question on the article talk page.  Also see Requested moves.  If not enough people are monitoring the page, and you don't get responses, I would post the question at the helpdesk.  I hope that gives you some good direction.  All the best,  78.26  (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The question was more for my own edification than specific to aviation. I believe METAR is like RADAR in that no one uses the full words any more, but someone might be interested in where it came from and using the hover text to get meaning without clicking can make an abbreviation strewn article quicker to assimilate.--Light.olive (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

talk:genetically modified organism
(conversation publisized at above link)

I want play a game
Here's how this is going to play out, you can live in the New Zealand Wine page for as long as you want, but to catch me you'll have to be there 24/7 because I'll be coming back every single day. I worked on those vineyards in New Zealand and spent over a year petitioing the government to investigate vineyards and contractors for conducting a slave trade and I'll be damned if one arrogant ass kiwi admin from wikipedia is going to tell me what I can and cannot post using my human right of free speech. If you want to stand in my way be my guest, I'm here to stay and you can live with that or spend every day living inside the New Zealand Wine page with your mouse hovering over the "undo" button because you choose not to believe in free speech. How painful you make this for yourself is entirely up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.229.61 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Info' box

 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / GG-J's Talk 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ... and more there now. Cheers!  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / GG-J's Talk 04:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Record edit
Thanks for correcting my edit to the article, I was just about to undo it. : ) I examined my 110 year old Gramophone Concert Record again and sure enough, the unplayable side is not metal. It certainly feels hard and cold like metal, though. A magnet wouldn't stick to it either. CloudsinJuly (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Zizek
hi 78.26

I wonder, does any of the information need to be edited and re-inserted? The writing in question is a summary of one or two academic works that interpret Zizek, rather than information on Zizek's work in general. Is it true that Zizek and Badiou represent one side of an alternative path while Unger is the other? I think Zizek himself would say this analogy of "two paths" which this section suggests is a faulty binary. This is because, with his disavowal of all ideology, he believes that there is no choice but the fluctuation between choices. I am open to discuss the topic though because I am not a professional on the subject.

2602:306:BC30:58E0:E2F8:47FF:FE27:976 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I don't know that the information needs to be re-inserted as it was, but I was thinking something along the lines of "Authors X and Y feel Zizek and Badiou are related because of A, but author Z feels Zizek's philosophy is contrasted to Unger in that..."  That presents some academically published opinions on the subject without the article itself taking a side.  I would prefer to defer to you to develop neutral wording, because I have no knowledge of this subject, and you are obviously familiar with it.  Let me know if there is anything I can do to help, though.  Cheers!   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21™  20:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tarkan
Hello! The IP vandalises the pages. Tarkan never had a Persian name, as he is Turkish. He doesn't even speak Farsi/Arabic. It's as irrelevant as if Barack Obama's article would include his Chinese name, zh:贝拉克·奥巴马... The way Tarkan's name is transcribed into different languages is irrelevant, the Russians also transcribe his name into cyrillic. This i simply vandalism, and reverting IP vandalism is not edit warring. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng  21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Plus this is the n+1st time that IP has been doing this. I'm not going to write an explanation each and every time I revert this vandal. I am pretty sure it is one person doing this, coming from a close IP range. The page was already protected for 2 weeks because this vandal, but he keeps coming back. I wrote the explanation on the talk page. I will ask for a range block against this vandal if this continues. It's getting tiresome already. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng  21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I agree reverting vandalism is not edit warring.  Thanks for the explanation so I understand what is going on, I looked briefly but missed it on the talkpage.  I will also revert when I come across it.  Here's wishing it goes away so you can edit with more productivity!  All the best,   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Nadolig hapus
 Martinevans123Santas Grotto wishes you and yours "Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....


 * How delightful! Many thanks.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)