User talk:A13ean/Archive 1

Vandalism Warning for Hijama Article
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to hijama, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your continued vandalism without any effor to imporve the rticle has left me no choice. To take the position tht ijaaza has nothing to do with hijama is ridiculous at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksBack (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead link
Hiya. In the External links section of the Boy's surface page, the link to the Java model of the Boy's surface is dead. It seems from the talk page that the link is to a site of yours so maybe you can bring it back to life? Dricherby (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, and thanks for reminding me. I'll try to mirror the site today and update the links (there also was a copy of Boy's thesis on there).  A13ean (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Spin Transfer Switching
Hi! I disagree that spin transfer torque is the same as Spin Transfer Switching. The later term is the technology and application of the first term, which is by itself just a physical mechanism or phenomena. That means these terms are related to each other, but essentially different, like the GMR-Effect is not the same as a reading technology. --Do ut des (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but right now we don't have enough material for a single decent article, let alone several. I think that we should try to develop them all as sections of a single article on spin-transfer torque and related effects/technologies before splitting them up, rather than working on a bunch of stubs individually that share a lot in common. A13ean (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.18.163.239
User A13ean is a very argumentative individual who's been making comments on Wikipedia in several areas that he has very little knowledge in. When the experts in these areas correct A13ean's mistakes and ill-informed opinions, A13ean would resort to childish behavior by repeatedly undoing their corrections despite their reasonable objections. Due to his lack of a business/finance background, A13ean also appears to hold the misconception that Wikipedia is solely focusing on technology. He thereby deletes any reference to anything related to business and finance, calling them advertising. If he has it his way, he would probably remove the Wikipedia webpages IBM, Microsoft, Apples, etc. because they are also "advertising"!

A13ean's dedication to Wikipedia is appreciated but he must understand that he should defer to the experts in the areas that he has little knowledge in. This is the only way to make Wikipedia more informative and accurate.

A13ean: please let us know which areas above and below you're a practicing expert in? Remember you cannot be experts in all of them simultaneously. It also appears you have no background in business or finance so you're not in a position to comment on those. Please don't ruin Wikipedia for non-technical people. It's not your personal technology website. — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on User:A13ean&#32;([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:A13ean&diff=prev&oldid=446097470 diff])&#32;by 75.18.163.239 (talk&sdot;contribs)&#32;00:26, August 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly is this section for? Are multiple people using this account?  This section is very confusing as it appears that you wrote it to yourself.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. The IP left it on your userpage and you moved it here.  Makes sense.  If you end up having to move someone's comments in this sort of case, unsigned or more specifically Quotedfrom can be put at the end of the text to make it more clear.  I'll make sure it's clear.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't realize there was a special template for this -- if it ever happens again in the future I'll use it. A13ean (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit: and just to clarify, this is someone who was upset about something else and is unrelated to the Resource Space Model stuff.  A13ean (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI
You have created a report at WP:COIN and provided zero evidence of a conflict of interest. Accusing someone of having a conflict of interest while providing no evidence can be considered a personal attack. Please come back to coin an provide evidence of a COI. A diff that shows where the person claims to have a close connection with the subject that they're editing would be best.  Ol Yeller Talktome 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm full of all sorts of fail this morning. I see that the evidence was provided in the section below the first report.  Sorry for the mistake.  I'll be more careful in the future.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem - sorry I screwed up the template. I originally posted it to the wrong noticeboard and was moving it over.  A13ean (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource Space Model
Hello, I just noticed that your tags were removed a second time without comment. They seemed valid complaints so I tried again. I had run across this same article from a different direction. It does look like a valid research area, but the term seems to be used only by one professor and probably students in the same group. I started merging a mention into Faceted classification which seems might be the general topic. Does this make sense? That is, it seems a valid approach to this problem, but until some source outside the group adopts the term, it seems somewhat of a neologism.

A related discussion is in Articles for deletion/Knowledge Grid if you want to help resolve that. Thanks for any help. W Nowicki (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am still unconvinced that this work even merits a mention in the faceted classification article, but will gladly defer to whatever you think is best.  Cheers, A13ean (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

3O
How come the guidelines are not to sign posts, yet the example (at the top of the section) includes four tildes? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The example actually includes five tildes which resolves to a date but not a name. (I also miscounted and listed signed the first post I made there by accident.)   A13ean (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, thank you so much for the clarification [[Image:Smile.svg]] Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tungsten
Hi A13ean, do you have a good ref for the use of tungsten as superconductor in circuits?--Stone (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew I should have added some in for that but just ran out of time. I'll add a few in now.  (Tungsten contacts are commonly used to make superconducting contacts to a lot of different materials since they can easily be deposited by FIB).  Cheers A13ean (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Help! My article is listed for speedy deletion, and I can't get into the page
Hi, A13ean- you recently commented on my page -Engin Akyurek - an actor in Turkey; my friends and I are trying to provide information on this actor, and we have used pictures and such that we have found on the internet, the TV station that this particular actor is currently playing on, and also screen shots from various scenes from the show he is currently playing in.

I am getting all kinds of notices that the article is targeted for deletion, but all of the information we have found has been from open sources, ie; the TV station's general site, from newspapers, etc. and we have included all the references from these sites.

But, we are finding Wiki to be incredibly confusing, and are having a tough time determining what is correct and what is not.

Thank you. Infuzein (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Infuzein, there's a few issues regarding the Engin Akyurek page.


 * First of all, it's unclear if he is meets the wikipedia notability guidelines. Wikipedia requires that a person is covered in secondary sources like news articles, and not just in the form of lists.  For example, an article dedicated to Engin would be a good source, but an article about one of the shows that he has been in but just briefly mentions the actors name does not.  Unfortunately I don't speak Turkish, but as far as I can tell there are not any articles linked which are primarily about him, and are not just a short entry of facts.  If there is one that is all about him I would appreciate if you could link to it here.


 * Second of all, there was a problem with the images that you added to the page. In almost all cases, you can't just upload an image to wikipedia that appears on a commercial web site, because it violates their copyright.  This is true even when the images are easily accessible.  That being said, if you have any images of Engin that you personally took, you would be free to upload those to the web site.  Similarly, if you can find an image that has been made free for general use, you could upload that, but those are often hard to find.  You can read more about this here.


 * I hope this helps; let me know if you have any more questions. Best,  a13ean (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The List of oldest universities in continuous operation NPOV issue (again)
Hello,

I would like to inform you that the NPOV discussion about the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, to which you participated, was reopened on the NPOVN.

The current discussion is ongoing on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Regards, --Omar-Toons (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quasicrystals
Hi, please just give a thougth to my edits and do read the whole article: the natural quasicrystal has been already discussed at some length and the new sensational finding just confirms that quasicrystals tend to appear in extreme conditions.91.92.179.172 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I missed some edits and didn't realize it was already in the article elsewhere. a13ean (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Misinformed
Hi A13ean,

you recently posted a warning clean up link on Joe Pytka's page, citing that the editor may have a close connection with it's subject matter. HOWEVER, all of the information on Joe Pytka's page is copied and pasted from other Wikipedia pages. So, I'm wondering why are you flagging something that is a secondary source??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.147.50 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Appearing in another wikipedia article does not make anything a secondary source. The descriptions of these commercials that appear in other articles are mostly referenced, while the ones on the Joe Pytka page are mostly unreferenced.  While a page dedicated to a song or music video may warrant a detailed description of the music video, it may only warrant a brief mention on the page of the author.  a13ean (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong.... In scholarship, a secondary source[1][2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Might want to look things up before you start typing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.147.50 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify a few things. I added a COI tag to that article because it was edited by someone with a username matching the subject of the article.  A wikipedia article can not be used as a source for another wikipedia article, as discussed here.  Each article has to cite its own references.  a13ean (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Electoral fraud

 * - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Your desired addition to Electoral fraud is the subject of a BLP noticeboard report - on first look at all the citations the addition imo is undue and presents a possibility as if a done fact - please do not replace the allegations against living people without consensus at the noticeboard - thanks - You  really  can  23:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up -- please note that I did not add the material originally, but reverted it's removal. a13ean (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly what many fail to realize that if content is not in an article and you add it to an article you are responsible for it - that is irrespective of if it was previously in the article or not. - if users understood the ramifications of that they would be less keen to revert disputed content back into an article. Regards - You  really  can  10:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what part of please do not replace without consensus support you don't understand - I have removed your write - it has the same issues as are objected to - no legal complaint - no charges just opinion - if I may suggest - present your write on the BLP report and ask users if they agree to support its inclusion now - thanks   You  really  can  15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This also is not a broad brush to allow any opinionated allegations into the article - I removed it also - its someones opinion and would need attribution. You really  can  15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

True Finns
Your action in the article True Finns goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Comments of individual members belong in the articles of those individuals. The party article is meant for the policies of the party. Those are not statements made by the party. Wikipedia policy is to mention comments of individuals on the articles of those persons: see the article on the US Republican politician Joe Walsh for example. He has had lots of controversies and those are gathered in his article as a section of multiple paragraphs. His comments are not gathered into the article Republican Party. Mentioning comments of individuals in the party article also goes against the recentism policy: those comments are not important on a ten year time span. Regarding "good faith", that section was originally inserted by user Watti Renew, who was banned in the Finnish Wikipedia exactly because of comments like these on the very same party. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the AA article
You are right. I just am very very frustrated with people with agendas on this Website. First I had an anti-Islamic Zionist guy going crazy deleting all of my stuff about Islamic converts (his deletion was overruled like 20-0 when I raised a dispute). Now I look on the African American article and not a single mention is given to the huge multiracial diversity of African Americans. I perceive it as racism, pure and simple, which is why it infuriates me. Please help me return the article to a more racially neutral stage Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the Rashba effect page
why did you remove the "weak-antilocalization" bullet? from all the bullets there it is the most solid one - weak-antilocalization is considered the best way of measuring the Rashba effect... (maybe ARPES is more direct where you can see the spectrum directly...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.87.142 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The way it was written made it sound like WAL was caused by the Rashba effect, which is not true. The section is still poorly written -- SHE is not caused by the Rashba effect either.  a13ean (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sabin Cutaş
There was a rewrite: see here for more background. - Biruitorul Talk 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I read over the COI/N entry too fast. Reverted to your version; thanks for the heads up.  a13ean (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Elsevier
This was a misuse of rollback. Please discuss the edit on the talk page if you wish to see it adopted. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wondering
I looked at your user page and saw your cool spinning thing. Wondering how did you do that? Is this something I can do too? Really cool btw. I would love to learn how to do gifs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I made the original model about five years ago in an old version of Blender (software) and set up a simple animation to generate a bunch of frames, which I later converted into an animated gif (using VirtualDubMod I think) .  The only problem I've noticed is that sometimes the animation breaks when the image is resized by mediawiki.  Blender can be somewhat tricky for new users, but now there's some really good resources at .  I haven't used it much since they redid the entire interface for version 2.5, but hope to get back into it at some point.  Cheers,  a13ean (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Great animation. If I can figure out how to do this stuff too I will hopefully add more lively visuals to stuff I work on here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I went over several tutorials and maybe I'll try a project soon to see if I can do it. Btw I added your spinning diagram to the Blender (software) article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, and thanks! Rendering topological surfaces is kind of an unusual use of Blender, but it turns out it works pretty well for it.  a13ean (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.


 * WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities
Hello,

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thank you.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Probation notification
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. As the edit war over this very material regarding his RNC speech is what prompted the probation, be mindful that any edit-warring over this material could lead to sanctions being imposed.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. I have seen and read the general sanctions, but stand by my 3rd-ever edit to the article ever as not edit-warring and in the general spirit of the RFC.  a13ean (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sure you saw my previous reply . Well, I had to stop editing here three years ago. And may be I will one day. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did, thanks. If I'm ever feeling ambitious and have a few free hours, I might even get to it.  Good luck no matter what you choose.  Cheers a13ean (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits made to Evidence basis section of Naturopathy
Hello, I hadn't gotten any response clarifying my misleading statements so I made a seconds attempt which I am assuming has not been looked at yet. I Saw you made some revisions to other areas I was involved in as well, which I have no feelings about either way (though checking out the ""Naturopathy is practiced in many countries"" talk page might clarify your confusion as to the changes from many to 13). Several or a few sounds much better than 13 in my opinion and I believe would satisfy leadsongdog's qualms as well. I noticed though, at some point that my previous edits from Friday (9/28/12) had been reverted as well. I cannot find any history of that happening and was hoping you could clarify if you had rejected my edits in that section. If you did could you please clarify why. It would be very helpful in my future editing attempts if I knew what specifically was wrong with my contribution. Stephanieaanp (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your talk page post, but since it merits a detailed response I unfortunately won't get to it until tomorrow afternoon. Till then,  a13ean (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming your busy but I really would like to get some sort of explanation for the complete deletion of the NPRI section. I would like to include information on it, basically just that it exists, and I don't want to do so until I understand why my previous statement of it's existing wasn't neutral language. Stephanieaanp (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to know why NPRI was deleted. You explanations of why the current articles, that you left in the section, are terrible sources does not in any way explain why you deleted the NPRI section.Stephanieaanp (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Band mapping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kinetic (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) 11:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

EFT
I took it to SPI but they weren't socks it seems: Sockpuppet_investigations/LJM66, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty surprising.... Dunno.  a13ean (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your post at WT:PHYS about starting some new articles
Hello A13ean. I happened to notice Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics while I was on that page checking something else. I'd encourage you to make a beginning on any articles on those three physicists. Your COI seems rather indirect. Ping me if you do start something and want anyone else to comment. I have some long-ago background as a physics graduate student. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't seem like it's attracted any interest so I will start work on those in the near future. Thanks,  a13ean (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted references
When removing &lt;ref&gt;s using blacklisted links, as you did in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_School_of_Fashion_Industries&diff=531969697&oldid=531969281 this edit], please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind&#32;(e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_School_of_Fashion_Industries&diff=531985935&oldid=531969697 these]). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 18:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I rushed through that one, thanks for the head's up! a13ean (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturopathy as Pseudoscience
Hi there, I saw your comment about Naturopathy on the talk page for List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and thought it would be a good addition. Lukekfreeman (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot all about that, thanks for the reminder! I'll add it now.  Cheers, a13ean (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf schools growth chart
Thanks for the offer to recreate this. I've recollected much of the data for it. See the uploaded data here. I appreciate this! hgilbert (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've discovered a very reliable source, Zander's 2000 page habilitation thesis. I've added a significant chunk of data, and it now gives a full picture. hgilbert (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I should be able to get to it some time today. If you have a chance could you write out the full citation for each of the ones used, so I can include them in the information for the uploaded file?  Thanks,  a13ean (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a file with all the data in it. I made a preliminary chart but yours will probably look better. If you want to skip the 1979 data point, you are welcome to; it is so far from the 1981 value given by Zander that I'm suspicious.

hgilbert (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm getting a 404 on the last link, will try to see if I can hunt it down in a few unless you have it handy. I'm trying to see if I can get abbreviated versions of all the refs in the plot, but failing that, will make something like the above with the points labeled by what ref they are sourced by.  a13ean (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Try this: updatedhgilbert (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The number is different in this file: 1023. hgilbert (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While searching for this I discovered and added a data point for 2005. hgilbert (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Several new data points from Ullrich, Rudolf Steiner, another reliable source. With the new points, he curve is now reasonably smooth, except for the 1979 outlying value from a less secure source. I've commented this outlier out in the data file; you can see it by editing the file. hgilbert (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

one that uses your most recent data set minus the point for '79, I'll fill in which references go to which points on the article talk when I have a chance later in the day. Cheers a13ean (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the file description has been updated. Originally I thought it would be good to include ref links in the caption like a), but I guess if anyone wants to track down the sources they can just click-through to the full-size image.  Does the plot look OK, or is there anything you would like to change?  a13ean (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I wonder if the letters are more distracting then useful if that to which they refer is not visible on the page. What if we left them off and added to the file description refs a list of the years for which each provided data? This would be complete documentation without clutter on the page.hgilbert (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah should be fine as long as people can find the full list somewhere. Here's File:Growth_of_Waldorf_Schools_Worldwide_without_annotation.png which links to the first one in the description.  a13ean (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * just saw this. I put the original file up in the meantime; I will copy the data from the talk page and then link to your graph. hgilbert (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification about reliable sources for Waldorf education
I am requesting clarification of the arbitration ruling on reliable sources at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. You may want to add any thoughts on the subject there. hgilbert (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf / Arbcom
Hi! Yes I am concerned, and would like to ask for a review. But I'm not clear what (technically) I should do to achieve this. Which page should I edit and how? Alexbrn talk 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I have never done this before, but previously received some advice about how one would go about filing a similar thing for a different area, although that one is under somewhat different since it falls under discretionary sanctions.  I don't have much time now to go through it in detail, but I would suggest you think very carefully about what you want to say, in particular re advocacy and civil pov pushing before posting anything.  a13ean (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm putting something together. a13ean (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request regarding Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been passed regarding an Arbitration clarification request which named you as a party. Please view the wording of the motion, feel free to discuss the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Known functional dependence
I would argue that using a straight line to connect data points assumes a known functional dependence as much as a curve does. In one sense both suggest possible interpolations of intermediate data values. In another sense, anyone familiar with the conventions of graphing knows that the intermediate line or curve is simply a guide.

Again, thank you for your work -- I'm treating this as an interesting discussion between colleagues, and am happy to go with your version if that's where we end up (as seems likely). hgilbert (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for advice
Thanks for the guidance referring to the Steven Crowder page. I've reached a deadlock with someone who is determined to libel him and is "administering" the page, deciding how long discussions will last arbitrarily and also which changes (ie, when THEY agree with them) are made and what constitutes a consensus. I've compromised so much, practically 80% my side to their 20%, but I won't let them blame the victim for an assault. That's why I suggested yet another compromise, to delete the entire quote satisfying both side's issues, but get NO feedback. No discussion at all. I've quoted the various parts that show that once discussion has ceased that the issue can be considered abandoned and no change made, but I'm just told that "you don't own Wiki and you don't get to decide", yet they feel they do. Sigh. Very frustrating. Anyway, I will use your kindly provided standards as a suggested template and see if I can get some discussion going! Of course, if you want to drop by and see the issue for yourself, that would be more than appreciated! ;) JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Russ George
Thanks for the note, I appreciate the help. I am new to Wikipedia and am working on inserting the proper references. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason McNamee (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Data points
If you're up for it, there are one or two more data points for the Growth of Waldorf graph: 1988: 453 schools. See page 2 of this. (The new 1998: 774 schools data point could be averaged with our current 1999 figure of 770.)

Thanks. hgilbert (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm still trying to remember where I stuck the source file, but will probably find it in the next day or so. a13ean (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

med uses of silver
Ooops! Thanks for the fix. I thought something looked fishy. Desoto10 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, sorry I didn't also stick your comment back at the same time, I was on my way out. Cheers,  a13ean (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield
Hello A13ean. Did you inadvertently [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Wakefield&diff=prev&oldid=545256139 leave your signature in the Andrew Wakefield article]? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like I did, sorry about that. The moral of the story is that I shouldn't try to make even the most simple of reverts over my phone =/.  Thanks for the head's up, a13ean (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits
I spent a lot of time researching information and citing it only to have it removed?? I have personally experienced this so it does fall close to my heart. My girls experienced TTTS almost 18 years ago. I do not work for any association or Dr. and I am not promoting one group. The information from the TTTS Foundation page was removed and I feel that was a lot of good information from a reliable source. Amanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allong3s (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Predatory journals
I like your idea about creating an article on the fake/predatory journals. I'd be grateful if you could let me know when you've done it -- I'd be interested in helping develop it. thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be a day or so but I'll let you know here. Cheers a13ean (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a first draft up at User:A13ean/Predatory open access publishers and journals (although I now feel that the best name would be Predatory and open access publishers -- Nomo and anyone else reading this should feel free to edit it as they se fit, and move it into article space once it's in good shape. Bonus points to someone who knows how to easily combine references that appear multiple times. It could use a paragraph or so of background on open access publishing, and perhaps some data on the growth of OA as well as information on estimates of the percentage of journals that are predatory.  I have a copy of Peter Suber's book Open Access but I haven't had a chance to go through it for material yet.  Thanks a13ean (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a few small fixes, including condensing the refs. I think it's good to go, though I don't mind if you want some additional feedback/input from other editors as well.  But I think it looks good!  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I showed your draft article to a friend of mine, a retired publisher, and he wrote up his own draft of the article. In good faith, I share it with you here, with the understanding that you may or may not want to draw on it:

Predatory Scholarly Open Access Publishers and Journals ("Beall's List")

Predatory open access publishers may attempt to exploit the business model of open access academic publishing by charging large fees to authors without providing historically expected scholarly editorial and publishing services in return.

The term "predatory open access" was conceived by University of Colorado Denver librarian and researcher Jeffery Beall. After noticing a large number of emails inviting him to submit articles or join the editorial board of journals he never heard of, and many not even in his own specialty, he began researching open access publishers, and created "Beall's List of Predatory Publishers."

This included publishers and individual journals that he considers "predatory"[10] in the sense of in the sense ‘relating to plundering’ (from Latin praedatorius, from praedator ‘plunderer') newly available portions of research grants from government and non-profit charities which could be diverted to such enterprises. This diversion is facilitated by the academic's tenure track and career pressures to publish in peer-review journals, with the possible hope that college and university tenure committees might not disallow tenure track credits for such outlets.

Preceding Beall's efforts was the well-known case of a manuscript consisting of computer-generated nonsense submitted by a Cornell graduate student, Phil Davis, which was accepted (but withdrawn by the author) for a fee by one of the open access publishers now included on Beall's List (citation needed).

Beall began evaluations of several possible predatory open access publishers in a continuing series in The Charleston Advisor, a recognized traditional peer-review journal devoted to electronic resource evaluations (provide citations).

Amongst the complaints that may be associated with predatory open access publishing include:

-Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial boards.[1]

-Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission,[2]

-Not allowing academics to resign from editorial boards,[3]

-Appointing fake academics [those with concocted identities] to editorial boards.[4]

-Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals.[5]

-Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control,[6] including hoax and nonsensical papers.[7][8]

-Only notifying academics of article processing fees after papers are accepted.[9]

In 2013, Nature reported that Beall's list and web site are "widely read by librarians, researchers and open-access advocates, many of whom applaud his efforts to reveal shady publishing practices."[11]

Lawsuit Beall has been threatened with a lawsuit by a Canadian publisher that appears on the list, and reports that he has been the subject of online harassment for his work on the subject (citation?)

Criticism His list has been criticized by some organizations which represent open access publishers for relying heavily for analysis of publishers web sites; not engaging directly with publishers, and including newly-founded but legitimate journals.

Beall has responded to these complaints by posting the criteria he uses to generate the list, as well as instituting a three-person review body which publishers can appeal to to be removed from the list.[12]

[edit]Things which probably would go better in the OA article - WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? THE MATERIAL BELOW SEEMS TO BE DRAFT CONTENT

In 2010 Nature reported that two Scientific Research Publishing journals reprinted verbatim papers published previously in New Journal of Physics and Psychology. The authors of the original papers were not notified, and several researchers reported being listed as members of the editorial boards of various Scientific Research Publishing journals without their knowledge, or after confusing it for a journal with a similar name.[13] (Lots of good information on the economics of publishing from this cite, probably best in OA article)[14] Researchers with the Eigenfactor Project have developed an online tool called Cost Effectiveness for Open Access Journals which compares the per-article publishing fees of journals to their "Article Influence", a metric which rates journals based on how their articles are cited (similar to an impact factor).[15] (May be better in the open access article)

[edit]References

^ Butler, Declan (2013-03-27). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature 495 (7442): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a. ISSN 1476-4687 0028-0836, 1476-4687. Retrieved 2013-04-10. ^ "Predatory Publishing". The Scientist. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Kolata, Gina (2013-04-07). "For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ "“Junk Journals” und die “Peter-Panne” « Laborjournal Blog". Retrieved 2013-04-10. ^ Kolata, Gina (2013-04-07). "For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Stratford, Michael (2012-03-04). "'Predatory' Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Gilbert, Natasha (2009-06-15). "Editor will quit over hoax paper". Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2009.571. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ "Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2009-06-10. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Stratford, Michael (2012-03-04). "'Predatory' Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Butler, Declan (2013-03-27). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature 495 (7442): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a. ISSN 1476-4687 0028-0836, 1476-4687. Retrieved 2013-04-10. ^ Butler, Declan (2013-03-27). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature 495 (7442): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a. ISSN 1476-4687 0028-0836, 1476-4687. Retrieved 2013-04-10. ^ Butler, Declan (2013-03-27). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature 495 (7442): 433–435. doi:10.1038/495433a. ISSN 1476-4687 0028-0836, 1476-4687. Retrieved 2013-04-10. ^ Sanderson, Katharine (2010-01-13). "Two new journals copy the old". Nature News 463 (7278): 148–148. doi:10.1038/463148a. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (2013-03-27). "Open access: The true cost of science publishing". Nature 495 (7442): 426–429. doi:10.1038/495426a. ISSN 1476-4687 0028-0836, 1476-4687. Retrieved 2013-04-11. ^ Corbyn, Zoë (2013-01-22). "Price doesn't always buy prestige in open access". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12259. ISSN 1476-4687. Retrieved 2013-04-10. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

Could you please clarify your action?
There is a consensus that removal of this LA Times article will increase the quality of the article. Isn't this is our goal to improve the quality of the article? Why would we intentionally keep references for which there is a consensus that it decreases the quality of the article? Ryanspir (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

arxiv
Hi A13ean. You wrote that there is "no evidence the source is a RS". You can check here that the third chapter is indeed devoted to arxiv. 80.30.0.87 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:SELFPUB with regard to print on demand publishers. a13ean (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RSI
Hi A! So glad to have your good words about this page. I have great plans to develop and expand it. Please check in with it once in a while, and let me know what you think. Laguna greg 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian foreign agent law, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NTV and Michael Posner (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) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon
An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hawai'i
Hey brother - haha thanks! I'll be updating a lot of local Hawai'i pages with both iPhone and non-iPhone pictures. I will admit that I'm somewhat amazed with the quality of the panorama photos of the iPhone! Either way, thanks much :) AlaskaDave (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice - how ever many times you give it. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

McCrory Budget
Extra detail on budget is good. Wasn't aware of it.CFredkin (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Np, all the moral monday stuff has meant that there's a lot more national coverage of NC than usual. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Moral Mondays photos
Unfortunately I do not have any photos of the Moral Monday event in Marshall Park. However, if there is something in Charlotte you need a photo of, such as Marshall Park, I could probably take one.

Speaking of images, I have been working with a mathematician lately and we have been trying to get permission using a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license to upload some images that he created for a WP article. Weeks have gone by and still no response or Ticket# from the Wikimedia people. Do you know if this is normal? Should I just wait for a while longer?

Thank you for your time.Foobarnix (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Pope Foundation references
The N&O article nowhere says that the Pope Foundation supported or funded political candidates. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, the Pope Foundation is expressly prohibited from supporting candidates and may only fund tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities.

Bookbuyer99 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Civitas Action Inc., the advocacy arm of the J.W. Pope Civitas Institute, a Raleigh think tank, is another group that Pope was instrumental in creating and funding. The group has sent out mailings against Democratic lawmakers and has spent $202,000 so far, records show. The group is funded by $190,000 from Variety Stores Inc. of Henderson, a Pope company, and $78,889 from Americans for Prosperity of Arlington, Va." a13ean (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention in that quoted paragraph of the Pope Foundation. Civitas Action Inc. is a 401(c)(4) operation that can't be funded by a 501(c)(3) foundation like the Pope Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookbuyer99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Message from Wikipedicus
Could you please justify this deletion : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhett_Allain&diff=573083735&oldid=573055267

Your stated reason is not accurate. See new section of the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rhett_Allain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedicus (talk • contribs) 11:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review my new proposal for the paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rhett_Allain --Wikipedicus (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

New proposal up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rhett_Allain --Wikipedicus (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the despam on Rebar
Noticed and appreciated. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

CCI update
Thank you for finding and reporting this problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A Zotero userbox for you
Thanks for writing that essay on Citing sources with Zotero! Here's a Zotero userbox for you: Userbox/Zotero -- Djembayz (talk)
 * Awesome, thanks!!! a13ean (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Logged out bots
You might be interested in this discussion. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant this one. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  16:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks! a13ean (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edits?
Hi, a question re Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I follow quite a few areas of WP I find too distasteful to edit in directly, this and TM being prime examples. I stand by the general sense of jps's comment, which is that while QG is abrasive, I find it unfortunate that WP allows editors who continue to promote their pet fringe theories to edit here.  I prefer not to discuss this any further.  a13ean (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YOLO (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) 08:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request concerning you
I have named you as a user affected by this Amendment request. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request in which you were named as a party
Hi A13ean, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the motion proposed regarding Pete K has been passed by the Arbitration Committee and the amendment request has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Steiner Roman Surface and other animations.
I have enjoyed your contributions to Wikipedia. I am especially interested in what tools you used for your Steiner animation. I would also appreciate a copy of the source code or script that you used to generate the animation. Thanks, Softcafe (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The short answer is that I made a simple low-vertex model of the surface in Blender, turned the subdivision way up, and animated it spinning around.  I don't know if the source I have will work in the most recent version of Blender, but if you email me I will be glad to send it to you.  (If I don't answer in a few days let me know here, something went wrong).  Same thing goes for the Boy's surface model.  Cheers -A

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 10:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)