User talk:Ac44ck

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Safeguards against "trolling for fun"
One of the pages of interest to me, J. Vernon McGee, was made a target of what looks like trolling for fun. An editor made the comment "Tagging is fun, I know" on Talk:Barry_Cohen_(attorney).

Their "contribution" history here Special:Contributions/Mattisse suggests that they indulge quite a bit in this kind of "fun".

I have asked for clarification here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view

But the amount of tagging activity that I see on that editor's "contribution" page seems excessive. And I suspect that it isn't the only case of such.

It occurs to me that it is _vandalism_ under the guise of "policy enforcement".

Is there a mechanism to curb this kind of "fun"? --Ac44ck 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 21:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF
 * Bad faith editing can include ... playing games with policies
 * Tagging scores of pages and noting that "Tagging is fun" would seem to be suggestive of "playing games with policies". Making one's first appearance on a page with a declaration akin to "I don't like what is here, but I'm not saying what would satisfy me.  Oh, and someone else fix it." doesn't strike me as being particularly helpful.  There's a saying that I like: "To criticize is to volunteer."


 * There are also these:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Perfection_is_not_required
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves
 * The article in question seems to fit most of the policy for self-published sources (negating that the "self" in question died nearly two decades ago) except "the article is not based primarily on such sources."


 * The article obviously could use improvement. That someone pointed it out is understandable.  That no commitment to help accompanies a criticism (even to the extent of identifying one specific -- and significant -- item which might have planted the idea for tagging the article) makes it seem less "constructive".


 * Assuming that the tagger acted in good faith is what can make "trolling" so effective. Someone on a tagging spree for "fun" can create a lot of activity in their wake -- which is the goal of trolling.  Finding evidence which suggests that the tagger was trolling seems like a violation of my assumption of good faith.
 * --Ac44ck 21:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can take it over to the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents if you believe they are toying with policy, which they are. This is a case, like you said, of vandalism disguised by policy enforcement. I totally agree with you - there are some times where assuming good faith makes things worse. The article in question, J. Vernon McGee, is definitely NOT an advert.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted twice on the article page as you requested I do

 * Hi! If you are talking about J. Vernon McGee, I did post it on the article page (as you requested) where you requested I do so. Here:
 * Here are the diffs.  Mattisse  01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get a mediator
It is not your article and your opinion is not the only one. Anyone can add or subtract from it. Only unsourced material cannot be removed, unless you have a better source. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean they are wrong. Also, you are not supposed to remove a tag without fixing the problem. Why don't we get a third party opinion? Let's do that or get an informal mediator. How about it? Mattisse 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Time tracking
It does take up time, I know. I spent all day yesterday trying to find information on Barry Cohen who I know is a very notable, if not famous in his field, attorney. However, I could find hardly anything. I even went to the library today. Fortunately, another editor cleaned the article up, took out a lot of stuff that should not have been there in the first place, and the article is much better now. That other editor had a clearer perspective than I did.

I truly apologize for upsetting you. But tags are not a problem. If someone were trying to delete it, now that would be a problem. Many stellar articles on Wikipedia have tags on them. And, as I said to you somewhere else, I tag my own articles rather often. Sincerely, Mattisse  03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see issues to be addressed in the article
I feel that the tag issue needs to be addressed. You seem to feel that because you "see nothing specific to be addressed", that means I am not allowed to address issues in the article that I see. You are acting as if you WP:OWN. That is a problem. The fact that you see nothing to be addressed, when you are disputing with me, is  also a problem, as it is not up to you to determine whether issues need to be address or not. If you do not want an informal mediation or third party opinion, then we can move up to Dispute Resolution. Mattisse 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychrometrics
If you have a question regarding the information in the article, plase address it on the Discussion page. Kilmer-san (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Help: versus Help talk: versus WP:Help Desk
Howdy,

Help:Show preview is part of the documentation for the mediawiki software, especially for wikipedia. Your question was signed, and appeared to be asking for help. Some people do this on Help talk:Show preview, though that page is theoretically for discussing how to improve Help:Show preview. One of your comments seemed to indicate you thought Help:Show preview was a talk page, but the talk page is Help talk:Show preview.

For actually getting help using wikipedia, the standard place is the help desk. It is odd for someone to copy a help request there for someone who asked elsewhere, since how would the asker know to look there. Instead, I just tried to give a short answer in the edit summary.

If you want to get a feature added to the mediawiki software, then the village pump is generally a good place to start.

Personally, I think my workaround is barely useful, so I didn't add it to the help page. If you figured out a way to phrase it to be helpful, then consider editing Help:Show preview (as a piece of documentation). If you think you've *really* got a good solution, then actually put it at m:Help:Show preview (the "master copy"). If you just think someone should, then you can suggest it at Help talk:Show preview, but there are not enough help page writers to ensure it will get done in a timely fashion.

I tend to use citation and harv which sticks the bibliographic info at the end (in the references section), both for editting and for preview, and handles the actual referring to the references in the section where the referral is. Since harv takes short and meaningful arguments, you *usually* aren't worried about getting it wrong.

Since the edit summary is awfully short: my work-around is just to add a tag to the bottom of the section you are editing right before you preview, and remove it right before you save. One could write some javascript to do this, but I think it is probably a little too fragile: people would be adding extra references tags willy-nilly. This is true whether or not some program is handling it, so I think my idea is pretty poor.

At any rate, hopefully this clears up the "misplaced" part -- help page is for answers, not questions, but feel free to ask on Help talk:Show preview, WP:Help desk, or WP:Village pump (technical), or write up your nice answer on Help:Show preview. JackSchmidt (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it to an observation. Maybe I'll try to write up the work-around later.  For now, others who are similarly puzzled by the omission in the behavior of "show preview" will know that they are not alone in wondering why their new references don't appear in the preview.


 * > One of your comments seemed to indicate you thought Help:Show preview was a talk page, but the talk page is Help talk:Show preview.


 * Indeed. I'm not sure how the question ended up on the "help" page instead of the "talk" page.


 * Thanks. -Ac44ck (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tropical rock

 * In these move requests:
 * Tropical rockk →  — encountered name conflict while trying to make article name more complete and swap with redirect — Ac44ck (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trop Rock →  — encountered name conflict while trying to make article name more complete and swap with redirect — Ac44ck (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved the text to Tropical rock; the other pages and Tropical rock - to be swapped with Trop Rock proved to be merely redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for unraveling the effort to swap the Trop Rock and Tropical rock article names. I don't know why it resulted in a name-space conflict. I thought the name would be available after I renamed the article to a temporary name, but the system didn't seem to release the name as I expected it to. It's okay now. I'll try to nominate the two temporary pages that I made for deletion. - Ac44ck (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
When you nominate redirects for deletion, please use WP:RFD instead of WP:AFD. I've closed Articles for deletion/Tropical rock - to be swapped with Trop Rock as being in the wrong forum and have listed it at Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 16. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think those redirects might meet CSD R3. I've tagged them as such. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it
Hi, Ac44ck. I know what you were trying to do - create a temporary holding place and swap them - but wikipedia automatically retains the old article title as a redirect.

If you want to move over a redirect, which is what it's known as, you can go to WP:RM, or just ask an administrator.

Anyway, I've fixed it. Thanks for helping wikipedia, and I trust that you'll continue to contribute. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I'm a computer programmer too, and so I saw straight away what you were trying to do, and that it was in good faith. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Article moved to WP namespace
Is the Bible citation article in danger of being deleted?

The Bible citation was moved to the WP namespace without prior discussion. A 'proposed' tag was added about the same time. I removed the tag because I wasn't aware that the article was (or was being) moved to a different namespace.

I read here
 * http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Non-official_essays_or_proposals

that:
 * A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance is not present after a reasonable time period, for which consensus is unclear after a reasonable time period for discussion regardless of whether there is active discussion or not, or where discussion has substantially died out without reaching consensus.

The editor who moved the page didn't add any comments to the article's discussion page. Their discussion on the issue here
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style

hasn't been especially engaging.

My expectation is that there will be little, if any, discussion about the "proposal" and the page might be deleted for "lack of interest".

Shouldn't a page be moved to the WP namespace only _after_ has been adopted as a guideline, etc.?

What to do now?

Thanks. - Ac44ck (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all it's not an article. Second of all, I would probably userfy it (User:whichever user made it/Bible citation) until it's adopted. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It _was_ an article before it was moved. It isn't an article _now_. And now it may exist in a realm of rules that I am unaware of. What are the consequences of the content being moved to a different namespace? -Ac44ck (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird. If you don't think it belongs in Wikipedia space, you can take it to WP:MFD. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything that begins with "Wikipedia:" should go to MFD as it's in project space, not article space. I was just a little confused because it was off on its own and not in article space or something. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Vector-valued function-2.png
File:Vector-valued function-2.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Vector-valued function-2.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
You know... that helped a lot with that simple external link. ... length, mass, time, electric current, temperature, amount of substance, luminous intensity. All things I've "known" about but never cared to include (all) when analyzing a substance. I know I'm coming off as a moron, but please... Someone uneducated must learn everything for the first time, and you have just opened my eyes. Thanks a million. Robert M Johnson (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Avocado's Number = # of molecules in guaca-MOLE
Hey - just wanted to say thanks for the nice solution re: anachronistically! Luminifer (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Talk:Twilight     13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Twilight     22:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

India claim
YES indeed, a 'Consensus' was reached with user : Strebe not agreeing with you, somebody else asking clarification and the Greek nationalist Athenean duly supporting you. Pls provide the EXACT word sphere as used by any Greek in the citation you have provided for the Greek claim or else I assure you the Greek claim is going to find its way out along with the Indian one. You demand the exact word spherical be mentioned in the Indian citation and yet you do not place such a requirement for the Greek one. Who b.t.w is Dicks, never heard of him, why is he considered so great? I know why.

I am in NY now but growing up in India, and having read and watched the mega-series on TV upon the youngest and the most famous of our Epics - the Mahabharata, the fact that the earth and all planets and celestial bodies were spherical was such a mundane and simple fact to the then people. When Lord Krishna, before the central war of the epic, shows the entire Universe within himself to Arjuna, during his exposition of the Gita, all planets and stars are shown as spherical. Prior to that in his childhood Krishna shows the entire Cosmos in his mouth to his mother, who sees the spherical earth and then that magnifies down to her staring at her son's mouth so that even a village housewife appears to know that the earth was spherical. Of course the Western version would be that the 'sphericality ' was added later but I can assure you the Mahabharata is in all probability at least 5000 years old. Texts that date back to 1000 BC, according to even Western scholars state that the ratio of the radii of the Sun to the Earth to the Moon is around 108 each, which is in perfect agreement with the respective measurements by modern science. But am sure I am Hinduic or New Age to you and all this is falling on deaf ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.227.76 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Context:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spherical_Earth&diff=next&oldid=321939685
 * -Ac44ck (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Follow-through on User:Octane/improvement
That was three years ago. :/ I really have no idea what the context was any more.  Oc  t  ane   [ improve me? ] 25.08.10 0552 (UTC)
 * What was the point of this post to my talk page?
 * First, my post to your page was in February 2010, not three years ago.
 * Second, I linked to what I was talking about. It is now here:
 * Talk:Spherical_Earth/Archive_1
 * You asked for help, figured out what you needed, and couldn't be bothered to fix your typo on the talk page.
 * Pretty simple. And spelled out on your talk page:
 * User_talk:Octane/improvement
 * Were you not expecting someone to help find the error? Now that you found it, please help others to avoid it.
 * How is the context not clear? -Ac44ck (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Geographic coordinate system
Look folk- this page is far to active for me to edit- I am just watching- the text is being stuck together like a chocolate chip cookie it needs overview. I have flagged the problem- I assume that you have now taken ownership. Thank you. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only one "folk" watching this page. If you want to address a more general audience, do it elsewhere.
 * I neither take ownership nor accept delegation of your perceived problems. Your method of communicating the problems was inappropriate. Article space is not a repository for comments. If you have comments concerning a particular article, put them on the article's talk page -- not here. Better yet, if you see a problem, fix it. - Ac44ck (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Extended twilight.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Extended twilight.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Harrell Geron and original research now at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Harrell Geron and original research. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Circle sagitta.PNG


The file File:Circle sagitta.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by File:Circle Sagitta.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 16:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)