User talk:Coren/Archives/2013/February

Kibitzers
I understand that you meant "kibitzers" jocularly, Coren. But you might have known it wouldn't be taken like that, in such a fraught context. Top-down jokes might altogether need some extra consideration, you know. You weren't using the criticized word to describe your peers or those with more wiki-power, but those with less. And if you think power doesn't come into it, please consider that your presence on Elen's page was as arbitrator. If I may obtrude myself as an example here: your word choice was kind of the opposite to the time I told Jimbo Wales not to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. (And damn near got blocked for insolence to my betters, haha.) Bishonen &#124; talk 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC).
 * I suppose that's part of the dangers of ESL; some idioms have connotations I've only picked up from usage in popular media and end up having been used in a context devoid of some of the offensive meanings that native speakers would pick up on. I have only just recently been told that "peanut gallery" was possibly immensely offensive in many contexts, much to my surprise.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's a favourite term with Giano. :-) But then neither he, nor you, nor I are native speakers of English. (Nor was the admin who came within a hair of blocking me that time.) We just have to manage our poor pidgins as best we can. ;-) Bishonen &#124; talk 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Well, personally the "suck egg" comment wouldn't have had my finger twitching over the block button so much as me reaching for Google in a "what the hell does that mean" moment. :-) But your native language isn't English?  Color me surprised!  Is it impolite to ask which, then?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, as several people pointed out to the unfortunate admin (who also didn't understand the expression, but said on IRC that "anyway, it sounds rude, I'm gonna block her"), we have an article about it.


 * Native speaker, me? Flattering, but you follow my page just occasionally, right? You haven't happened to come across any of Giano's and his socks' digs at me about the frozen north, my igloo, my residence in the "far flung, ice bound, glacial 'Nordics'" (which are sometimes contrasted, to their immense disadvantage, with Italy, the cradle of civilization)? It's a favourite theme. I live at the North Pole and speak the appropriate language. Compare my post here, especially the igloo image. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC).
 *  On kibitzing, the incomparable Leo Rosten starts his entry in The Joys of Yiddish with the admonition "Kibitzers are rarely knowledgeable or respected; if they were, they would be advisors, not kibitzers." A wag might say "rarely knowledgeable or respected" describes most Wikipedians.  Cheers. Jonathunder (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, my knowledge of Yiddish limits itself to what little of it there is to glean from popular media, and I've now learned my hard lesson that to use even that without full knowledge is perilous. Oy vey!  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ARS RFAR
The reason nothing more has been presented to prove that the ARS is the issue is because I withdrew my request nearly a day prior to your decline vote.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on Wikimedia Labs position
I just read the note about your position with Labs and wanted to say I'm very happy to see you helping with the Labs project and the move of the toolserver stuff. It's really great to have somebody with the technical background and the experience with the community to help with this work. Congratulations. I think this will be very good for the project and I thank you for all the effort you've put in over the years. Best regards. 64.40.54.103 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's a great deal of work ahead, but I'm confident we can make the Labs the ideal location for all of us toolmakers.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between demonstrating citations and the citations themselves
Please read my question in reply to your response. I don't understand your policy. I used my Science Article and my discovery that circadian rhythms in the Limulus lateral eye are mediated by efferents as an example but the question applies to all of my discoveries. Thank you. Mlbphd (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request at User_talk:Nahald
Could you have a look? You removed his IPBE, and now he's unable to edit again.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Santorum
Hi, this is an actual slang term. Why do you feel it's not? Insomesia (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't. It's a political device, created by a commentator in order to attack a political opponent.  I've no love for Sen. Santorum's cro-magnon stances either, but the term just isn't used in a context devoid of political commentary.  There are a few members of the US gay community that make a point of using it specifically to spread the attack, and a great many activists that do their best to googlebomb the nonce to associate the derogatory term with the Senator (including here, on Wikipedia) – but it is not in actual use in non-activism context as genuine sexual slang.  Wikipedia isn't a place to create or popularize new inventions of the sort, only to report on what independent, reliable sources report.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only heard it used as slang but I see from the talkpage that this is a heated topic and that you have removed it from the template so I guess that must make it so. Insomesia (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and yet you've specifically added the LGBT slang template on the very article that describes the campaign creating the term? That's a little strange.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the template had (until you just removed it) the slang term on it. Case closed. Insomesia (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Football records in Spain page please
Hello ..

may you please take a look at football records in spain ,this page is containing various different records in Spanish football, the user : 49.244.108.56 keeps removing some of them because he believes they are not needed and if you took a look at what he adds or removes you can see he is doing that biasing since he is working hard to remove Barca records allowing only real records !! the 3 records i added are well referenced from the related club website and even classified clearly under national records even not just a club records !! so anything clearer than that even ?? how should someone opinion or even bunch of people opinion about it make a difference in that ?? its a clear case...the related club classified it as record, so if someone likes it or not it shouldn't stop being a record.

and since its referenced I can't see any reason to remove it.

the website : http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records

what is really weird...there is some records similar to those added ( like i added ) but he added them related to Real Madrid so obviously he doesn't have a clear measure in that.\

I tried sending other for help also but i found no response so far, I just think the whole thing is turning into a circus as that :) and for the protection of integrity of wikipedia someone should act in someway !! making it clear (neither way i dont care ) just don't leave it for somenoe to decide oh i hate this club so i dont want his records and im making my hard to remove them and bringing everyother possible records for the club i like ??! take a look at it please because this IP : 49.244.108.56 has long history of doing that !

he is the same range of ip from 49.244.125.32 also he is the same as 49.244.161.201 and by the way it's all belongs to a user has been blocked before but i dont know why they unblocked him again ! it's just as a circus as that

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:58D7:E52F:61CB:51A1 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This article has already been discussed in the talk of both the article and in Wiki:Footy. Cherry picked stats and stats from a club's own website are not to be put until there is consensus. please take what you have to the talk.49.244.173.62 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This guy is super lying because all stats he is talking about isn't discussed and the stats he is adding LYING about its agreed and have consensus never even discussed before ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:A0A2:1EFE:E57C:DD88 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, you're having a content dispute – there isn't much I can do about it. The best thing (both of) you can do right now is seek out dispute resolution, which have a number of alternatives to help you solve this.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Subject-object problem
I wish to ask for your advice on my contributing to the article Subject–object problem. First some background, which is not the topic here, but the reason for my asking for advice.


 * Prior to a recent blocking action by Sandstein I had edited a number of philosophy articles, one being Physical determinism, an article I created January 26 and subsequently fleshed out in a large number of edits. It enjoys about 50 hits/day with some unusual spikes of over 225 hits immediately after its creation and again in early February, spikes I surmise that were introduced by my shadowers anxious to find me straying beyond the fold. Following a complaint about my editing by Richardbrucebaxter settled without action taken, it was reopened by JohnBlackburne who suggested that this article was a matter related to physics, which I am presently barred from contributing to, and to buttress his claim he added a WikiProject Physics template to its Talk page.

Now, to turn to Subject–object problem. I made very extensive changes in this article beginning December 31. Following these revisions, which caused no controversy, the readership of this article increased from ~60 hits a day to more than three times that, an indication that the article was more interesting than before.

I deliberately avoided any changes in the sub-section In physics.

My concern is that if I return to this article a scenario similar to that on the page Physical determinism will arise. Of course, I could simply avoid this article from now on, but the matter is not going to be restricted to a few such instances. We need some more general solution. I do not think an appraisal of my efforts on WP show me to be a problem contributor, although my efforts on Talk pages are sometimes found to be more rigorous than is appreciated by some editors who enjoy their own opinions to the exclusion of sources.

Would you discuss this matter, please? Brews ohare (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I should say that you did the right thing by steering clear of the physics subsection; this is the right approach in general. Be conservative in interpreting "physics, broadly related" and don't hesitate to ask first.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding 'ask first', shall I post proposed changes to (for instance) Subject–object problem on a user page and ask you to take a look? An example of such a proposed change is here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright bot account
Some time ago ( 2011 ) here we had a discussion about an account on yahoo to operate a copyright bot, now i'm barely active on it.wiki, but someone ask me to restart the copyright bot. Some news about the account you talked me? ( ps : can you write on my discussion page so i can follow the discussion? I'm not so active on en.wiki ) Lusum (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ps: the original discussion Lusum (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot
So, for the purposes of a copyright violation research project on which I'm working, I've been trying to rewrite CorenSearchBot in a language with which I'm more familiar, making sure it works exactly the same way as CorenSearchBot did before I fork it (for approval purposes and also for the sake of my own neuroses). Ultimately, I'll be testing a neural network approach using metadata analysis and scores from another service as additional input.

Here's my question: What does this line do? It's the only one that's causing my unit tests to fail by this point. My rewrite just replaces with "" because when I tried to emulate the /e expression it actually caused the script interpreter to segfault. When I run the regular expression against articles with either Notepad++ or regexpal to find matches, it either hangs or crashes them. :<

Is there any way you remember that expression's purpose? Cheers, &mdash; madman 04:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, man, that is on ugly regex, isn't it? :-) This strips wikitable markup.  while preserving the contents of the table during the 'reduce to words' phase of normalizing page text.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, perfect! Knowing that, I should be able to write something that will perform the same function. Thanks! &mdash; madman 04:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

 * Thank you for the invitation, but I very much doubt I will have the time to participate actively in a project for the foreseeable future. Best of luck, though.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of copyright violations in AfC
Can you have a quick read of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and reply? TIA,  Ron h jones  (Talk) 15:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Need a little quick help
Asking you since you were the last person to edit MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Based on the suggestion of someone at WP:BOTR section "DumbBOT replacement", I've added an entry to the blacklist, but as I note at WP:AN section "Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag", I'm not sure that I did it right. Would you please go and look at the page? Something needs to be changed — either my addition needs to be reverted, or if I did it rightly, a character needs to be removed so that it won't be commented-out. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)