User talk:HominidMachinae

Used to edit under 65.29.47.55 registered account so I didn't lose access to my contributions when my IP lease was up. Old contributions

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, HominidMachinae! I am Cymru.lass and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 07:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Notability and WPMILHIST etc
Just a quick note. I mentioned a discussion of Notability with the Milhist lot because (in my experience) they are reasonable bunch to discuss things with. Notwithstanding your intent to get the subject of notability and individual projects addressed at a higher level would you like to (or mind me) raise the subject while still fresh with them? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be a good idea, no one at the village pump really seems to be interested in discussing. I think the best venue is there because as mentioned in the AFD there are towns we have articles on that have less people in them than served on some of these ships.  If practice has shifted I think policy should reflect that.  But military subjects include probably the second-greatest category of these articles (after municipalities and possibly fictional universes) in the form of ships, units and minor battles in larger wars. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that WPMILHIST (and related WPSHIPS for warships) are a good starting point because the former has an existing guideline which can be discussed/clarified which has to be a good starting point. There is also the existing example of SC-242(?) which sort of hangs around what point does an individual ship need an article spun off from a class article. There I see it as 200 odd ships built to the same design has to be worth mentioning but the individual ships (if all they did was putter up and down the coast without ever seeing the enemy) not so much. Would you like to thrash with me out the question/topic to be posed to the Project?GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm always up for working with people. Basically my version of the question would go something like "At what point should ships be spun off into articles? And for the purposes of WP:GNG what is the threshold for "significant coverage" in a source that would help a ship individually, not as a member of a class, meet notability guidelines"  My main concern is that GNG's "multiple significant sources" seems to be increasingly discounted in far more than just articles like these (have more than one reliable source really written about EVERY pokemon?).  Most of what can be said about a ship without notable crewmen, engagements or deployments is "X is a Y that was built on April Z, 1943" Which is the sort of data more suited to a list.  HominidMachinae (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like the sort of thing. I would be sure to mention MILHISTs own existing guideline which is I believe a counter to the "if it's commissioned it's important" argument - and to which the example of a 36 ft motorboat commissioned for two years is supporting evidence. I would also add that it would help to suggest the concepts that people can comment against as it tends to focus comments. eg that an individual craft article should be spun off when it can be more than a stub without repeating text from the class article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're awesome.
Thanks for this! --XBoYxRoLleRcOaStInGxPrEcIpItOuSlYx (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Comment on Autoconfirmed Status
"The problem with allowing new users article creation ability is that they don't understand the community norms."

Just because someone is new to editing doesn't mean they don't understand community norms. That's a bit presumtive don't you think? You shouldn't presume or assume that new to editing means a lack of understanding. Sure 90 percent or more of the new editors may not understand the norms of Wikipedia. But you should give some of the them benefit of the doubt until we actually see their understanding. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the state of things over at new pages patrol I think that the existing presumption is causing far greater problems for Wikipedia. And it's not that they necessarily don't understand the norms, I'm sure some do the responsible thing and read up on the community and the rules before they create and article.  The problem is that enough don't that it's becoming disruptive to the quality of the encyclopedia and having to deal with the waves of bad articles is taking good editors away from making articles better because we need full-time spam and cruft patrols HominidMachinae (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, I agreed with your "turning point comment" on the Rfc. FYI: User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights. Ideas? Thanks.

Thanks
Kudos for the self-reflection and willingness to look objectively at what was being said. If more people would do that rather than the usual tribalism and battleground mindsets we'd all do better.--Scott Mac 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure bring the deletion review was a good idea: I think the close was wrong, but the possible benefits of discussing admin role in closes would be better served over a close of something more substantial and less the subject of personal attacks. As is, the net effect is, as could be predicted, to continue and exacerbate the personal attacks.    DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm very happy the DRV was remarkably civil given the amount of ill will involved on all sides I admit I was somewhat worried about it turning nasty. In this case the deletion is validated most by the fact that now calm non-warring and civil eyes have looked at the close and agreed that it was reasonable rather than just the partisans involved. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Mushroom sauce
I noticed that Twinkle broke when you tried to AfD Mushroom sauce, probably because the discussion page already existed as a redirect to another AfD (I guess that's how bundled AfDs were handled in 2005). I fixed it and guessed as to your nomination rationale; you might want to go to the discussion page, Articles for deletion/Mushroom sauce, and fill in any details I may have missed in the nomination rationale. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbPol
I've read what you say accompanying your vote and would like you to re-consider, particularly with regard to private cases. I've laid out some of my reasons here on the ArbPol talk page. Thanks in advance for your time,  Roger Davies  talk 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I added my reply at that page. I'd like to re-iterate though that my opinion is not because of any problem I have with any arbiter, past or present, or with the proceedings of the arbcom to this point.  My concern is solely for the appearance of impropriety.  If we always have arbcom members as upstanding as we have, it would be no actual problem in practice, but my concerns are for the future and for how things appear to both the wikipedia community and wiki-watchdogs. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've replied there. I ask you here though is your concern about the appearance of impropriety over one small issue sufficient and good ground for opposing the entire updated policy, which - by very broad consensus - it is significant/substantial improvement over the current one?  Roger Davies  talk 05:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * honestly that's the reason I dislike all-or-nothing proposals. I'm asked to support even the part I have a problem with or throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I'm not sure how I feel I'll have to think about it. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any other kind of proposal here would have been impossible simply because all sorts of broader community issues would be coatracked in (the precise nature of Jimmy's constitutional role, for instance). But what is on offer has been through a very very long (two years) and very very detailed (80,000 words of discussion) consensus gathering process and is probably the best that could be achieved. Not all of it will please everyone, but broadly it's a massive improvement over what we have got (making arbitrators more accountable via recall, being just one example) and there is very wide agreement that it is better. What is significant here is the amount of support that has come from notable ArbCom critics (MZMcBride, Bishonen, Heimstern Laufer etc etc). Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus ...  Roger Davies  talk 07:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that it's a minor issue in context of scope. My main concern is that it's the only chance.  Once set it will be set in stone, and I think there are more changes that should be made. Honestly, thought, my MOST major issue with arbcom is actually the fact I think they need more discretionary power (in public of course). For instance they *should* be able to decide content as well as conduct issues. At a certain point you need someone that can enforce consistency.  Right now the best they can do is order people not to touch it (as they did with date formatting, british spelling, ect.) HominidMachinae (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listening and reconsidering. I hope yuou don't mind me mentioning this but you probably need to put a ":" before the "#" in your oppose vote to make it absolutely clear you're striking the vote and not just the comment. If you are going to support, you need to add a vote in the support column too.
 * The conduct -v- content is horribly divisive, with strong views on both sides ... We'd need very clear consensus indeed to expand the scope into wholly content areas and many people, including many arbitrators, would be opposed to it. The basic argument here is an historic philosophical one: content is always developed by consensus on article talk pages so content is out of bounds at W:AN/I as well. Whether this actually reflects and realistically deals with the present day realities is very much open to question. The current fudge is handle the conduct aspects of a content dispute, and to urge the community to find a route to resolution, via RFCs or whatever.  Roger Davies  talk 20:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the formatting tip I'm still what I'd consider a pseudo-new editor when it comes to the fine points of wiki-formatting. Also I understand that it's a divisive opinion.  It's just the pedant in me that is driven nuts that we've been forced to say "leave it a bag of mixed nuts we don't have consensus for any unified style scheme."  To me it makes us look unprofessional (a print encyclopedia would have a senior editor dictate what's what and you follow or get fired), but I can see why people that aren't the kind that secretly want to climb up ladders in the dead of night wearing a balaclava and carrying a tin of white paint to put in the missing apostrophes in "brides maids" movie posters think we shouldn't fight over it.
 * The thing that used to get me when I started was articles about Americans using British spellings and articles about Brits with American spellings. You have no idea how jarring I found references to the "Congressional Medal of Honour" or the "British Honors system". I've got used to it now though :) If you look closely at ArbCom decisions, they're often in a mixture of American and British (Commonwealth) spellings, depending on the nationality of the arbitrator who drafted the particular clause. Oh, and grocers' apostrophe's - they still niggle me :)  Roger Davies  talk 20:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Melchor Feliú
Hello HominidMachinae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Melchor Feliú, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Governors of Florida are usually reckoned to be noteables . Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, given his very limited term I wasn't sure. I couldn't find an applicable specific standard, GNG seemed borderline.  I'll use a proper AFD next. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that GNG is borderline then Prod or AFD are the way to go - Speedy is for the Governor's cook not the Governor. But with articles of this era I would be cautious about applying GNG guidelines unless you have access to Jstor or better the relevant historical reference works. Just because this is pre Internet doesn't mean there won't be coverage.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you know what, I just realized that I MEANT to use PROD but I used CSD instead... that is totally my fault. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Antonio Cosentino
Hello HominidMachinae. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Antonio Cosentino, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Hey HM, I have to apologize here. I missed that one post of yours on my talk page. I just noticed it now, but I see both AfD discussions were closed. One keep, and one delete. Sorry bout that. — Ched :  ? 08:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Word choice
Just a quick note to thank you for the catch on Action 14f13 of murder to kill. I recently made the exact same change to the Action T4 page, but didn't explain it so well. That was one of my first articles and I think I was motivated by the special efforts over and above the usual ones the Nazis made in that program. Marrante (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I actually agonized over that edit for a good five minutes.  At the end of the day though I felt that it's best to present it in utterly neutral terms and let the facts convey the horror rather than trying to with language.  HominidMachinae (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Did you see that your change was reverted? I have responded on that editor's page, but have not reverted the edit. You may want to weigh in there. Other than that, I'm on a personal campaign to rid the world of "no problem" in lieu of "you're welcome". It always makes me think that it was too a problem, only the other party is too polite to say so, whereas "you're welcome" is so beautifully clear and simple. My 2 cents. Marrante (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never saw it that way, but you have a point. Thank you for pointing out the revert.  I'm not going to edit war over it, the language is all over that topic area it might be worth an RfC over it because it is a widespread change.  98.209.39.71 (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC) that was me.  For some reason my new connection likes to log me out randomly HominidMachinae (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Entertainment Reference Desk question
Hi, you might want to check out an answer to your question, here. -- Rixxin (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiLubber (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=94339949 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)