User talk:Jheiv/Archive/Archive 1

For Journal of Forensic Accounting Article Discussion See: User talk:Jheiv/Journal of Forensic Accounting Discussion

Userification
Hi there. The page has been userified at the following location:


 * User:Jheiv/Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1

Please make sure it unambiguously meets the notability criteria before moving it back into the mainspace. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Userfied pages should not show in articlespace categories, so I commented these out. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Northeastern University
Please see additional comments in Talk:Northeastern University. Like you, my son attends Northeastern and NEU is still used. We just received something from the parents association with "NEU" listed on it. Would you please reconsider your revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From one electrical engineer to another (although it has been years since I was in college), your modification is a very nice job. Succinct and well said. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's not the end of the world and I'd certainly not edit war over it, I don't think the current method is "good enough" per se. As I said before, it's not a question of what's official, but what's informational and useful. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to Northeastern as NEU, since that's how everyone, including the university, has referred to it up until this most recent policy shift. Put the shift in the history if you will, but there is no reason the lead should not refer to both on an equal footing. I'd say that putting "NU" before "NEU" with an "or" between already pays enough homage to the "official" abbreviation (that is, by placing it first, which IMHO is about as far as I'd go in offering it any superior status). I'll say again that it's not the end of the world, but I truly think that it is does a disservice to the article and to Wikipedia to place official university communication over the common and verifiable. I've already made a cogent argument, I believe, for idea that the latter two trump the former, but please let me know if I've erred in that assumption. All diplomacy aside (since that seems to have been your only objective thus far), what are your thoughts on the matter? --Aepoutre (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand, but I don't think it's a good analogy. True, Blackwater's name is now "Xe", and it may colloquially known as Blackwater because of its former name, putting it in parentheses. NU and NEU are both already nicknames, however. It shouldn't matter what an official nickname is, since nicknames aren't totally official anyway, or they wouldn't be nicknames (the "official" name for Northeastern is "Northeastern University"). As for the more pressing matter of the official vs. the unofficial, a university-related example would be Ohio State University. Technically, the name is "The Ohio State University", but the article isn't named that. One might assume that's because of the definite article but The College of William & Mary is named using that article, and the official name for William & Mary is actually "The College of William & Mary in Virginia". It's about colloquial usage. Xe/Blackwater is presented as such because it's a simple change of name, and thus the use of "former" is entirely justified and even necessary. NEU is still a nickname for Northeastern, even if it's not "official". Like I said, I won't war over this, but it's bad reasoning to push this "official" stance with regards to an alternate name, which is only sometimes, and never necessarily, institutionalized. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
Welcome to the article rescue squadron, where we save well referenced articles for deletion. Please don't hesitate to email or message me if you have any questions about wikipedia, or need any help in anyway. Again, a warm welcome! Ikip (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; " align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
 * colspan="2" |

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Rollback
Hey Jheiv!

You now have the rollback tool!

Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! J.delanoy gabs adds 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Rice and beans
Moved to Talk: Rice and beans

Move
Mind if I move my comments on Northeastern to the previous section titled the same? Were your talk page an article talk page, I might not have any qualms about doing so, but I wouldn't want to step on any toes when it comes to another's talk page. On a related note, I commented over at Talk:Northeastern University again, and would appreciate a reply to my last comment here. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind and will follow up with a comment soon. jheiv (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My thanks to you on both counts. Talk to you soon, then! --Aepoutre (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Douglass Montrose-Graem
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but it looks like the page is gone (Speedy A7'ed) now anyway :-). jheiv (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions
I ended up using a different citation, but I thank you for the list of articles about the PSU investigation. I thought the AP article was best, but the date of the investigation wasn't clear in the article (unless I scanned it too quickly). One other reference you provided itself linked to a Daily Collegian article on 30 Nov. so I opted for that source. (If you happen to read this comment right away, I've added it to my working copy, it will appear on sandbox later today). Thanks again.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The ownership thing
Well that's the trouble. The article should not depend on any single person. Some of the best and most experienced editors on Wikipedia are hanging out on that article, so I don't think it'll make any difference. It's nice that you seem to appreciate that I was trying to keep things focussed though. --TS 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert strikeout
Looks like you're right - I'd misremembered the policy. Thanks for the notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate protection
Just saw your request for page protection at the administrators' noticeboard. If that does not get a timtely response, you might wish to try WP:RFPP. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I implemented your 3RR report regarding  by listing all reverts done by him within 24 hours. According to WP:3RR, the reverts are not necessarily identical; A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. --Caspian blue 15:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminology/Confusion
Hi Jheiv! You claimed to have removed the CV from Mann's article, but, in fact, you did not. Rather, you removed a partial bibliography. I have no strong opinion on the act (but note e.g. Albert_Einstein for a non-climate example), but your terminology is off. A CV is a Curriculum Vitae, or "course of life" - basically what we want to build for each person covered in Wikipedia, although the term now is usually used in the more restricted sense of a professional CV nowadays. A bibliography is an important part of an academic CV, but neither is it all of it nor is it used only in CVs. Your comment caused me some confusion, you might want to adapt it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding archive templates to recent discussions
I would like to suggest waiting longer before adding archive templates to discussions like you did here. That discussion section wasn't even 5 hours old. Also, no one had responded to or acted on my suggestion of adding the archive parameters. I've undone your edit.--Rockfang (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, that page gets cluttered so quickly that anything I can archive as "closed", I try to do. To be honest, I missed your comment.  IMHO, however, your suggestion really should have been in another section since the editprotected action had already been completed and it is likely to be missed hidden under the green check as a result.  I'll leave it as is, but consider moving your suggestion to a new section and re-archiving that one, as it has already been completed.  Regardless of all of that, I apologize if you thought the edit was a slight.  jheiv (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate DrV
Hi, I've proposed on the DrV page to close the procedure and personally withdraw the new Climategate article, so I can work on it in my userspace. Rd232 (the admin who deleted it) and I are in agreement, per my talk page. It would be very helpful if you could sign on too, and we can move on from here. As I commented on the DrV page, I think rd232 got the message that his/her? deletion was hasty (and the threats to block to boot). I don't know whether they agree with that or not, but they'll probably think twice before doing it so quickly next time, and there's nothing to be gained by hammering the point home any harder than it is already. I'll likely retool the article in a form that's much more defensible, if I can find adequate sourcing, and possibly re-introduce it later. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me -- consider it done. jheiv (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dijkstra's algorithm
Please note that there was no error in the previous version. The algorithm works with the same efficiency if we start adding intersections closest to the starting point (or the destination as you have suggested). Shuroo (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded on your talk, but I really don't think the prose was at all clear before my edit.

In your example, the version of the algorithm that I was referring to would get you to the destination as follows. You add intersection B, then A, then D. When you add D the algorithm gives the path CD as the shortest distance.Shuroo (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --TS 00:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Have fun on Kappa Sigma
Thanx for finding WP:SPA, I was looking for it. I'll try to log in later tonight.Naraht (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please email me in regards to the Kappa Sigma Article.
Please email me in regards to the Kappa Sigma article, you can do that by going to my user page, selecting the toolbox and selecting email this user. I have found something that I'd rather that the annoying editor not see in the discussion. I'd like to discuss it privately with you before I bring it up on the talk page. Sincerely. Naraht (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments and behavior like this are not conducive to productive editing, nor do they help dispel the appearance of collusion among Greek editors when it comes to sanitizing fraternity articles. Don't lament my lack of cooperation while you two both behave like this. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted on the article talk page: I agree that off-wiki communication is discouraged, unless there is "significant reason". If there is no way to keep this on-wiki, please let me know, and I'll be happy to email you. jheiv (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)