User talk:Lexein/Archive 4

Monty Woolley
Thanks for that. But did I detect some peevedness in your edit summary? I don't understand why we'd want to be coy about his gayness in the text when we've been categorising him as gay for quite a while now. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm grumpy. Didn't think it was coy as it was, really, just quiet, without being silent. We don't bang on about heteros, why bother about gay? He was closeted in life, and his will and estate have changed nothing since his death. The category suffices IMO. Eventually it won't matter whatsoever, and I can't wait. It's balkanism. --Lexein (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't bang on about heteros, true. But then, we don't have Category:Straight people either.  For better or worse, LGBT people are a notable minority.  While they/we are most definitely normal, they/we are not the norm.  LGBT categories are governed by the same rule as applies to any other category: a subject cannot be placed in a category unless there is evidence in the article that supports that categorisation.  We could not have someone in Category:French astrologers unless it was clear in the article that the subject was (a) French and (b) an astrologer.  Simple.  If a category suffices, how do we deal with the curiosity it would obviously engender?  I'm not insensitive to where you're coming from; I'm just trying to apply these rules consistently.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting discussion
Hello, Lexein. I just wanted to clarify that I was deleting a duplicated discussion, as seen in this edit before you reverted it. It's already on the talk page and was duplicated accidentally. I only removed the one that doesn't have the latest reply in it, and this is why I reverted you moments ago. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I didn't check the TOC, and searching for duplicated discussions is usually TL;DR. --Lexein (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I voted
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum --Lexein (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: deletions and problem of Wiki's decrease in editors
I know the above subjects interest you. I have come out of an early "self-imposed Wiki retirement" to make one final attempt at "tilting at Wiki-windmills" [here]. I've come to respect your knowledge of Wiki and its problems, so I hope you find something (anything) I wrote persuasive enough for you to act upon. If you can't get something done with policy, then I don't know who can. You changed my mind several times and I'm pretty stubborn sometimes. But you always came up with great solutions to Wiki problems. I fear the future of Wiki will only consist a small group of editors spending all their time trying to maintain the status quo by reverting vandals and such, or locking down articles. That's not a happy outlook, but I predict that is where Wiki is heading in the distant future if changes are not made to policy soon. It would be a shame to see so much good hard work which has been done on Wiki come to such a sad state of static existence. With regards, sincerity and respect, --RedEyedCajun (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Poster
The old film poster template fur Template:Film poster fur says that the poster rationale (not necessarily a film poster) should be used to replace it, but I saw nothing regarding the replacement of the license template for a film poster, so I changed the license back to promotional. Don't believe there would be issues if either license was used--promotional or poster. We hope (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Linda-cardellini-and-michael-shannon-in-return-640.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Linda-cardellini-and-michael-shannon-in-return-640.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Varian prize
Hi, thanks for the cool addition on the Russell Varian Prize. Would you be so kind, though, as to explain what the acronyms mean or wikilink them to appropriate articles? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Why wasn't this brought up on the article's talk page? Discussion of article improvement usually goes there.
 * 2) The redlinks aren't my fault - on Wikipedia, there's very little nuclear magnetic resonance history coverage, and precious little credit for Varian's (and other's) astounding contributions to the science, technology, and business of NMR. There has been persistent deletion of language which even mentions "nuclear" in connection with "magnetic resonance." So I've softened the language as much as I can, and not throw up. It's not scary: atoms have nuclei, and they wiggle in tune with magnetic fields. Hence, nuclear, magnetic, resonance. Though it has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power, I predict trouble with anti-"nuclear" partisans. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Sounds like a wiki-war I'm probably best avoiding.    I mostly hang out at WikiProject Equine, which has more than enough drama for me!  (And the occasional targeting by the animal rights bunch makes for a lot of drama too)  I'm just enjoying seeing other verifiable material being added, it's hard to find biographical stuff on these fellows on the net, though it looks like the Stanford Library has gobs and gobs of goodies if someone actually went there. (Too far away for me)) This article was actually one of two spinoffs from an article I did on their niece, Sheila Varian, I have a minor sub-hobby in figuring out where noted horse breeders got the $$$ is takes to pour into the rathole that is horse breeding!  (grin), here, Dorothy Varian, as a widow,  helped bankroll the horse ranch for her brother -in law and niece.  The whole Varian family is an interesting bunch, their father was a fascinating character too.  Montanabw (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, well. Who would have thought that ponies (Ponies!) would cause trouble (wink)? Louis CK does a great bit about his daughter being bit by a pony (Pony!). Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Ponies per se cause relatively little trouble, so long as you realize they are actually 1000-lb herbivorous housecats in disguise!  :-D  It's horse PEOPLE who are completely insane!  (I may at times resemble that remark myself).   Montanabw (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Emotional Backgammon
NW ( Talk ) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dutch cheese listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dutch cheese. Since you had some involvement with the Dutch cheese redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Augurar (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the notice. Replied there. --Lexein (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WHS
Your mumble mumble comment re the WHS halls is pri$eless. Why did you, or someone else, restore the removed notbale members?SLY111 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)SLY111
 * I don't think anyone did - the article size has been steadily declining, name by unsourced name ... --Lexein (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the false alarm. A few times on my laptop an older version of the entry will appear when I visit (I kid you not).

I doubt,save researching Yale yearbooks (the Banner), Yale Lit mags, and Yale Daily News issues published in April and May, that I'll find proper references for the deleted members; however, I will do so, over time. Thanks for your energy.SLY111 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)SLY111


 * The browser cache, it vexes us! As do radical blogs, sadly. --Lexein (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing in my opinion
No, for Dutch Cheeses I think you exactly right to do so and a swift close was exactly right, and was rather glad to have that swift consensus. I am wearing px sunglasses now since i broke me old ones after getting into the loft carrying the third ladder up into their, so am a bit under the weather, and on a hungarian kb, but exacly the rihgt decision to take in my opinion. I left a brief comment but obviously after the decision is taken you can't say too much. Bit it was the right one, in mx opinion, and Ihope I did a little towards it. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and good luck with your glasses! Cheers, --Lexein (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, to put it another way, thanks for your hard work for doing it. These specs are not so good for me doing it but until me eye is fixed I can"t do more so please excuse my appaling typing. Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheesiness
No, I think you moved just fast enough, the subjects on Dutch cheese markets should be about the markets not the cheese, and indeed they are, but in my opinion you are right to have made the list article, and to make it fast sometimes saves a lot of bother with grumbles from others saying it should be Fudge Wheeze Markets or Touch Please Markets or whatever (I believe they have those latter in Amsterdam). Of course, only my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We comment out, not delete, pending sourcing.
Where do you get this idea from? Unsourced content can be deleted at any time by anyone, the onus is on the person adding the content to find source before returning not the person deleting it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied and replied to at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. --Lexein (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Please stop and do not edit war to get your own way. '' Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Rationale: It is reasonable to want the article to remain unedited for two reasons: 1: 3O was called in, 2: If other edits are made to the article, restoring deleted table content is that much more of a pain.  I'm asking for some consideration for the adding editors.  It's six tables that have to be edited.
 * I appreciate that you stopped editing the article at the point 3O was called in. The other editor edited over pending 3O, so I reverted that, once., which I think is acceptable.
 * I've tried my best, singlehandedly, to fend off unwelcome, and unconsensused deletions, and compromised with prior-consensed commenting, while all the other usual interested editors seem not to be around to participate in the discussion.
 * I hope you understand that I'm feeling quite besieged, and I don't want unnecessary damage done to the article, given that the content is uncontroverial, non-BLP, and non-extraordinary claims.
 * I have this request: to not use deletion as the only tool for article improvement.
 * --Lexein (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, just don't get caught out by 3RR - I don't plan to edit it until someone independent decides. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Linda Cardellini
(Hey, great shot! Any chance of uploading a new version of it (same image page at Commons) with the EXIF info intact? Also, do you have a Flickr page, and do you plan to blog about your experience at the film festival? Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC) )

Hi,

thanks for the appreciation, but I didn't take this picture, nor did I attend the festival ! It was taken by an amateur photographer, with whom I am in contact, and who attends a lot of festivals and premieres in France. I just browse through his blog and facebook accounts, select pictures, ask for his approval, and upload them, then he proceeds to send the appropriate OTRS permissions. I must have uploaded about 1000 of his pictures on commons so far with his most gracious permission. I can ask him if he has a better version of this particular picture, though. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(Ah - I had made the incorrect assumption that the Commons username and the photo attribution name referred to the same person (it happens.) Thanks for making the photog's work available. --Lexein (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) )


 * No problem at all. If you're interested, you can take a look at his pictures on commons (all of them uploaded by yours truly). Lots of pictures from the various Cannes festival (he's been going there since the late eighties). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mail
- F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
"Instant Karma" doesn't exist...and "FAME" can kill a man. What's "blacklisting"?SLY111 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)SLY111
 * (Better to comment on Talk pages.) I meant Spam blacklist, a mechanism to prevent spam source URLs from being cited in refs. --Lexein (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, a past member was mentioned recently with great fanfare in the NYT. He and his hedge fund have entries. Whenever I can return to New Haven, I'll research past issues of the Yale Daily News, Yale Lit and Yale Banner to cite properly this gentleman and the recently deleted "Past members".
 * And, Jesus, I love your mocking tone; of course I researched extant (great word) internet sources on membership. As you might IMAGINE, and I'm not dreaming, and I bet I'm not the only one to suffer likewise, some periods of social history are absent from the medium.SLY111 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)SLY111
 * Good spotting the NYT mention! Funny Lennon references. --Lexein (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)