User talk:Margin1522/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Margin1522! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Helen Gardner
Thank you for all your useful corrections to my references. I'll try to be more careful in the future! Amandajm (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and yes, I agree with you about British quotation marks. I use British spelling and punctuation for all my European/British/Australian articles. Amandajm (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the articles! The one on St. Peter's is really good. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Trados
I think it's got a reasonable chance of survival. I repeated the survey link in the first line to make it clear that the market leader bit isn't just spam. I tweaked a couple of bits, including spelling out what TM means, and chopped Ext links, since both items now linked in text. it would be a good idea if you could give references for both sides of the criticism section. jimfbleak (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Haken giri
I guess you are native English speaker and can understand Japanese, please correct the article of Haken giri about words, grammar in flowing English style.ピノキオ (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try. I wish I could do it today, but it may have to wait until next week. I agree that we need an article about this, so that people will realize that it is a very serious situation. --Margin1522 (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you, I appreciate your reply.ピノキオ (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Social Software (computer software)
I noticed you've been editing the above article. Plan on sticking around a while? I've been working on it for a while (offline). Can you tell me on my talkpage if you'll continue, so we can coordinate. If not, feel free to erase this to keep your page neat! Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response copied from my user page: :Actually, I wasn't going to do more than correct the article itself. I'm learning about it on the wing. I won't be ready to discuss merges and the like until after I'm satisfied with what it looks like. If there are other articles that are overlapping this one, would you mind linking me? Maybe I'll know what you're talking about after that. As I said, I'll tell you when the article is beyond my help. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Update- Someone else stopped by and finished the grammar. Feel free to do what you feel is needed. I'll be gone for about three weeks. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting barnstar
Though, you are more than just a copy editor!

I live not far from 西船橋市、myself, and will be moving to into deepest, darkest Tokyo fairly soon. I hope you are surviving the 右翼　and ヤクザ without incident. --James Chenery (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No problems with the uyoku (where have they been lately?), but watch out for the election cars! With municipal and national elections coming up, this is going to be a big one. :) --Margin1522 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual places. In front of train stations, parading about Tokyo on national holidays, and occasionally, on Sundays, one group likes to rant about "Anglo Saxons" through their loudspeakers while making a pathetic display in front of the British Embassy.  I had a Junior High School kid who wore a Seiji Dantai uniform to school every day with an enormous mon embroidered in gold thread on the back, and my current school has a few Yakuza kids, too.  I am not terribly interested in Japan's politics though, as the Yakuza and the construction companies seem to have everything pretty much sewn up.  My friends are currently bemoaning the proposed "family allowance", which they reckon will drive consumption tax up to 12% over the next couple of years.  Still, nothing serious enough to give me a bout of culture shock. ;)  --James Chenery (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Table Hiragana
Please discuss with us at Hiragana and ask people who could be interested as well. Thanks whatever your view is 79.192.239.79 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite shuffle
I wrote and cited most of the Sawant article. If you're confused why footnotes are at the end of particular paragraphs or sentences I might be able to help. GraniteSand (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The dissertation is pretty long, and I doubt most readers are going to be able to find the information being cited without page numbers. One approach might be to add a References section, put the dissertation there, and then add footnotes to in the main text, citing author (Sawant), title, and page number for each piece of information. Margin1522 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your message. I'm still learning, and still a bit overwhelmed by all the policies and rules. I really admire your work on the Soka Gakkai page. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Be bold! If you screw up there's always somebody there to fix it :) -- Margin1522 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Edward Perl page
Thank you for your help with the new page on Edward Perl. And thank you for your encouragement through the offer of a Barnstar! I've a lot to learn (and am a little nervous about the whole Wikipedia process), but feedback and help such as you've given makes it all worth it. B Taylor-Blake (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. That was a fine article. And good luck with the image. Ideally the best copyright release is from the person who took it, but if that's not possible let's not give up. I'll look around and try to find out what's acceptable in a case like this. --Margin1522 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai
I didnt want to hurt your feelings, as I share them. Compare Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming or the last changes with regard to Ozone depletion - I mean if a group of authors denies one to improve an article with valid sources, since the y fear for their POV, there seems to be something wrotten in the state of Wikipedia. I however wanted to provide some quality sources and I doubt the Bundestag report is much of use if better and larger good sources are at hand. Best regards Serten (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't . I read the EKD Zentralstelle entry, and it was quite good. Life goes on. There is plenty that I can do to improve the encyclopedia without needing to ask for third opinions. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Baklava für dich!

 * Dankeschön, itadakimasu :)

Matura List

 * And thank you for noticing. This was all worth it just for discovering Matsura Seizan -- famous swordsman, great grandfather of the Meiji Emperor, and author of over 200 volumes of essays, including one on Ashinagatenaga. Why had I never heard of him? – Margin1522 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Pizza
Thanks for providing the sources for the Pizza in North America page Zy87 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, looking forward to what it looks like after you guys are done. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have made some progress and the changes we made are listed in the talk page. Can you please look into to it a little bit and see where we can improve? Specifically, I was looking at the preparation section that has existed for a while. I see that it does not have reliable source and the content seems not sufficient enough for a whole section. We are thinking of either deleting it or integrating it to other sections. Where do you think is a good place for it?Zy87 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Parts of the preparation section go way back, and it's never been sourced. See (this revision), where it says "Traditionally the dough..." If the article is going to talk about frozen pizza, maybe the end of the cooking section? That revision also had some material on the industry, so that might be one place to start if you are going to do that. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ruthenians
Hi, Thank you very much for answering my question. The issue that has been confusing me is that ルーシ人 is linked to the English article Ruthenians, while ルテニア人 is linked to a German wiki article Ruthenen (Habsburgermonarchie) which is the only other article in the wikidata entry.

I feel something must be problematic here, because in the German Wikipedia there is no article of the Ruthenians in general, but only the aforementioned article of Ruthenians in Habsburg Empire, which covers similar content as the English article Ruthenians. Therefore, it seems impossible that the Japanese Wikipedia has both articles corresponds to both Wikidata entries.

Sorry for my bad English. I hope I am not confusing you.--Ludwigzhou (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

//-- I see. I checked and here are the interlanguage links as of today. It seems to be a bit of a mess.


 * Rus' people <--> de:Rus (Volk) <--> [[:jp:ルーシ族 // This is OK
 * de:Ruthenen (Habsburgermonarchie) <--> jp:ルテニア人 // OK, both about Austria-Hungary, both use same map. No link to English article, which doesn't exist.
 * de:Ruthenien <--> Ruthenia <--> jp:ルテニア // Articles about the place name. OK.
 * Ruthenian <--> de:Ruthenen // OK, links between 2 disambiguation pages
 * jp:ルーシ // Problem Japanese disambiguation page, no links to English or German. This should be linked to the German and English disambiguation pages.
 * Ruthenians --> (de:Ruthenen <--> Ruthenian) // Problem English Ruthenians links to German disambiguation page, which links to English disambiguation page.
 * Ruthenians <--> jp:ルーシ人 // No link from Japanese to German. Does German have an article on Ruthenians? Apparently not.
 * Rusyns <--> de:Russinen // German says Russinen (oft auch Ruthenen). English says they are Ruthenians who did not become Ukranians. This is a small group and seems to be controversial.

So the basic problem seems to be that German doesn't have an article corresponding to Ruthenians and jp:ルーシ人. The closest it comes is the article on Austria Hungary. Another problems is that WikiData has 2 disambiguation pages for this: (Q11703371 (No name)) which Japanese, Chinese and others link to, and (Q1473900 Ruthenian), which the English, German and others link to.

Fixing this is beyond my abilities. I think a WikiData expert would have to handle this. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I got your message, Margin1522 (and . I'm about to log out for the day, but will look into this properly tomorrow. I'm confident that I know what's going on... and someone has made quite a mess. One quick look, and it appears that more than one article has been linked to the wrong corresponding article in both Japanese and German Wikipedia. I'll get it sorted as quickly as possible. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not forgotten, just delayed. Still on my priority list. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, more edit warring has broken out on a few of these pages, and articles which I've been trying to merge (based on POV) remain split. The second problem with the Rusyns is that they also go by the name of Lemkos in the Polish lexicon. Just on that level, the German article de:Russinen encompasses both naming conventions. There are also two distinct articles on Ruthenians. It's a terrible mess and it's going to take me quite some time to get on top of it. The German de:Ruthenen does not match up with Ruthenian because there is no specific article on the subject. The closest match is actually de:Ruthenien. Sigh. I really don't know what to do from here at the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think I'm beginning to see why we are having these problems. Sorry, there is really no rush about this. Maybe we can just try to fix what we can and try to make it so in the meantime people can find all of these related articles. I'll ask over at WikiData if they can do anything about the obviously broken interlanguage links. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That would probably be the best approach at this point in time. There are a number of articles on the same subject split across countries (Belarus and Poland, etc.) with one linked to one series of interwiki links, and the other linked to another set.


 * The only other suggestion I could make is that, where there is more than one article on the same subject in English Wikipedia, a disambig page could be set up for the other wikipedias with links to the related articles. It's not ideal, but at least it ensures that all articles are covered. Unfortunately, it means a lot of work in translating/creating even stubs to correspond for those working on interwiki linking, but I don't see any kind of quick fix as being a viable alternative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Tradition Partnership, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Mann. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Fonagy article
Thanks for your help on this article in terms of standardizing the reference format. You invited me to check it. What I saw was that many of the citations were of the "Sfn" type and some were highly abbreviated. I think this is because the citations are repeating information from the "Works" area. I am not really familiar with the approach but it looks ok to me so far. I am just a little confused by the fact that the sfn citations in the "References" section appear formatted hyperlinks but they don't lead anywhere. Thanks again. PhilPsych (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. There is a way to have the hyperlinks link to the specific entries in the Works section, but I didn't do it. I'll have to look up the syntax, after I finish working on another article. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections. I added a missing parameter to the cite templates, so it should be working now. When you click a link, it should jump to a highlighted entry in the Works section. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan R. Alger Article
Hi, Margin1522, thanks for looking at my draft of the Jonathan R. Alger article. I'm new here, so I appreciate all the help I can get. Per your recommendation, I had another editor review the first part of the article I drafted (just to be safe), and they had some good edits about citation and bibliographies, so I cleaned up my draft and posted the new info for the first part of the article. I left the second part of the article about the sexual assault incident as is, I won't be making edits to that section given my COI. I think the way you outlined the section in your message was smart and would appreciate your help updating. Thanks very much. Cville24 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And thank you for doing the first part. That was a really good job. I left a note on the Talk page describing what I did, so I hope that fixed the problem. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Influence of Discounts on Consumer Behavior
Because I'm the nom I'm not sure whether I can add too many comments on an AfD. But I think I'm behind you on suggesting userfication in this case. LS1979 (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that might be the best. We already have two articles on consumer buying, which should probably be merged. I'd like to see more integration. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts
I read the sections for which you provided links on my talk page. One thing that is clear is that you need to get you terminology correct to avoid confusion -- as you have worked out -- we are talking about pages not articles (which only appear in the main space).

I think that short cuts are useful, but for those that I do not use often I forget the names, and hat-notes help find them when I take a guess and end up at a different page. The reason why many of the short cuts exist is because we need links to specific sections within polices and guidelines. As section names change over time the links tend to be more stable and it saves an awful lot of typing. That is not to say that every every possible link needs to be hat-noted if it take a person to the wrong page, but when the use of an obvious short cut name has been used for an alternative then I think they are useful.

I am not sure where you would hold an RFC on this but the best place would probably be one of the Village pumps perhaps you should ask at the WP:help desk or ask at one of the WP:VPs ;-)

If you start an RfC I would appreciate a heads up. -- PBS (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. That seems reasonable. Actually I've been on Wikipedia for years, but it is only recently that I've started to frequent the behind-the-scenes boards. So I won't be proposing an RfC anytime soon, not until I get more familiar with the process. I will let you know if I start one. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:Gilliam
– Gilliam (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Margin1522!


Happy New Year! Margin1522, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Taiko FAC
Hey GermanJoe, Taiko is up for an FAC again after the first round of feedback. If you're able, let me know what feedback you have at the FAC page here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Terra Kulture AFD
If you could add content from that Kaye Whiteman book to the article (as you indicate you've read it or have access to it, since Google Books only has a preview online), it might just get over the notability threshold. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I can tell the only reference in the book is this one. If the author had known how to format the cite then maybe we could have all found it earlier. But I don't think that's the problem. The crux of the matter seems to be 's exasperated complaint that the author doesn't seem to understand how promotional it sounded. I think that's quite possible. Living in Japan and doing this stuff for a living, I know that just because someone writes English pretty well doesn't mean that they have assimilated American cultural norms. But that's OK. If we decide that the topic itself is notable, then we can work on it later. I'm on a deadline today so I can't do it right now, but I think there has been enough material added in the AfD to turn this into a decent article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at kpop tour AFD
Thank you for understanding how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Really, thank you. It's very hard to get comments on kpop-related AFDs. I don't know what to do. There are articles for concert tours that haven't even started yet up for AFD. If you are so inclined, feel free to peruse the many tours (or anything else) listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea. And if you know knowledgeable editors who'd give it a shot, please invite them to also peruse them, as well. Have a great day! Shinyang-i (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know Korean, so I don't know how much help I can be, but I guess I can look at it. We really do have to get across that WP is not a PR platform. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the editors know Korean, either. :) The Wikipedia-as-a-marketing-tool thing is really out of control in kpop! Shinyang-i (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RAID-2 History
Hi: Thanks for your edits and comments on the DataVault article - made me go make an image :-) Many folks think DataVault was the first and only RAID-2 product. FWIW, the IBM 353 drive used on the 1960s IBM 7030 (Stretch) computer used a 7 bit ECC (most likely a Hamming code) on a 32 bit word to provide real time single bit error correction and multibit error detection.  It was one drive with two access mechanisms, each with 39 heads.  The detection and correction was done in the attached 354 controller.  If not exactly RAID-2 then certainly very very similar and at the controller interface not much different than the DataVault.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what a great picture. About RAID-2, actually the book said first RAID product and even I knew that was wrong. Anyway it's so great to meet someone who actually knows. Have you got a barnstar for this stuff yet? If not I will have to take care of that. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

BABEL Speech Corpus
Hi, I'm very grateful for your intervention on behalf of the above submission - I had given it up for lost! Your additional material is just what I should have dug out myself. I will resubmit the article shortly. I do understand how difficult it is for WP reviewers - I am hoping to become one myself when I have become more familiar with how it all works. RoachPeter (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Red Bull Deletion
Hi, I'm leaving this note on your wiki page because the calls for deletion also involve a few (possible) wiki users who have recently harassed me and my name on the Red Bull wiki page itself. When I reported it, several users apologized on my page, including Corruption. I now believe he might be the original troll who bothered me in the first place. I'm not sure but I think it's worth considering. Thank you. Kgpaints (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I took a look, and it seems that the rudest one is on the way out. And perhaps the others will lose interest once the Red Bull AfD is settled. I wouldn't worry about the outcome that much – the only thing that counts is the evidence. Of course if it continues then that's unacceptable. There are admins with experience in this kind of thing, so they can look into it. Certainly if multiple accounts are being used that's a no-go.– Margin1522 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I contact these people? I'm not sure what admin to talk to. Kgpaints (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The place to handle trouble between users is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You can click that link, and then enter "harassment" in the Search box of the "Noticeboard archives" box on the right. That will bring up a list of how past harassment incidents have been handled. If you see a case that looks similar, you can go ahead and use it as a model to post a complaint, or use the talk page of the administrator who handled it to ask for help. Possible outcomes might be a warning, a ban on the user from contacting you, a ban on editing certain articles, or a block of the user's account across Wikipedia. From the behavior of one of those users, I suspect the latter might be likely. It looks like he's asking for it and actually wants to be blocked. About the others I don't know. Note that this doesn't apply to normal disagreements over the content of articles. That is supposed to be handled via discussions on the Talk page of the article in question. Assuming of course that the editors are actually interested in the article. If you do take this to an admin, it will be helpful if you can post some examples of the behavior you are complaining about. See Help:Diff for examples of how to to do that. Good luck, hope this helps. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Honebuto no hōshin
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to see (other) lifeforms working on the Streetcar Article.
...but I have to question, and have reverted, your choice of source for Snell's testimony to the Senate. That's a press release, and I'm not sure who it's from. Could be the subcommittee staff, but it could as easily be from the Nader operation or Snell himself. The Hathitrust site is a transcript of what actually got said, and is from a rock-stable source, and links directly to the whole of Snell's submission, and the whole of various responses. I think that's be much better to use on the main citation section.Anmccaff (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, is it already cited? Sorry, I haven't looked all that closely at the article. I thought that since it's a basic document it should be cited, but if there's a better source that's great. I was aware of this controversy over the streetcars before, but I only came across this article because of this question at RSN. I don't think I'm going to be doing a lot of work on it, although I could pitch in to work on the language, which sounds POVish to me. In my experience that kind of thing just invites counterattacks, and toning it down some wouldn't affect the substance of the argument. If the majority of scholarly opinion is really on one side, I think it should be enough to just say so, without looking like we're trying to guide the reader toward the correct conclusion. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I move this to the GM/Streetcar talk page? I'd like to respond where others there might see it.Anmccaff (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. I'll join in, though it may be tomorrow since I've got some work to take care of today. If you want to reply to the comments at RSN maybe you could bring that too. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Buddhist humanism
Sorry about delay in replying. The article was nominated for deletion by another editor and I concurred. It seemed to me, for example, that The Buddha's humanistic teachings marked a historical shift from all doctrines which viewed humanity as dependant on or influenced by the external power of gods, doctrines which could not free people from their sufferings and from injustice experienced in daily life. is an unsourced claim singling out a particular point of view; similarly Buddhist humanism started with overcoming hardships and barriers through great efforts to introduce equality to Buddha’s society based on discrimination is an unsourced promotional claim. I've seen worse, but since there is apparently a content dispute too, would it be better to restore as a draft for now?

You might want to consult Ubikwit  and other interested editors and let me know

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  08:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jim. After thinking about it, draftspace might be the best, if that's possible. It's not my article, so having it here doesn't seem appropriate, and the original author hasn't been around for a year now. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Margin1522, I can see why you don't think it's appropriate in a user subpage, but I'm not sure about a draft page, which is really intended primarily for inexperienced editors to get comments and approval for their drafts; I'm not convinced that's the best route, since the existence of the article is at issue.


 * What if I restore and immediately nominate it for a deletion discussion? That will allow both of you and any other interested editors to comment on the text and indicate whether they feel it should be kept (possibly with changes), deleted, redirected or merged. If a deletion is contested, as here, it's better to get a full discussion including uninvolved editors rather than rely on one admin's judgement or lack of it Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nominate at AfD? That sounds good to me. I'm sure will be able to point out various defects, which I'm prepared to acknowledge (after I finish reading it :). I'd be interested in getting third party opinions about promotional or not, and what should be done with it. I think a strong case could be made that it is a content fork and should be merged back to the original article, if it survives. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to follow Jim's call on this, my sole concern is that that it not become a time sink. I'm sure that will be interested.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 19:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay I been asked to give my opinion. I fear that we are losing focus here. The term “Buddhist humanism” was brought up by ONE editor. In my books, and I am not entirely objective on issues regarding SG/SGI, this term is rather a fringe theory. Before we as Wikipedia editors focus on this term it might be useful to find out what SG/SGI is about – dogma and/or doctrine. I have been active on Nichiren Buddhist related matters for quite a while, but it might a good idea to focus on well-established Buddhist terms, on which some SGI related editors are reluctant to comment, before we create new ones. Within the Buddhist world SG/SGI is on the fringe. So in my opinion it is about taking one step at a time and the article on SG/SGI leaves many questions unanswered.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Catflap. OK, I'll explain my basic thinking here. From what I've read, SG draws on two traditions: (a) Nichiren Buddhism and (b) Western humanism. You and Ubikwit want the SG article to be about (a) = Buddhist theology. Daevler and other editors, some of them SG members, keep trying to add material about (b), and you guys keep reverting them, on the grounds that (b) is "not Buddhism". The result is edit warring and flame wars on the Talk page.
 * What I would like to see is for Team (b) to have somewhere to work in peace. If we had a main article on “Buddhist humanism” they could add their material there and link to it from the SG article. It doesn't have to become a time sink for you and Ubikwit if you just ignore it. In fact I think that for the sake of peace in Wikipedia, the best thing would be for you and Ubikwit to just stay away from whatever article Team (b) is working on. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that I have to answer such an out-of-policy suggestion is somewhat annoying, but let me make this clear. The only reason I didn't suggest you be sanctioned at the AN/I thread was because you hadn't directly messed up the article itself. You're comment here is indicative of your disposition on the Talk page, enough so that an uninvolved admin like Jim can further grasp the motivation for my Speedy Delete request.
 * The main article or any other article related to SG doesn't depend on "what [you]'ve read", it depends on what the sources say. It doesn't depend on how advocates want to promote their cause, it depends on what the sources say. If you haven't read the sources, what you have to say probably doesn't belong in the article.
 * I'm not going to ask you or any of the other advocates at the article again to do anything nicely.
 * Next stop, Arbcom.
 * I'll go with whatever course Jim thinks is proper here, but you're suggestion of letting the SG advocates have a Wikipedia article all to themselves and not subject to Wikipedia content policies is preposterous. -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 20:56, 22:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Margin1522 I disagree. I hardly edit the articles in question – except one major issue that was reverted – fine. The talk page is used to talk and discuss issues on the article. At the moment the discussion turns a bit weird. Letting the other “team” do what they are doing and letting this go by uncommented is in my mind a strange strategy. I was not aware that Wikipedia’s purpose is to advocate certain views. All that I ,and to my mind I guess also Ubikwit, would like to see if some articles would provide at least some basic encyclopaedic information and do so by using standards and definitions generally in use provided by sources. It seems strange to reinvent definitions just because one does not like the ones in use or does not know how to use them. If somebody struggles learning how to swim and somebody comes along saying to try out cycling instead is a bit strange – strange advice when one is drowning. Concerning the article of SafwanZabalawi: I do not see its Wikipedia’s job to define one organisations terminology. I guess that is in conflict with guidelines on notability aswell. That person was in conflict with another still existing article that sounds similar … didn’t like it and went off writing his own article. I started articles like Nippon Kaigi and it had a bumpy start. In the end its about notability and sources. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC) I think WP:FRINGE gives some clues, as if Satwan’s article would have made it, it would be in that category. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We are getting sidetracked again. If people want to work on a draft in a sandbox, that's fine as long as spam/copyright rules are followed, but in article space any one can edit any article. I don't see any objection to my suggestion, but I'll give it another 24 hours to make sure and then implement a discussion at AFD Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> Well do what you have to do but also take note of the article Humanistic Buddhism and the talk page! Look out for Safwan’s posts.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in light of Margin1522's revealing comment above, I'm now inclined to object to the AfD ruote, and would rather request that Margin1522 either accept the userification option and work on it as a draft to resubmit at AfC, or be required to go through an undelete request through a delete review. I don't see any signs that the overall disposition toward advocacy has been changed at all, and therefore consider the AfD to be a time sink from the start at this juncture. The results of an AfD will be the same as that of the SD request, as the topic is not notable, there are almost no secondary sources that even mention the topic (or SG's purported drawing on Western humanism"), and it would be a content fork from where it got its start in the first place.
 * Note that I have no objection whatsoever to the SG being included in the article according to applicable content policies, but this so-called "content dispute" in which there are no sources first surfaced more than 6 months ago, and has already consumed too much of non-advocate editor's time and effort.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 08:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Ubikwit has now objected to the article being restored to articlespace and immediately nominated for AfD, the proper procedure would seem to be to make an undeletion request. I've never done that, but I suppose I will say it shouldn't have been speedily deleted because 1) whether or not it was promotional is controversial, and 2) some of the "unsourced" statements previously had sources, and it's unclear whether the deleting admin was aware that that those sources had been deleted. Then, if it's restored, I will finish expanding the bare URL references, and if he wants to Ubikwit can nominate it for AfD.
 * I'll add that of course anyone is welcome to work on the article, subject to the normal rules – no bullying or harassment of other editors, no edit warring, and no sudden removals of sources or content without a discussion on the talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Margin1522 I am seriously asking myself what is the use of doing so? When I look at the article Humanistic Buddhism and also take into account the talk page contributions of the no longer active author of Buddhist humanism I come to the conclusion that the author at the time did not get his/her ways and created a new article. The article on Humanistic Buddhism seems to have been composed by authors of many Buddhist directions in order to reach a compromise. Do you have any idea how many Buddhist schools orgs and what have you are out there? I even have some reservations about both terms but do acknowledge the fact that to some it is an important issue. Just to be on the safe side we are now talking of maybe recreating an article that before has been decided on not to meet certain criteria. If the article as such would have been re-written thereby using impartial sources – so it may be, then one of the two article would be superfluous. In the end we are talking about one group’s alleged terminology to be allowed to be promoted – if that is the state of affairs fine – in my books that’s the end to objectivity on the English Wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, your choice; alternatively, you could agree to userify the deleted article and go through the sources I deleted to see if you think I made some mistakes and that there were sources that supported the material, asking for comments as necessary. I think that such an approach would save everyone a little effort.
 * Please check the Humanistic Buddhism talk page for recent threads, if you haven't already done so.
 * Since I don't think you will find sufficient secondary sources for an article, it might be possible to create an umbrella typ article with an even more taxonomically generic title, such as Humanism and Buddhism or the like, but it must be acknowledged that there is a body of secondary sourcing on Humanistic Buddhism, which I gather is a translation of a Chinese name of a teaching in a Taiwanese sect of Zen, that preceded the adoption of the term "Buddhist Humanism" by SG.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Hi Margin1522: I have expanded Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and the nominator has withdrawn at Articles for deletion/Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. If you're interested, feel free to expand and improve the article more. Thanks, N<font size="-2">ORTH A<font size="-2">MERICA <font size="-2">1000 08:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After that I suppose I should, and hopefully address some of the nom's concerns, which weren't unreasonable. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Small caps
Hey, I liked the article you provided in the discussion on small caps. What do you think of the font Cardo, which is used in Latin spelling and pronunciation (if readers have it installed)? And do you have any idea what would be necessary to make real small caps usable on Wikipedia? The installing of certain fonts, use of certain Unicode characters? — Eru·tuon 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thanks. I would love to get real small caps on Wikipedia, but I'm not real optimistic about it happening soon. Basically you have to specify the font, which is easy enough for a blogger, but here we have such a tremendous variety of users and requirements. We really need a superfont with support for everything, including all the Eastern European languages. I think the best chance of that happening is when Microsoft gets around to adding real small caps to the system fonts in Windows and browsers start supporting them.
 * About Cardo, that is really a good looking font. Bembo! One problem might be that it's a serif, and the majority of our users probably prefer a sans for body text. Unicode characters, yes. I'm not all that familiar with it, but I think that it has separate codepoints for IPA characters, so the linguists and classicists are in good shape if they can enter those characters. I don't know how they do it. Keyboard macros, probably. It might be worth looking into if someone could concoct a template to do the code conversion. There's a thread about this here at Typophile. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually one of those linguists or classicists. As far as comprehensive Unicode fonts, I like the look of Gentium a lot. Gentium Plus is free and has support for I think all Latin alphabet characters in Unicode; not sure if you've seen it.


 * After a little search, I found Phonetic Extensions (U+1D00–U+1D7F), which contains small cap characters. This Unicode block is well supported in Unicode fonts, so it could be used for small caps if a conversion template were made. Regrettably, I don't have experience with advanced template features like that. Actually, some characters are missing: there's no small F, for instance. Searching on Unicode Lookup seems to confirm this. So never mind; I guess the idea won't work. — Eru·tuon 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it was an idea. So I guess we're back what's possible with the current state of browser support. I'm interested to see how this thread comes out and if there really is enough demand to revisit the guidelines. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)