User talk:Marskell/Archive 7

You are right, but...
That is obnoxious, and other examples are available, but I've since been in editing disagreements with him myself, so I don't think I can take any admin action against him. I think he is also User:Fplay, among others. Tom Harrison Talk 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks, please do let me know. Tom Harrison Talk 18:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to leave a warning on his talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a warning for now, if they are disruptive (I haven't seen this, but others may have) then a possible block. I'm loathe to block editors, however. Perhaps there are other routes? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My internet connection is down, so I'll be on an enforced break for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Un-educational?
Hello Marskell, I noticed that you disagreed with categorizing pederasty with other educational topics. If we were to talk about present day affairs, I would agree with you, but as the articles were categorized as "History of education" and that is easily demonstrable as accurate, I was perplexed by your edits. Would you mind saying something about the thinking behind those deletions? Haiduc 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the imbalance, and your point is well taken. Thanks, Haiduc 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tangential and TS
There are a few judgement calls there that we will have to do a second pass on. I did not include the Bee Bees (see my comment in Bee Gees) in it (Jeb and dubya, that is) and I did not include Jesse Jackson. Those three guys are in too many categories as it is. You want to remove a few from the category? Be my guest, but do not get greedy about undoing my work. -- Pinktulip 14:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of that other shit does not have a category for themselves. Terri does. -- Pinktulip 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop negating MY effort, slight though they may be, to ensure that MY country has an informed electorate. I do not know how informed the electorate of your native country is, but the way I see it, it took YOUR country quite a bit longer to through those royalist Brits out, Eh? -- Pinktulip 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not think that your silence is going to let you off the hook about the clean-up task you have ahead yourself in the Terri Schiavo Memorial section. You undid my work in that section and you are going to it back in a timely fashion. Get it? Eh? -- Pinktulip 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip
Hey dude. Thanks for letting me know. I've asked him to try and be more polite - or rather, just polite - and consider his responses more. I think that a bout of blocking or other 'disciplinary action' would just lead to a shitstorm. Nobody wants any more shitstorms, and so let's try the nice approach first. You never know. P r o t o ||   t y p e   23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that building an alternate version of the article that reverts all of Pinktulip's changes is a Bad Idea - I really think it would go better if you tried to work with him. I know he can be rude, but the best way to work with that is to grit your teeth and try and be polite again. If you basically redo the whole article in one fell swoop, there will be hellish bad feeling - never good.  P r o t o  ||   t y p e   16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky
I googled and googled and googled...what's "unqualified present" tense? RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I got your support. And by the way, thanks for restoring the skills section. I dropped a note on the talk page of the user who whacked it. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your deletions
Talk:Pro-Test SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

compromise has been proposed
I proposed a compromise, Islamic political terrorism that captures the meaning of Islamist without using the mainly academic word. Also, I think it has the possibility of reaching consensus unlike the others. Please discuss at the talk page, peace.--Urthogie 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamism

 * As you wish. I came to your talk page meaning to write a succinct and coherent comment and out came a rambling screed. I seem to have lost the ability to write coherently on Wikipedia. Maybe a wikibreak is in order. Palmiro | Talk 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I deeply regret using the words "more developed parts of the Arab world", which isn't really right. I really meant something like, having a longer history of urbanisation and contact and cultural exchange with the outside world. Bad, bad. Palmiro | Talk 18:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with references
Hey Marskell, how are you? I'm in the middle of a massive revision of my "Definition of Planet" article and I would like some advice on how to rework the references to Wiki's preferred style, as I haven't a clue how to do it. Could you give me the skinny on the method? Thanks Serendipodous 19:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

One pound 98 pence
The view on the talk page, from people on both sides of the debate, seemed to be that the details were interesting and should be included. I'm really failing to see the objection. It seems to be specifically that he was with his girlfriend and that they spent one pound 98 pence, but this is the kind of detail that livens up and humanizes an otherwise dull article. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Gflores
Yeah, he hasn't made an edit in ten days. I haven't seen him online either. He's been on the commons a few times, but that's it. Deckiller 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Test
Hi Marskell. I wanted to thank you for your input on Pro-Test. SlimVirgin and i appeared to have been drawn into a debate on a micro-issue losing perspective on the bigger picture, which is a shame as in general we can work things out pretty well. But i think your judicious mediation found a good compromise and we now have a nice article. Good work. Rockpocket 22:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

talk:ape
Oy. *sigh* - UtherSRG (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Do we have any procedures for dealing with such likes as them? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, Marskell. UtherSRG explained his/her rationale and i appreciate where the misunderstanding came from. Its partly my own fault for a poor attempt at wit. Between "Rockpuppet" and now "Sockpocket", i'm beginning to rue my choice of username! I stumbled upon the Ape article browsing from a primate link and couldn't help wonder if there is suspect motives for proposing separating humans from apes. I think its perfectly reasonable as it is and thus added my vote. I'll keep an eye on the outcome and lend my support where i can. Rockpocket 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
 r ƒa · ɐƒ ɹ Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 

Editing
Dude, you can see that I am in the middle of a bit of a serious edit of colonialism. Might you wait until I am finished? Gsd2000 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well dude, you're misunderstanding colonialism in part and I think the sentence is reductionist. Direct rule is imperfect admittedly, but as the British Raj example underscores you do not have to start actual colonies to be a colonizer. Marskell 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you are misunderstanding that "colonialism" refers to colonies such as the British Raj and colonies such as Canada. Settler colonies are types of colony.  Gsd2000 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My goodness. Yes, of course, colonialism can refer to the British Raj and Canada and insofar as it refers to the former it is not synonomous with "colony-building" in the strict sense. Colony and colonialism should not be merged and the first sentence should not read as a half-done dic-def. Marskell 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Strict sense" as defined by who? You, obviously.  Anyway, should we keep this debate on the talk page of the article?  Gsd2000 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia (kudos to you for that), but I haven't seen that imperialism/colonialism is really your field of interest up until now. I am curious as to your background in this subject, given your strong views on it?  Gsd2000 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aliens
Stupidly enough, I didn't even know that the culture article was linked from the extraterrestrial article in such a location. I did notice the name change, though :-) I'll be sure to try and send more (if not all) of them to the main article.

Thanks

Search 4 Lancer 16:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Emirates
You are welcome to claim that "in practical usage, 'Emirates' refers to the country nine times out of ten" but according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Emirates 99 times out of 100 it means the airline. If you replace an article with a disambiguation page, you are remiss if you do not update all of those links to point at the newly renamed article. Ewlyahoocom 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

orangutan
There is some controversy over the spelling indicated in the opening line of this article. Please come to talk:orangutan and weigh in if you please. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf
Hi, Please do not remove the word Arabian Gulf from the article. It is a valid term. I have already provided reference to the Encyclopedia of Orient. Thanks  D iyako Talk + 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shorts
Incidentally, what do you think of Good articles? Marskell 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a fan. Largely for the same reasons Raul gives. I'm also thinking that some month or another they will deploy the article rating/validation system that's been promised since January, and that will fill any needs that GA currently addresses.


 * I admit that the featured short (article) concept makes some sense though: It's not in the rules, but it certainly is a clear fact in practice today that a short article, no matter how good or comprehensive, can never be an FA. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. I tell you what, though: I wouldn't mind seeing the Did You Know? front page section replaced with something that doesn't emphasise creating new articles. (We've got a million, let's stop and work on those.) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin now!!
Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list). I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Radiotelescope.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Radiotelescope.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. But i am unsure with the tag which you have used because he has not indicated that under which license the image should be considered. Could you please get that copyright information? Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone sends me e-mail permission is there any tag that fits? It's just a guy at a university who took it privately so I don't know what more to expect beyond the "no problem" I've posted on the image talk page. Marskell 08:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Permission to use on Wikipedia? No.  The permission need to be to use the image under a free license; if the photographer wants the image to be widely used, then the Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution license is the best, if the photographer wants to minimize the usage, the GFDL is the best (the GFDL requires that the full text of the license to accompany any re-use of the image, while the CC-BY-SA license only requires that the photographer be credited). --Carnildo 09:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So "can I use this on Wikipedia?", "yes, you can" is not actually permission unless the person specifies one of the two options you describe? If that's the case you might as well delete the pic and I'll go hunting for something from NASA or some such thing. Marskell 09:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are a bunch of options (see Image copyright tags), but those two are the most common. --Carnildo 09:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did tell you!
Dude, I emailed you a good 10 minutes before posting the RFA. I think it was 10 minutes. How much notice did you need?! :) You were the only person who got any kind of notice. You should feel special, damn it. Proto ||type  21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. I am sorry to bother you but I wondered if you might be prepared to take another look at my RfA nomination. The main reason that I ask this is because there has previously been some confusion as to my talk count and I also wonder if there might have been some confusion regarding the duration of my contributions. I would also like to comment on some of the concerns raised by others, which I have discussed on the nomination page, but which you may not be aware of.

Firstly with regard to my talk contributions and the duration of my contributions. I just wanted to clarify that I do have substantial numbers of contributions in the user talk namespace although significantly less in the main article and wikipedia talk namespace, so I do have a good history of interactions with other users but primarily on their user page (furthermore I have a good track record of warning vandals - something is often lacking for many vandal fighters both admin and non-admin). Regarding the duration of my contributions, I just wanted to clarify that I have now been contributing for 15 months in total and, although I have had a few "lean" months when my focus have been outside of Wikipedia, I had almost 2000 contributions before February and there have been 9 months when I have made 100+ contributions.

WIth regards to the concerns raised by other, which aren't covered by the above, they seem to relate primarily to my lack of contributions to the article talk and wikipedia talk namespaces and what this says about my community involvement and exposure to process. Firstly I would like to say that I don't think my contributions in this area are particularly low when compared to other current nominees and recently created admins who are/were heavily supported (I have provided some details on this in the comments section of the nomination) - as I said in the comments section this is not to say "they are supported so why aren't I", rather it is just to provide a benchmark to compare how common my contribution pattern is. Secondly I would like to point out that I do not typically revert vandalism in these namespaces which I believe play a significant part in the number of these contributions for vandal-fighter editors (especially in the article talk namespace). Finally I would just like to reiterate my personal opinion that, regarding edits to Wikipedia talk, contributing and understanding are different things (i.e. I do understand the policys and guidelines even though I have not actively contributed to them). With regard to my community involvement, I do have a fair number of edits to the mian Wikipedia namespace and also the user talk namespace as previously mentioned.

I understand that contacting you in this way may well be considered "campaigning" but I want to assure you that I am driven by good practical intentions rather than ego. As you will be aware, I am primarily a vandal fighter and I feel that the admin tools will allow me to far better serve the community in this area. Specifically I come across a lot of situations were there are very few editors on RC patrol and a lot of vandalism is being missed, this is compounded by the fact that AIAV is often not being heavily monitored during the same periods meaning that blocks are delayed and a lot of time is spent reverting vandals who have already received a final warning. This extra time spent reverting known vandals obviously mean that much new vandalism is missed - with the obvious effect on the quality and credibility of Wikipedia.

I would like to sum by saying that I feel I could make good use of the tools and that I have never done anything to raise concerns that I would misuse them. Cheers TigerShark 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Al Ain: birthplace of Zayed
Thanks for the comments on my work on Al Ain. Re: Al Ain as the birthplace of Sheikh Zayed. Its fairly common knowledge in the Emirates that he was born in Jahli Fort. Sometimes you see it written that he was born at what is now known as the Al Ain Palace Museum. I have been told that he lived there for some time during his adult life. With regards references for this information, can't think of a text offhand, but a simple search on Google with keywords "Zayed birthplace" results in many hits supporting this statement. BTW your most recent edits have restored some spelling errors in the Commerce & Industry section.

Astrology
"if we accept no "causal relationship exists between heavenly bodies and earthly events" as the def, then it is not in fact falsifiable"

Whether it's a causal relationship between heavenly bodies and earthly events or "synchronicity" that is simply mapped to heavenly events it still makes predictions which can be tested, which means it is falsifiable.... but the way you put it is fine with me. "No scientific basis" is true... Mystylplx 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See the Astrology talk page. Mystylplx 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Marskell!
Oh dear; I just realised the massive "atmospheric pressure" howler I made in my initial reading of Ken Croswell's article. Well done to you for spotting and correcting it.

Regarding Europa; perhaps "Planetary Habitability" is too broad a term for this article's remit. After all, we don't know what makes a planet habitable, since we don't know what life is. Life could exist in some exotic form on a large Plutonian planet, or on the surface of a neutron star, on in interstellar space for all we know. What this article is really looking at is the possibility of Earthlike planets around other stars. We want to know where we might a civilisation recognisably like our own.

Regarding references: I have been editing JK Rowling's bio article recently and have fallen afoul of a singularly obsessive individual who is determined that every fact must be cited, and that any uncited fact is potentially toxic and must be removed. She promptly stripped the article of every uncited fact (which meant about 3/4 of the article) and reposted them on her own subpage, holding them hostage until everyone else (though not her) ran around looking for the proper citations. As a result, JK Rowling's bio article now contains 63 citations from 41 separate sources, which is roughly double yours. I don't blame this strange person. Wikipedia is a forum for egocentrics, after all. I blame the ref system. It opens the door to thinking that every single sentance, since it can be cited, must be. I like the idea of lumpen paragrah of facts being referred to by a single, clunky source. It makes the article easier to read and doesn't demand anal retention. I also like having the link directly in the article; this is the internet, after all, not print, and hypertext is part of how the internet works. Therefore, even if it means there's not much chance of my article getting featured before it's deleted come September and the subsequent irrellevance of its topic, I'm sticking to my old-fashioned form of citation  Serendipodous 08:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Didn't mean to dump my irrational dislike of the ref system on you and, by implication, your fabulous article. Sure I would love your help in redrafting my article to make it more "now," if that is what must happen before it becomes respectable. Serendipodous 12:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Information loss
Just a note of caution, and catching an "infromation leak" in your SETI edit in Fermi Paradox.


 * Partial Removed Text: SETIs search programs are ongoing, and expanding. As well as the "piggyback program" of SERENDIP IV, SETI is planning to use the Allen Telescope Array &mdash; currently under construction &mdash; for its most comprehensive deep space survey yet: a survey of 1,000,000 stars within 1,000 light years of Earth, for medium-strength signals, plus a survey of the 4×1010 stars of the inner Galactic Plane from 1.42 to 1.72 GHz for very powerful transmitters. Observations began in late 2005, even though the telescope is still undergoing construction and expansion. The ATA holds the current best hope for future artificial extraterrestrial radio source detection.
 * Text in SETI article:: The SETI Institute is now collaborating with the Radio Astronomy Laboratory at UC Berkeley to develop a specialized radio telescope array for SETI studies, something like a mini-Cyclops array. The new array concept is named the "Allen Telescope Array" (ATA) (formerly, One Hectare Telescope [1HT]) after the project's benefactor Paul Allen. Its sensitivity will be equivalent to a single large dish more than 100 meters on a side. The array is being constructed at the Hat Creek Observatory in rural northern California. [3] The array will consist of 350 or more Gregorian radio dishes, each 6.1 meters (20 feet) in diameter. These dishes will essentially be commercially available satellite television dishes. The ATA is expected to be completed by 2007 at a very modest cost of $25 million USD. The SETI Institute will provide money for building the ATA while UC Berkeley will design the telescope and provide operational funding. Berkeley astronomers will use the ATA to pursue other deep space radio observations. The ATA is intended to support a large number of simultaneous observations through a technique known as "multibeaming", in which DSP technology is used to sort out signals from the multiple dishes. The DSP system planned for the ATA is extremely ambitious.


 * The individual survey descriptions are not in the SETI article.
 * The fact that ATA is currently operational, even though it is not complete, is also not in the SETI article.
 * I only compared the ATA, not the other programs, so I don't know if there is anything else lost with that edit.

I don't disagree that the summaries are more approptiate in the SETI article than Fermi Paradox, and moving it, or eliminating duplicated information, and providing a link is a good move.

Just try and make sure that you're either removing redundant information, or moving it to a more approprite article. As it stands, that edit removed that information (at least) completely from Wikipedia. - Vedexent 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Ok - how red is my face - you are 100% correct that the "missing" specifics of the ATA surveies are in the Allen Telescope Article itself. My apologies. - Vedexent 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ought
Why I don't like ought: it implies a teleology. Ought as used in a "might be" way is only one interpretation. Most other forms imply "obligation or duty", "advisability or prudence", or "desirability". Taken this way, the statement can be read "There is supposed to be life in the universe; it is better if there there is life in the universe". Probably just means "It is more likely that life exists".

I know it's a matter of interpretation - but when it comes to trying to figure out how the readers will interpret something, I tend to use Murphy's Law. - Vedexent 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)