User talk:Nagle/Archive 2010-10-20

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump
John, not the actor or artist (lol!), since your recent advice over at ANI I have successfully used the Village Pump, technical section twice in about 24 hours. BTW those guys are great over there. I become more impressed with Wikipedia each day. Anyway, I want to show you the result of the second request. It's fixed!!! Ti-30X (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well maybe you didn't see it because it is not active anymore. That ANI thread that I screwed up was fixed by the technical people over at the Village Pump. Whew! Also, one more thing, in regards to what you might have been saying about the importance of my thread at ANI. I have come to realize that I jumped over a few steps in the process by posting that there. Anyway, thanks for your input, it was very helpful. And, I "heard" you when you said there were several frustrated parties involved. I really didn't want that. Ti-30X (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ezra Merkin
Hello. Would you care to contribute to the debate on whether to remark on his Jewish ethnicity on the talk page? I would contribute further but everything seems to become an ad-hominem attack as I have edited several Jewish articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Standwithus campus banner.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Standwithus campus banner.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reordering on Taleb page
Hi! The edit you recently mentioned is not deleting information, just re-ordering. Ulner (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking discussion/description of signalling for automated Metro trains
I see from some of your contributions to the article about the recent train crash in Washington, that you have some familiarity with this area. I have none, can you recommend any sources?

... in particular I wonder whether the Washington Metro system logs all signals from its ~3,000 circuits (the circuit count reported in the Washington Post as the total for the 100+ miles of track), centrally in real time. If yes, it seems likely that a collision like this one might well have been prevented if the circuits' event records were carefully scrutinized in real time for 'gaps' or other anomalies. Such as, "If train #1 has been recorded travelling on circuit #1, and is no longer being recorded on circuit #2, then it is still presumed to be on circuit #2 until it has been recorded on circuit #3"....as opposed to the current behavior which apparently is, "if train #1 is not recorded as being on circuit #2, go ahead and send train #2 onto circuit #2."

I don't doubt that this is at least somewhat of an oversimplification, but perhaps it makes the general idea clear: since it is apparently unsafe to assume that a single circuit will reliably report the presence of a train, it would be helpful to consider additional data that would shed light on the situation.

Apart from the above idea, it would seem that any time a train is recorded as having come onto both circuit #1 and circuit #3, but was not recorded as having come onto circuit #2 in the meantime, you would want that sequence to be defined as an event that triggered an immediate warning that there was a BIG safety problem with circuit #2.

Yes, I know that the Post has so far only reported that the troubled circuit failed to report a standing train. Perhaps it will come to be known that despite the failure mode for standing trains, it has no trouble recording and reporting a moving train. Regardless of the specific failure modes of this particular circuit today, at seems that some real-time sanity checking of the reported progress of trains, beyond what has been in place up until now, may be necessary for increased overall system safety.

This is all 100% uninformed amateur speculation. That's why I am keen to know more. Maybe all of these bases have been covered already, somehow. Publius3 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

found: info about system and real time logs
Found a link, inside the article at http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=2702, to the NTSB report about the 1996 fatal crash at the Metro Shady Grove station. It includes a pretty thorough description of the system, and confirms that circuit events are were logged real-time, albeit with a granularity limitation of one second intervals. Log file excerpts now available via links in an article at FrederickNewsPost, show thoroughly wacky data from the two offending circuits for several minutes prior to this month's collision: had these logs been programatically scrutinized in real time, an alert could have been triggered and the striking train could probably have been slowed and stopped before entering the occupied block. -Publius3 Publius3 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel
Hi, Nagle. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended Validation Certificates/Melih Abdulhayoglu
Hello, Nagle. I would appreciate your opinion about the Extended Validation Certificate page. My colleague Lakshmin has made some recent changes to the page. We both work for Comodo, a certificate authority that issues Extended Validation certificates.

Among other things, Lakshmin has swapped out a graphic from Verisign and replaced it with one from Comodo. We do want to maintain the neutral POV, so please let me know if we have stepped over the line.

This afternoon I am also contacting a few editors to ask them to visit the Melih Abdulhayoglu page. Melih Abdulhayoglu is the CEO of Comodo. Early on I told an editor that I worked for Comodo so he put neutrality and conflict of interest banners on the article.

I hope that we have cleaned up the article enough that the banners deserve to be removed. Is this the way to go about requesting their removal?

If you can help, I would appreciate it.Katharine908 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Fifth (Band)
Hello Nagle, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of The Fifth (Band) - a page you tagged - because: '''being signed to a notable label indicated importance/significance. A7 does not require that notability exists or is established, use WP:AFD instead.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True. They issued their first album on a major label yesterday. Someone else has proposed deletion. Article doesn't claim enough notability to pass WP:BAND.  --John Nagle (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions at Talk:Power Rangers
Is there a more effective way to add footnotes or a sufficient alternative that refer to other articles in a way that does not add unnecessary prose to the article?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 08:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Madoff.mugshot.doj.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Madoff.mugshot.doj.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
See WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Neo Black Movement of Africa
Just to let you know that seeing as you're the only other person who's helped at the above, I've cleaned the page. Go look, tell me what you think. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That one is tough. There are few reliable sources, and both AllAfrica and The Economist are behind paywalls now. This article in The Sun  might help.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of King & King
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is King & King. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/King & King. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Karenonsilver4a.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Karenonsilver4a.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 08:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Noradsantaguantanamocrop3.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Noradsantaguantanamocrop3.png. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

JIDF
Hi, the JIDF page is semi-protected for a month. I think it would be good to take advantage of this to sort out some of th elong standing problems. I'm going through para by para proposing changes. Please feel free to join in.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, them again. Sigh. --John Nagle (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have provoked this action, but I would really like feedback on the talk page from genuine WIkipedians, not multiple JIDF anons making it look as if any action I might take would be against consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Tonica Marlow
I added some references to Tonica Marlow   You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Tonica Marlow. - Eastmain (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

VNSA
Why did you edit the article on violent non-state actor by deleting all that was there? You think your story replaces that which was there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrormundo  (talk • contribs)


 * Too much was uncited. The Wikipedia article needed to be tied more closely to the sources. --John Nagle (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have reviewed the Petter Schjerven edit you entered into the evidence. I think your feeling that something was awry with the edit is correct, and my analysis is also on the evidence page. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1e100.net
John, in this post you asked about the mysterious 1e100.net. This story in The Register has a bunch more about 1e100. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 10:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Double vote
Hello! You have double voted here. The nomination generally counts as the nominator's stance. I reckon it was probably an accident, so no big deal, but I therefore encourage you to strike the above cited edit or move it to be part of the nomination to avoid any confusion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Badwarelogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Badwarelogo.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Badwarecaution.png
Thanks for uploading File:Badwarecaution.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Israelcampusroundtable.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Israelcampusroundtable.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.
 * 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) 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ladue Yacht Club
I want to share the reasoning behind what I'm doing here.


 * While it is true that junk articles (hoaxes and many other similar things) use up editor time when we go through AfD, it also uses up editor time -- and more importantly goodwill -- if the article is speedied and then reappears for whatever reason. There are two advantages to a full hearing at AfD: 1) it nearly always gets the full story out so that mistakes aren't made, and 2) any decision is final and can be used as the basis for speedying and salting the article in the future if necessary.


 * The other thing I'd like to encourage you to consider is that most administrators active in speedy deletions go through and speedy stuff that they think meets the criteria and ignore everything else, because that's easy to do and non-controversial. 90% of the stuff that gets tagged is an easy delete.  I usually pick a letter, and when I went through all the "L" articles tagged for speedy the other day, more than half of them were borderline, so I know admins have been going through looking for low-hanging fruit (in all fairness many times its newly-minted admins and they try to be conservative for good reason).  I try not to do that, and so I make it a point to do something with the articles listed, realizing that often several admins will have looked at it already.  I would guess four or five admins looked at the article already and didn't know what to do with it, so they just moved on.  I get negative feedback across the board on this -- people complaining that I speedied their article, people complaining that I removed their speedy tag, etc.  Comes with the territory, I guess.  I try to be fair and reasonable and follow the criteria.


 * Finally, I've been wrong so many times by thinking articles are hoaxes or cover non-notable topics that I've become more careful. Often an article on a legitimate topic has a paragraph or sentence that is "hoaxworthy."  Often an article that is badly written and full of puffery gets mistaken for bad faith.  As dysfunctional as AfD can be it's better than it was a few years ago and the bad articles do get deleted.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, in general. This case did have to go through AfD; the originator put a "hangon" tag on it. The problem is that most new articles are junk. (Top of the list on new articles right now: "17:06, 5 April 2010 ‎Matt seliger (hist) ‎[81 bytes] ‎Mattturtle (talk | contribs) (←Created page with 'Matt seliger or in italian matthius seligerius is basically the coolest kid ever.') (Tag: very short new article)") The sheer effort required to stem the tide of incoming junk is discouraging.  Maybe we need policy so that some positive approval is needed to keep a new article. At least for new editors.  --John Nagle (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The bots and the edit filter get most of them. And they aren't actively harmful, unlike some problem edits. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentry Gun Page
in reference to your insertion. the site is The Sentry Project. you are not allowed to put that site on the sentry gun page though. even if you thought it was relevant you still can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.36.178 (talk • contribs) --John Nagle (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

your comment on ANI
Hey John, You do realize that the "fringe theory" to which we are referring to is not the allegation that there was a papal coverup/scandal, but rather that the Pope might be arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits Rome and that he does not count as a Head of State because the Vatican isn't a country? (Positions advanced by a two lawyers in England.) Nobody is claiming that there isn't a story related to allegations of coverup/scandals.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * John, you still haven't clarified your statement. When you said it is no longer fringe, that makes me wonder if you are referencing the case that the ANI dispute discussed as being a Fringe Theory.  The Fringe Theory in question is not about the sex abuse case or even alleged cover-ups.  Those issues are definitely not fringe.  The Fringe issue that the ANI case discussed dealt with a legal hypothesis posed by a notable lawyer and two notable athiest that called for the Pope to be arrested when he visits England this fall.  A position that the Prime Minister has condemned and the associated pressed called "speculative".  At the current time, outside of this small group of people, nobody is talking about arresting Benedict for "crimes against humanity" thus the theory is Fringe.  The discussion about sex abuse and possible cover-up, however, are not fringe and were not referred to in the ANI case as such.  So far all of your comments seem to be talking about the sex abuse scandal/cover up, and not the fringe legal case.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving sidewalk
Thanks that version of the image is much better, the book says it was photographed by a 'Government Photographer' so I looked on the Library of Congress website images of World's Columbian Exposition, but didn't see it, so I cropped the version you found at the Illinois Institute of Technology site, and added re-uploaded it. I'm not sure why the image was so badly distorted in the first version I uploaded. I did notice that in the book 'History of the World's Fair: Being a Complete and Authentic Description' that image had been replaced by a different image in certain editions, they probably got a bad copy and decided not to use the image in further editions. Thanks again. (Floppydog66 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC))