User talk:Pcap/Archive 1

Stub tags at end, please
Hi, Please add stub tags at the end of articles, not at the beginning as you did for Symmetric inverse semigroup - it makes life easier for people doing stub-sorting. See WP:STUB which says "By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last." Thanks, PamD (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that for future pages since you already fixed Symmetric inverse semigroup for me :) Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of OpenType feature tag list
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article OpenType feature tag list, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ros0709 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Jurnalul naţional
You have totally misunderstood me. I'm not a fan of Jurnalul naţional, in fact I never read it; I have no relationship with it whatsoever. I just consider it important in that particular context that the most read newspaper in Romania uses the old spelling. Don't you think this is relevant, objectively speaking?

If you had taken the time to read the source I mentioned you'd have also realized that it's not just today that JN is in the top, but it has been so for the last three years. I understand you don't like the source (Antena 1); you are free to find a replacement. The original source, Biroul Român de Audit al Tirajelor, is not part of the same trust, or is it?

I have no intention to start an edit war with you. If you think the information I added is totally useless, I'll just step away. But you behave as if you were the owner of that article. May I remind you that no editor owns it, no matter their share of contribution.

One small final point: Please don't shout at me, I have pretty good hearing. — Adi  Japan  16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO it is redundant information in that article because JN is already mentioned as one of the three major newspapers. If you care about JN, start a wiki page for it. There you can list all tops it was ever in. the See for instance the page on the Washington Post. Also, the CAPS were for stubbornness in essentially making the same edit twice, not for lack of good "hearing". Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is indeed humble, as you put it. For your information, Jurnalul Naţional already has its own article (which I didn't even touch), and I don't "care" about it in the sense you seem to suggest. In exchange, the information at Romanian alphabet is truncated by the fact that those three newspapers are just called "major" instead of specifying that one of them is in fact the most major, if I may say so.
 * Advertisment on Wikipedia should indeed be avoided --- and this is something I do on a regular basis as sysop on ro.wp by frequently deleting promotional material ---, but avoiding it should not be done at all cost. Especially not at the cost of cutting information the reader needs for grasping the actual dimension of things.
 * Anyway, it looks like you're prepared to indefinitely defend your opinion and I don't care that much about such a minor detail to waste time on it. I'm just surprised (and worried) that you could consider my edit as being simply a "blatant advertisment" with no encyclopedic relevance whatsoever. You win. — Adi  Japan  17:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your change to Citing sources
If you have a question about a policy or guideline or other instructional information, please ask on the relevant talk/discussion page - don't edit the policy or guideline or instructional page itself. I've deleted your question from the above page; if you want to ask it again, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. -- John Broughton (dd) 20:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I was getting a bit frustrated with the long policy page with little actionable info... Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!
VG, thanks for the welcoming to the Wikipdea community. I look forward to helping out where I can. Thanks again for posting those helpful getting started links. I'm still working on my wiki markup skills! Isaiahdw (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Tian-Yau_Conflict
I'll add short section to Yau's bio with the claims he made about academic corruption in China. That story was carried by Xinhua in English (and it's not a blog). Please make the content available to me. Thanks, Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the page as a redirect to Shing-Tung Yau. You can find the content in the page history. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yau's criticism of Chinese academia was already mentioned in his bio, but without references. I've simply added a reference to the Xinhua story. I don't think the spat deserves more space than that on Wikipedia. You may wish to change the AfD outcome summary to reflect this. Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Freewrt
Just a comment as to what you said on AN/I. Being notable in its niche is often the problem with a lot of articles on wikipedia. These types of things are notable with the type of people who edit wikipedia and their articles. Yet when held up to policy they often don't meet it. Things really need to be notable to the general public and not just to the niche. That is why WP:NOTE was created. --Crossmr (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By that measure you should delete most manga/anime/web comics because they're definitely not notable except to people interested in that niche. Should the main characters from Hagaren each have their own Wikipedia page (Edward Elric, Alphonse Elric, Roy Mustang, Winry Rockbell, Scar), but a Linux distribution that is in the same ballpark of popularity (by Google counter standards) should be excluded form Wikipedia? There are no mainstream media mentions of either, and likely never will be. Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally when I find that stuff it is put up for deletion yes. I see a lot of other people putting it up for deletion as well. There is a lot of non-notable fiction stuff that needs clean-up on wikipedia, but as we know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really an excuse to keep something. As for Linux distributions, yes there are a lot of non-notable linux distributions out there, but there are those which are notable too. Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, and a few others get press. Anyone can create a linux distribution, we don't need an article on every one, just notable ones. Anyone can create opensource projects, again we don't need an article on everyone just notable ones. We also don't necessarily need mainstream coverage, just reliable sources giving it significant coverage so in the case of software, some techmags, reliable tech sites, etc. --Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The problem is that not everyone knows how to evaluate the specialized press, like for anime or Linux distros. Case in point, when I mentioned Linux.com and distrowatch reviews (not just stats) on Articles_for_deletion/NimbleX, someone replied "I could make 17 such operating systems before midnight tonight, and be featured in both by next week". I wished him good luck. People confuse the ease of putting together a distro with putting together something that a bunch of (lowly) computer journalists will consider worth writing about. Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidence
I just wanted to thank you. --Architengi (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Pohta ce-am pohtit. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —?????? •'discussion'• 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability
I'm not sure I understand your comment here. Who said anything about having a policy and a guideline? I think the discussion is solely about renaming or not renaming the guideline page. Everyme 13:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Manifold voting
Your comment here was entirely correct. In fact I had already decided not to reply, but that's not important: you put the AfD back on track. For essentially the same reason, I've removed your section on the title. I don't see the benefit of forking the !vote in the middle of an AfD. If editors want to change the title, then they can say so in their comments. Geometry guy 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have added that to the article's talk page instead. Done that now. VG &#x260E; 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good. On another matter, I've just unwatched Piergiorgio Odifreddi? but feel free to ping me if WP:BLP violations become a problem again. Geometry guy 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Life Preserver Star

 * Thanks for the appreciation, VG &#x260E; 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee
I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh?
I'm afraid you're right, it's hard to not respond in the face of this kind of things, but I think I'll heed your advice, it's taking up too much of my time anyway... Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Responce for BM 6th gen (list of original facts)

 * The article was merely against traditionalist's pride based views, there were enough resources to say that the most important view changing facts were accurate. If you did not agree, then you don't believe your own eyes, deeper analysis or think the stupid lies about hardware, coming from bull crap hardwired only traditionalists. They are not fact, their coding is the equivelant to an art program with effect buttens. Ps2's GL is from scratch and therefore unlimited in design respectfull to it's ops in the realm of GFX, other traditionalists want to beleive it is emulation, yet they don't even emulate a coding architecture. Merely they do the math from scratch and once again...yep, effect butten style coding is all the other is. PERIOD.


 * Pohta ce-am pohtit...though you went to a class, did it try to tell you the truth on height mapping (how you merely need to deepen the contrast for a similar look, yet costs less ops then normal mapping), or how hardwiring is full of nasty redundant repetition and waists the consumers money when buying all these under used, unoptimized Graphics cards. No, as they are not to the level of programming and design. Sorry, but your classes are filled with limited knowledge. Your class is merely telling you how to code it or other, IT IS NOT THE SAME SUBJECT OF WHAT THEY ARE. Remeber that like that class, many tuts on the web are not done in a manner of basic fact of what really is going on, usually they merely tell you what it does by looks, telling how they make them 3d-ish and what not. Zoom in, and you'll see that even normal mapping, under low class lighting, still exists and YES WORKS WITH BLOCKY SHADING (HitMan:BM). Phong is beleived to be something it's not, sorry everyone, other resources reveal that it uses a texture map and is only for interpolation of blockyness. ALL HARDWARE ELETIST ARE IMMATURE PROGRAMMING FRAUDS AND ARE A NATURAL FANBOY. They all deserve to be bannished from this realm of computer arts forever for their years of limited facts missleading people into thinking the effects are that great.--BobtheVila (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, does a PC need much much more requirments due to it's multitasking architecture? Boy, cause xbox has any extra texture or RAM compression that it uses (sniker). The answer is yes, yes it does. The PC software cannot be trusted as a fair comparison with hardware.--BobtheVila (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:barnstar
Thanks for that! :). It seemed the WP:BOLD thing to do; I didn't want the entire RfA derailed by people going off on a freedom of speech tangent (happened to me last time round with an atheism userbox). My personal views on the topic are mixed, but tend towards the look-at-his-contributions end of the scale. Ironholds 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain data
Hi Vasile

I hope that there is merit to the above-captioned article. However, even a million articles with the name in their titles won't convince me that the term isn't being used simply as an adjective modifying a noun (e.g., "yellow paint"). If you want to rescue the article, perhaps it would be worthwhile trying to add content instead of references.

Rgds, Bongomatic (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Award
Thanks for the award and for endorsing my closure at the inevitable DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SevOne
I added some references to SevOne. You may wish to revisit Articles for deletion/SevOne. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Language Computer Corp.
I added some comments on the deletion page. I have edited many pages before, but never started a new one so I don't know what is required to prove it is notable. Captkrob (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD comment
I added this comment in response to your comment, but the AfD had been closed in the interim. (It took me quite a while to compose a response to your comment.) My comment remains in the discussion; it was added in good faith since I didn't know the discussion had been closed while I was composing it, but I wanted to alert you to the comment in case you stopped watching the discussion after it was closed. Presumably any further comment should be on your talk page (I'm watching) or mine. I'm not sure additional comment is necessary, though. Frank |  talk  01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are all bound by our perceptions. VG &#x260E; 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass  Cobra  09:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for nomination at AfD
It would really help me--and I suppose others--if you would say more than just "Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources," and indicate just what the specific problem is--whether the sources are not third party, are not reliable, are not sufficient for notability, or are absent altogether--all in the context of the specific article. This hels to show you've considered the individual circumstances, focuses the discussion, and leads to more certain and quicker deletions of the ones that need to be deleted. DGG (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most AfD pages for which I've provided that "canned" reason have no sources whatsoever. The reason I provide that full statement, in which I link the notability and reliable sources guidelines, is that many articles of that kind are written by new editors that seem unaware of said guidelines. Providing the full statement with the links in the AfD is meant to avoid keep arguments that don't hold water. Having said that, I'll do my best to be more specific. VG &#x260E; 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the criterion for deletion is not unsourced, but unsourcable. You might want to take that into account in your wording. DGG (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically the burden of proof rests with sthose editors who wrote the article. Me proving "unsourcable" as nominator is impossible. Having said that, I make a quick, but good faith attempt to locate sources before nominating an article, even when article provides no sources. I know you're an unapologetic inclusionist, so we'll never agree on the details regarding AfD. Better leave it at that. VG &#x260E; 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say that you have done a search & say on what, & say its negative, it is likely that the amount of support you will get from people like me will surprise you. I thin about half my afd !votes this weekend were deletes, and I very much value the work of those who actually investigate. I want us to make correct consistent decisions. DGG (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG's comment above is supported. You nominated Black Lake, Saskatchewan for deletion when it was perfectly obvious it was a place and thus obviously notable per policy. BTW, it had a third-party source at the time you nominated it. Better practice would be to comment on the talk page or tag the page about what the deficits are versus "patrolling" in this way. There are a number of ways to contribute to improvements in articles, deletion proposals being only one of a number. Please consider using some of these. Unless you are an "unapologetic deletionist". Kindly, Fremte (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link/cite that policy? All I see is this proposal, which is essentially a lists of incompatible competing positions on this matter. You and I clearly support different options within that proposal. I really think wholesale class-based inclusionism is wrong. For a practical perspective, see this long discussion about the fiasco caused by a similar class-based clause in WP:ATHLETE. I don't think Wikipedia should be a text-based Mapquest or Google Earth. For the sake of avoiding drama on my talk page, I'll avoid nominating anymore geographic locations articles until the guidelines for them are settled. VG &#x260E; 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the best place to start about looking for alternatives is WP:AFD.DGG (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles about people
FYI, Category:Biography is a category about the genre of biography (and Category:Biographies is a redirect to it), so you should avoid adding it to articles about individuals. Categories that reference a specific occupation, like Category:American songwriters, would be more appropriate. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that. VG &#x260E; 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beating up
The article has been reduced to a disambig page. Please renew your comments BMW  (drive)  20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
I'm quite flattered you've asked, but the fact is I have a lot of enemies here, as proven quite recently. Maybe in a few months the situation will look better - I'll let you know. But thank you. Biruitorul Talk 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NetSupport Manager
I wish I'd been paying more attention to Articles for deletion/NetSupport Manager (2nd nomination) now. The reason I stated advertising as a reason, and I realise now I wasn't clear, is that the guy who wrote the article is the guy who wrote NetSupport Manager. Just curious whether this would have affected your "Keep"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. There's no absolute rule against WP:COI editing, and I'd rather have editors disclose the COI themselves. If this type of disclosure automatically attracts the label of advertisement, then those interested mainly in advertising here will just create User:BrownPaperBagOverMyHead accounts, and Wikipedia only stands to lose transparency. VG &#x260E; 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Pohta ce-am pohtit, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T¦C 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Comp Sc and WP:COMP
I saw you comments at WP:Comp Sc. Perhaps you haven't seen this  discussion ? --  Tinu  Cherian  - 10:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed I hadn't seen it. Your proposal was defeated (no consensus, really) by some not so convincing arguments, even though it allowed for different importance ratings (only quality was unified, which really is a no-brainer). It's odd that some editors didn't even agree whether computer science was a subset of computing or vice-versa. Oh, well... VG &#x260E; 13:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mala
Please see my comments there, particularly this one: reliable sources do exist for the basic facts, at the very least.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Much thanks for supporting in my recent RfA, I appreciate your trust. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you much for your support in my recent RfA, which just passed. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)
I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb talk  20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

State forest stubs
Thanks for the defense - I've had the same problem with Coren's searchbot a number of times before. Left a note on his page about it, too. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pharmboy/BLUDGEON
Thanks for the input on both essays. The PDT is closer to mainspace than bludgeon, and I appreciate all the help I can get on them. Bludeon is a much harder essay to write as well, since it covers a broader topic area. If enough good people contribute, it may actually be more than a little useful soon. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:
That's fine. I just didn't want to overstep my rights here. Thanks for the clarification. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DOS
Hi, thanks for the second opinion on the GA review - I had major concerns about coverage and about the "programmers' guide" impression DOS made, but was worried that I might have been asking for too much - I used DOS from the mid-1980s to late 1990s, and was getting no feeling from the article that this was the product I had used. I may have a go at improving it myself in a month, if no-one else steps up first.

If you have any comments on my approach to the review I'd be glad to hear them, as I'm a rookie reviewer. -- Philcha (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Having done programming on DOS myself, that article was hardly a programmer's guide — more like a fairly incomplete user guide. Had I not thrown out all the (printed) materials I had on DOS a long time ago, I might be tempted to work more on the article myself. But I'd be writing from memory. VG &#x260E; 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also be writing from memory, but then looking for citations to back it up. I agree that DOS "was hardly a programmer's guide", but I thought it looked like snippets from one - but I never programmed in C / C++, only in "power user" tools like dBase. -- Philcha (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure of multiple articles?
Non-admin User:NuclearWarfare closed as redirect a bunch of articles on Axis of Time characters: Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Willet_(fictional_character), Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Judge_(fictional_character), Articles_for_deletion/J_Lonesome_Jones_(fictional_character), Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Halabi_(fictional_character), even thoug all of the !votes were delete. I could support redirects to Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy, where these characters are already covered, even though such redirects are of little use because a search for those names returns the Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy article anyway, but the redirects to Axis of Time make even less sense, and were against consensus. I'm inclined to adjust the redirects just to avoid any drama, but I thought to check with you first since you have lost of experience with the AfD process. Thanks, VG &#x260E; 07:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, although you could overturn his closure and delete the articles per WP:DPR. If you do decide to change the redirect, you can protect the redirects as well and/or delete the article history other than the redirect (if there was nothing merged). Stifle (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Computers
You beat me to it. I was myself going to remove the "self-pub" tag, as http://atarimagazines.com/ is NOT a magizine, nor published ny Atari, and acts only as a redirect to the "Classic Computer Magazine Archive". Good job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And you might wish to revisit Richard Adams (inventor). Futher notability has been asserted and sourced. It may be that the nom was simply not a technophile... but this man is one of the reasons we are typing at our keyboards today... and he was doing this stuff when in his 20's and 30's. Amazing. Bill Gates may own him a debt of gratitude.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Barnstar! Being brand new at this, I wasn't sure the page was going to be there when I woke up this morning, having never been through the AfD process before. I have to admit I am more than a little overwhelmed by all there is to learn, but thanks to people like you, I will stick with it. Eggzactly (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your BLP Noticboard Entry
Your entry was ill-informed and your posting was inserted in between the contributions of other Wikipedia editors who were contributing to the discussion. You should observe that this at the link: Joe the Plumber Consensus: Dispute on tax lien issue expands to dispute on consensus the topic you raised was already addressed. You said: " This long discussion strikes me as forum shopping for those that don't like the result on the article's talk page because it's debating the exact same issue as the talk page. Interested editors have seen it, and have been put on notice already. I don't see what else this this long thread is going to achieve. It's time to close it." The users who moved the discussion, moved it FROM the talk page to where it is now. You came in without ever having contributed to the discussion, and evidently haven't taken the time to fully look at the discussion. We all want to resolve this issue, but impatiently swooping in and in the middle of everything explaining to us that "it's time to close it," without having even assessed what this is all about seems too careless and callous. Thanks for your interest, and if you have anything to contribute to this issue please participate. We need a fresh perspective. Please try to support your statements with logic and not emotion. --VictorC (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stated my position concisely on the article's talk page, and I've actually read that long BLP thread. I don't engage in endless back and forth arguments because they seldom achieve anything around here. In that thread editors simply reiterate their position over and over. Thanks for assuming good faith... not. VG &#x260E; 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the positive support for the page George Karakunnel. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP and WP:NNC
You may wish to join the discussion I started here about the aparent inconsistencies in the two policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your writing skill is nothing short of incredible. I am envious. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons Inclusionist (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your vote
One of the deleters changed your keep vote at the AfD to a "comment". I changed it back. You may wish to keep on eye out in case it happens again.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful thing to do....
This diff was a terrific thing to do and I am sure raised the author's spirits greatly. Wiki can be incredibly daunting to newbies, and your Oddball Barnstar was just the thing to make him feel like family. Nice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Pohta ce-am pohtit! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RDC
Thanks for drawing my attention to inherent problems with Remote Data/Deposit Capture. I worry you assumed I was acting maliciously in trying to clarify the stub in response to your initial concerns. I assure you this was not the case. I am completely pleased with the result you helped WP to achieve, and sincerely appreciate your contributions to the project. Thanks again, --Thomas B&#9816; talk 04:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (Updated for clarity)--Thomas B&#9816; talk 04:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

software related discussions
They really need to extend the list in twinkle (which I used to create the AFD), I didn't realise there was that category until you added it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Software" is not a category but a WikiProject; my impression is that more (topic) knowledgeable editors watch the WP:DELSORT queues for WikiProejects than for the categories. You need a TW extension or similar tool to do deletion sorting that way. See DELSORT; I use User:Jayvdb/Deletion_sorting_tool. It would be nice if one could select the WikiProjects at XfD time, but that's not currently possible. Also, not all WikiProjects have queue. VG &#x260E; 01:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

False CSD use in message
You used false CSD numbers, namely CSD 10, in several messages you posted on my talk page. CSD 10 is for attack articles and other negative articles and could not possibly apply to redirects, which what those pages were when I created them. Please do not post such false messages in the future they can be considered personal attacks. Hobartimus (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You mas also wish to read DTTR in any case. Hobartimus (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They weren't "false numbers"; I considered that those four redirects (Barack's aunt, Aunt of Barack, Obama's aunt, Aunt of Obama) were used to disparage Obama by singling out one of his relatives that had a burst of negative press coverage, and the closing admin agreed with my finding. You obviously failed to observe WP:NPOV in creating those redirects. On the other other hand, I fixed the double redirect for Aunti Zeituni since that was a WP:NPOV one.
 * Also, since you and are confusing WP:TW deletion notifications for personal attacks, I suggest you read this bit, which was written by an admin very experienced in the deletion process. You obviously failed to assume good faith all way. VG &#x260E; 13:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you continue personal attacks, and you continue your claims of "consensus" where none exists like you do here you will likely run into trouble later. CSD G10 is for articles, for redirects CSD R1-3 is used. As such it was demonstrably false with creating a false impression that it concerned articles. Please stop your disruptive activities for your own benefit. Hobartimus (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "G" stands for general, it's applicable to any page ("A" is for articles). Also, CONSENSUS doesn't mean unanimity, although 3-0 was unanimity anyway. VG &#x260E; 14:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would advise you never to declare "consensus" as non-admin after 1 hour 26 minutes of opening an issue like you did at that talk page. We have timestamps, records, these things are recorded and can be researched. I've never seen something like that in Wikipedia, and considered reporting it to administrators. Hobartimus (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was also about 20 minutes after receiving the first response at the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Establishing consensus for merges does not require admin privileges, and there is no established time frame for merge discussions, so I was simply WP:BOLD in applying existing consensus. Also, the merge was entirely in line with WP:EP, since I have not removed any significant amount of text (compare and ). I fail to see why you are so vituperative on this matter. VG &#x260E; 15:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues
I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?

Thanks for commenting,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So called Bias
i recently noticed that you are claiming about unsourced edits on battle of longewala i have not added any unsourced material im reverting edits by a new random editor and maintaning what the user MRG inserted a long while ago 86.158.236.85 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:CCC w.r.t why the material should be removed. Also see WP:OWN and WP:BITE w.r.t. "new random editor". VG &#x260E; 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi VG, I was wondering if you were interested in adminship? Let me know if you're interested. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit early for that. Thanks for considering me though. VG &#x260E; 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Would you consider, say, in the New Year some time? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken in Hand
I am not very good at Wikipedia, so I hope I am writing to the right person. If I understand things correctly you, VG, were the person who proposed it, (Taken in Hand), for deletion. I have never contributed to this article, nor have I seen the website "takeninhand.com".

I was discussing with some friends a variety of new words and expresseions which have entered the English language in the last 5 years, including "dogging", "office wife" and *taken in hand". There was some discussion as to whether "taken in hand" was a domination/contolling style relationship, or a leadership/guidance/caring type of relationship.  We decided to clarify the answer by looking it up in Wikipedia.  We were somewhat surprised to find that an article on this subject had been deleted in the past few days before we looked.

In our opinion the words "taken in hand" are used to describe the state of a relationship between a man and a woman. "She is a taken in hand wife/girlfriend" "She is taken in hand", They have a "taken in hand relationship". From an encyclopedic point of view taken in hand" is a type of relationship between two partners, in the same way that "marriage", "domination" "subserviance" or "love" can describe a relationship between two people.

I have heard the words used to describe both the domination/contolling style relationship and leadership/guidance/caring type of relationship. Possibly both are correct, and an article is needed to clarify the meaning.

One of the reasons mentioned for deletion was that it was a BDSM term. I have not really heard it used as a BDSM term, although the submissive in a BDSM relationship may also be in a "taken in hand" relationship, just as they could be in a "married" relationship, or a "love" realtionship, but one does not automatically imply the other.

Another reason given for deletion was that this term is not used beyond the site "takeninhand.com". This is not true. Me and my friends had never heard of such as site before looking at the deletion log. Clearly "Taken in hand" would not have been discussed by us if the term was not in wider use beyond a website. In fact the taken in hand style relationship is widely used as an experession. To prove this, use Firefox, go to Tools and check the box "Search for text as I start typing". Now load Google and start typing "Taken in...". Immediately you will see all the common searches by Firefox users on Googele. You will note that the second term searched is "Taken in hand relationship" with 6.6 million searches, with more than 100'000 websites referring to the term. "Taken in hand" is a widely known and widely used term.

However, I agree that the Wikipedia encyclopedic reference should not be a crib of an existing website. I also think that the reference in Wikipedia should be to "Taken in hand relationship", not to just "taken in hand". I would like to re-start the article under a new name "taken in hand realtionship". Please can you consider this and give me your support? Although (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with how the administrator evaluated the arguments in closing the deletion discussion, you should initiate a request at deletion review. On the other hand, nothing stops you from writing a new article on the same topic, but please adhere to the policies of verifiability, and no original reasearch, otherwise it's likely that the article will be deleted again. VG &#x260E; 15:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Requests_for_arbitration
Hi, You missed SA off your list, making it 19. All the best, Verbal   chat  16:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I counted him in those 18. Anyway, the count is only an approximation because the discussion spans multiple threads. VG &#x260E; 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
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, Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this list (ordered by impact factor) IJNEST is on the second page.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog] (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what are you trying to tell me? That it had an impact factor of 00.000 in 2006? I could not find it in the 2007 JCR Science Edition, and I searched by full name, abbreviation and ISSN. Also searching the 2007 JCR for "nuclear" returned 34 journals, but IJNEST wasn't among them. If there's a way to search JCR for 0 impact factor journals, pardon my ignorance.  Pcap  ping  19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Impressive summary of the situation over at Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Evidence. Thanks. It's nice to see at least one neutral, well-informed voice. II  | (t - c) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Academic studies about Wikipedia
I have tried to maintain WP:ACST (which is indeed designed as the kitchen sink list of Wikipedia in academia), and recently written and submitted a paper about academic studies about Wikipedia; I didn't know about this page, though. Are you an academic yourself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I only study Wikipedia in my free time. VG &#x260E; 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
Hi, I responded to your oppose !vote on my successful Rfa, but it closed before you got a chance to respond. What about my posts to WP:AN convinced you that I would intervene in content disputes? I don't think I made any content judgements in the posts I made. I'd appreciate hearing your response. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

mediawiki and dvipng
The current wikimedia server setup does use dvipng to make images, as I found out when I was researching 15777. The image file corruption is probably not due to the texvc program itself. It's probably because of some issue with the image servers, or with a server problem that makes texvc abort in the middle of execution, leaving the image file created but empty. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fibonacci Day
Thanks, I've deleted it. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question number 8 to Seddon's RFA
Would you reconsider the manner of presenting the final quote? Although I haven't been active at the noticeboard discussion on this site, the images are hosted at Commons where I'm an administrator and it's a rather difficult matter. The individual under discussion is demonstrably not well, yet that particular colorful turn of phrase is gratuitous and perhaps harmful--the fellow is functional enough to log into our website and if he reads that no good would come of it. Perhaps a refactor, a link to the diff, or some other less on-the-nose reference? Durova Charge! 20:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention was to ask a hypothetical question based on a real event, but sufficiently anonymized to prevent any BLP issues, so linking to a diff is totally out of the question (Seddon wasn't involved in that discussion). It seems a reasonably difficult moral dilemma that an admin may face. I know that those images are hosted on commons, where the standards there are (unfortunately) different. Speaking of the wording, those terms were unfortunately used by fellow editors here. If you think it will entice people to look for what I'm talking about, I'll alter the words. Is that your worry? Or is it because the question is too much like a live ammo military maneuver? Pcap ping  21:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I cannot find that discussion by searching for those words, so I think it's okay BLP-wise. I'm going to go off-line shortly. If you still think there's a problem, feel free to change or even remove the question; I won't object. Pcap ping  21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point case against delinking. If it's Turkey Day for you (it is for me) then happy tryptophane. :)  Durova Charge! 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your conduct on the AFD for Aslan's How
Your response to Colonel Warden accusing him of "bullshitting" violates WP:FAITH, and is also a violation of WP:EQ, especially since you state an unwillingness to check all the sources cited by him. Please review both behavioral guidelines as the AFD process continues. You are welcome to disagree, but accusations of that sort against another editor are not aceeptable. 23skidoo (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked for specifics that make the place notable. Did you read my question? CW didn't answer it. One can easily tell that the place is mentioned in the many books about C.S. Lewis' works, but I gave an example of how trivial the mentions can be. Giving vague answers with no specifics but lots of sources is bullshit, i.e. giving the impression you know more about the topic that you do (see Bullshit). Would have preferred that I call him a fluff bunny instead? That's not a verb, so it can be interpreted as personal attack. I'm sorry if asking for details, and not accepting being hoodwinked seems bad faith to you. Pcap ping  07:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA question
I have hopefully given you an answer that is in line with the question. If i have misunderstood your question feel free to respond :) Thank you for the time in posting a question and reading my response. Sedd&sigma;n talk 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA
[Broken template removed] (06:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Re: Content dispute on ANI
Hello Pcap, I posted a reply to your comment on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. When you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could review what I wrote and respond. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
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, Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this list (ordered by impact factor) IJNEST is on the second page.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog] (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what are you trying to tell me? That it had an impact factor of 00.000 in 2006? I could not find it in the 2007 JCR Science Edition, and I searched by full name, abbreviation and ISSN. Also searching the 2007 JCR for "nuclear" returned 34 journals, but IJNEST wasn't among them. If there's a way to search JCR for 0 impact factor journals, pardon my ignorance.  Pcap  ping  19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Impressive summary of the situation over at Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Evidence. Thanks. It's nice to see at least one neutral, well-informed voice. II  | (t - c) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Content dispute on ANI
Hello Pcap, I posted a reply to your comment on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. When you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could review what I wrote and respond. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And butting into this section because it has "thank you" in the title, thanks for the courtesy of notifying me about the recent AfD. If I was snappy, I apologize. --Kiz o r  01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I was under the impression that if the nominator did a good-faith withdrawal, it was closed no matter what. Maybe I am wrong though - I can't find any policies that mention this scenario. Do you know of any? &mdash; neuro(talk) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SK and WP:DPR. Two admins decided to leave it open to get more opinions so consensus can be established. Pcap ping  21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you mean by your last sentence, but I have rolled back my edits, because I know of you as being a knowledgeable editor and believe you are probably in the right here. Thanks for letting me know, &mdash; neuro(talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When too few !votes are cast, an AfD is usually relisted, which is what happened before you closed it. Actually, Ron Ritzman doesn't appear to be an admin, even though he's been around for a long time, so me saying "two admins" was wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Pcap ping  22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The tags
Hi. Let me summarize the issue in clear terms, better than my edit summary could. For one, the article is obviously about the Romanian ethnicity; the statistics cited are not, they are about the citizenship. While I could stop right there, allow me to elaborate on an even more obvious point: the statistics in question refer to migrant workers, who are counted at home as citizens, and who reside in other countries for variable periods, but always non-permanently. If they were to live there permanently, they would not be included in those statistics. Hope you see that this has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being counted twice. No, the issue is not even about "deducting from the total", but, if anything, about deducting a specific number of migrant Romanian workers (those who are ethnic Romanian) from the 19 million ethnic Romanians living at home. As if such a thing were feasible... and, even if it were, invitations to modify other numbers are invitations to original research.

The numbers are there just because, long ago, a group of rudimentary trolls pushed them in, in order to make the total number of Romanians seem gigantic. The only reason these "references" survived for so long was illustrated only recently by you: once they got their foot in the door, people need to be explained the exact problem that posed. In the absence of reliable data about even a worldwide total of ethnic Romanians, we are left with "verified sources" that verify whatever other information, none of which is actually relevant for the article. Dahn (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article's talk page (see the big fat warning at the top of this page). Pcap ping  14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
I hope you don't think it unappropriate but I have removed your comment from the WPM page. I did this out of sensitivity to TE. I have informed User:CBM about the matter, a "math admin" as requested. I don't think it needs to publicised more than that. Martin 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. TE asked on his talk page that "math admin" be contacted. I thought this was a neutral way of doing it. Pcap ping  19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the comment, since it seemed appropriate enough to me to be on that page. TE is an active member of that project and others in the project will have some interest in this. Paul August &#9742; 19:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree. The math project talk page is not the place to discuss issues about individual editors, and it only leads to additional tension when notices ike this are placed there. However, once something is posted there, it is virtually impossible to remove. So it's better to avoid posting off-topic things in the first place. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your point of view Carl. But I have a somewhat different point of view I guess. To me the Mathematics Project is among other things a community of editors. And any issue concerning one of those editors seems to me germane to that community. But more importantly, I am generally uncomfortable with one editor removing another editor's civil comments, or anything which seems like censorship. Paul August &#9742; 15:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain from posting other behavioral issues on the WikiProject. The edits that started this affair were in unrelated areas (a spat about a sports-oriented school), but a number of TE's edits that were questioned on WP:AN (and reverted it seems) were related to math templates and consensus (or lack thereof) for those changed on WPM. That coupled with his request for a "math admin" made me think it was reasonable to post to WPM. The road to hell... Pcap ping  11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have archived that thread as you suggested. Don't worry about it; I understood your reasons for posting it there. Martin 13:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pcap: I see what you mean. The backstory with wikiprojects may not be obvious to newer editors. Many editors object when a wikiproject tries to "take over" some general aspect of the project, or when it appears to be a clique that protects its own members from scrutiny. Examples: I hope the math project doesn't have a bad reputation, since it does a lot of good work and I don't see the same sorts of problems as with intelligent design articles. But quite a few people already complain about math articles ("too technical", "don't understand, can't read") and I'm afraid it's easy for discomfort with the topic of mathematics to turn into discomfort with editors who are associated with it. So, as a project, we need to be aware of the image we project. One important thing we should do is to participate with the broader community of editors on the community talk pages like the village pump and WP:ANI, especially for discussions that are not directly about mathematics articles or project business. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people have complained recently about the stub sorting wikiproject because that project has developed and enforces guidelines for new stub categories
 * There was once a project at Esperanza that was forcibly disbanded because of perceptions that it was too much of a clique
 * The "intelligent design" wikiproject developed a reputation for editing as a clique to control the content of various articles and chase away people who disagreed with them.
 * I sometimes recommend to people that, before nominating a math article for deletion, they might informally ask on the math project talk page what the outcome of a deletion discussion would be. This suggestion has drawn strong criticism from some editors, despite seeming like such an obvious idea.

Your edits to Elonka Dunin
I noticed that you removed my reference tweaks and disambiguation changes in addition to adding unsourced information. Did you mean to do this? I'm uncertain why you would consider reference and grammar repair whitewashing? The information you added about someone else decrypting the statue hadn't been in the article before and you didn't provide any sort of a reference to back up the claim you were making. Shell   babelfish 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you smoking? It's sourced from Science; there's an abstract on the article's talk page. Pcap ping  22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)