User talk:Pcap/Archive 3

ANI
Do you honestly see no problem with his comments? Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was best that someone uninvolved put a stop to the escalating incivility and accusations on both sides. I was getting tired of seeing it multiple AfD's and talk pages. Perhaps ANI was not the best place to report it, and the matter should be moved to WP:WQA. I'll let someone else decide that though. Pcap ping  00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to think that it all started with Lulu lumping you, Miami, JBsupreme, Smerdis, and I together as having the same agenda. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you mentioned it on ANI, I vaguely recall having a chuckle when called me a rabid deletionist, but that was a while back. Apparently, he softened his position in my regard more recently. Another guy called me a "reference nazi". No point in getting worked up over stuff like that, unless it's recurring. I hope the DEFCON level can be lowered at AfDs... Pcap ping  00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That ANI thread put me in a line of fire from deletionist haters. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More like it put them in the line of fire of admins. Pcap ping  02:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what I should do when Power Corrupts and Trusted Throw are saying lies and Lulu is still calling me a liar about searching for sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would help your credibility if you revisited your !votes on AfDs like this. Otherwise it just gives the impression you just fire and forget. Pcap ping  19:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Musca (window manager)
FYI: Musca (window manager) was restored as contested WP_PROD.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:talkback
Thanks for letting me know. Yeah, I agree with the keeping of the article now (as I indicated I would if sources were found). It is really good to see a nominator try to find sources for once. For that, I salute you.--Prodigy96 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

image
Did you actually get a response from Godwin on the Salinger image? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll send you an email later. Pcap ping  22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Screenshot-WikiChecker - Article-Microsoft Macro Assembler - Wikipedia.png
Thank you for uploading File:Screenshot-WikiChecker - Article-Microsoft Macro Assembler - Wikipedia.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I was expecting a copyright tag to appear as a result of the upload form I filled. Either that's no supposed to happen automatically, or I forgot to fill some field. Anyway, it should be okay now. Pcap ping  21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A86
I can definitely understand you listing JWASM and the Open Watcom Assembler on AFD, but why A86? That's a historically notable assembler. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If these guys really want all/most assemblers deleted from Wikipedia (and you know who I'm referring to, or if you don't, check ANI and talk page of WASM), they need to cast their !votes in a proper AfD discussion instead of trying to back-stab the articles by stripping references, prodding, and endless complaining on the talk pages about "fake" references. If the AfD consensus decides these articles on less well known assemblers are keep-able, that should put a stop to the "assembler guerrilla". I'm not going to AfD MASM though, even though that has been prodded too and some of the references were "removed" by a HTTP referrer check on an external site. Pcap ping  21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - a preemptive strike, right? I'm not sure that's the way I would have gone, but I guess that works. Sort of. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD is the best venue for establishing consensus on the notability of marginal topics. It's certainly better than endless back and forth on the article talk page. Besides, Hutch doesn't quite seem to know what he wants. See also the latest copyright bickering on the talk page of MASM. Pcap ping  01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/JBsupreme
This probably isn't really proper format yet. But perhaps you might help in putting it in order as a means of soliciting some involvement by other editors, and hopefully put some pressure on JB relative to the various abusive editing behaviors. LotLE × talk 19:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, understood. At the moment, the biggest problem is JB's apparent socking. Do you know a CheckUser? Per Lulu's comments, there is sufficient rationale to run a sockpuppet investigation on supreme.--TrustMeTHROW! 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, CheckUser's don't do favors of this kind. You need to file a formal request at WP:SPI. It's pretty easy. Pcap ping  22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is curious that this account -- -- was created not more than 5 days ago  and has since managed to poke its head into all of these discussions.  I'll just leave it at that.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In case it wasn't obvious: Sockpuppet investigations/Trusted Throw -- JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

you may be interested
In the discussion here as you were part of the original afd. 16x9 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion sorting of Anders Blixt
Hello.

About: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Deletion

It has nothing to do with either computers or software. I blame the youth of today. They know nothing about games but video games. Back in the days we didnt need no bloody stinkin kum pewters yadda blahah blah.....:) walk victor falktalk 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Galánta (Galanta) District
Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--roamata (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that this nomination has been relisted. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rescued article deleted: FormatFactory
Hi, Pcap

Article FormatFactory is speedy-deleted! But didn't you rescue that article?

Fleet Command (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job, man. But please don't leave out the finishing touch: Solve the problem instead of – I don't mean any offense but – hiding it: Just add citations to highlighted section and rewrite them so that they don't look like advertisement.


 * Why do I not do it? Your secondary sources are written in foreign languages and I can't read foreign languages! You know thatm don't you? (Sorry!) Fleet Command (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest
I have seen your comments on recent AfD's and thought you might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I believe it relates to a number of comments you have made on those AfDs. LotLE × talk 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
'' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Artix Entertainment
Just saying.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Automatic userification of unsourced new BLPs
Userfication will never get wide community support. I proposed two years ago, and it was overwhelmingly opposed. Could you consider removing this proposal at least temporarily? (more) Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of things changed in the past two years. Just look at all the Artix Entertainment cruft that got nuked this week. The message from the Arbcom and Jimbo is clear: Wikipedia needs to move to a higher-quality, responsible editing model. Pcap ping  17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is the message from arbcom and Jimbo. I think collaborative editing is always the key to higher quality articles. There were userfication suggestions in the RFC phase I, they were soundly defeated. I could provide links if you are interested.
 * Re coffee's proposal, would you consider moving your oppose to the discussion section? Coffee's proposal is in good faith. He has been overwhelmingly willing to change the proposal, (he took both my and cyber's suggestions to heart) and it is possible he will modify this to relieve most of your concerns.


 * "Also, Jimbo proposed a far more realistic schedule, with 3 months notice for every year-worth of articles."
 * Some articles will have a 14 month notice.


 * "Staging them by the date of creation, as Jimbo proposed, is far more sensible."
 * Other than the date, all the articles will be basically the same?
 * Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note! I have a small problem that I wondered if you could help me with? I try to move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bella_pais.jpg over to commons (where there is a category suited for it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bellapais_Monastery )

However, I have problems with the toolserver; I just cannot get it to work. Do you happen to know how we could move the picture? Thanks, Guestworker (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've never done something like that. Village pump (technical) seems the best place to ask that question. Pcap ping  23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, Guestworker (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, guys. I just stumbled upon your discussion. Anyway, the file is successfully transferred to Commons. My first try failed, (due to a TUSC problem) but it is there now. Fleet Command (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultra Hal Assistant
Hi Pcap, I was watching Ultra Hal Assistant so I noticed it being Userified. If you want any help with it, let me know (e.g. what sort of sources you might be looking for). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to work on it. Finding refs wasn't hard. Deletion was a fluke. Wikipedia is crashing a lot for me right now (blue-white screen), so I'm not going to be able to do much. Pcap ping  11:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation
User: - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Pohta,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Surprised
Spasebo, tovarisch! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

EEML
Please do not invoke EEML to cry WITCH! Make your case or not. Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

email
Thanks. Several options spring to mind here, but I'm not going to go down that road. I am better today, and hopefully will be even more so tomorrow. Cheers. Rodhull andemu  01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
Hello.

I agree with your redirects of Theban pederasty and Spartan pederasty to Pederasty in ancient Greece. I found similar issues with Philosophy of Greek pederasty and redirected it to the same article as well. I hope you concur, if not, please let me know of your concerns. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I've also redirect erastes and eromenos for the same reasons. In general these articles do have some salvageable material, which is why I've not AfD's them, unlike other articles of Haiduc that I sent to AfD. The salvageable material needs to be merged. Pcap ping  14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd been considering those two articles for redirects as well. Your reasoning about redirects vs AfD makes good sense.  For the philosophy article, I think it was substantially duplication of the main article, plus lots of original commentary/essay-text, but some of the city-state-specific pages might have useful info that could be merged.  There's also Athenian pederasty and Cretan pederasty to consider for possible merge. The biggest challenge with the salvaging operation is likely to be the verification of sources, since so many of them were misquoted or misinterpreted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Cretan one certainly deserves detailed discussion as it's widely considered the birthplace of Greek institutionalized pederasty, but I'm not sure if a separate article is needed. The problem is that the article is currently POV because it embraces on historical theory that's not universally held instead of discussing them all; the disagreement is about the epoch (see talk page there). The Athenian one looked better referenced, but I did not read it carefully. Pcap ping  19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
It was originally tagged:, ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what happened with that... when I made the redirect, I didn't see a speedy tag on the page at the time. The regular redirect seems to be in place currently.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was restored, together with page history by Bwilkins, but not all revisions were restored apparently (no indication who tagged it). Pcap ping  19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A Will-o'-the-wisp told me User:Tonalone tagged it as G5. Why am I not surprised ?! Pcap  ping  04:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor portrayal
Hi Pcap! You mentioned at this AfD that some of the article should be merged to other places. If you'd like, I can restore the article to your user page if you'd be interested in doing this merge yourself. No pressure though, just let me know. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but not right now. I'm already dealing with enough cleanup of banned user material, and have my userspace backloged with deleted articles I've sources for, but still need rewriting before moving back in article space, plus a couple of new drafts; I even forgot to finish Plan Calcul in time for DYK... Pcap ping  02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just let me know if you're interested any time in the future.  Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Pohta ce-am pohtit, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Pohta ce-am pohtit/Ultra Hal Assistant. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of images removed today here


 * Shut off the bot here


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)
Hi, Pohta ce-am pohtit. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insightful input at the AfD. I have completed the merge of Electric Retard to Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide. Please expand/reword the changes as you see fit. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

LPTF
Replied on strategy, thanks for at least looking at it, let me know if we can work on formulating ideas. Keegan (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

COPS articles
If you bundle all the article together there more than 10 similar articles see Category:C.O.P.S. (Cartoon)

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkbacks
Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your user name
I keep trying to guess, and Google isn't helping! Finnish? Slovak? Some native American language? Completely imaginary? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It´s Romanian, in a stupid slang style. 1c33y37 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's a quote from this movie, meaning "the desire which I desired" in archaic Romanian, not in leet-speak, as the user with the utterly idiotic leetist name thinks. LOL. Pcap ping  12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Libertas AfD
Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Libertas Austria as redirect all, citing WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Merge and delete. Deletion is possible for most of the articles, as User:PanchoS provided attribution in the edit summaries (WP:Copying within Wikipedia, List of authors). I skimmed the subarticles' histories, finding no significant edits by other contributors – the most substantial edits were to Libertas Slovakia (diff), to content that was not merged. Please consider reopening the AfD. I left a note at the AfD in case you decide to reopen it. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As said in WP:CWW hyperlinks are preferable, so merged articles aren't normally deleted, even if they have only one main contributor and it's possible to provide attribution in other ways, unless there are other compelling reasons to do so (copyvios, BLP issues, etc.) I don't see any of those here, so it seems unnecessary work for an administrator. By the way, I had closed this AfD because it was way overdue, and the admins were burdened enough at the time. Pcap ping  04:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You're correct about the preference for keeping full histories in CWW, but I think we disagree on its strength. In my opinion, since PanchoS already did the necessary work of examining the articles and providing adequate attribution, the marginal admin work of the actual deletions is worth following the AfD consensus, if it was to delete. The last item of WP:Guide to deletion is also relevant, as – despite good intentions and careful editing – PanchoS's merges interfered with a possible delete outcome. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mac OpenType support
Can you please give a citation for the source of the information you added with this edit: — Nicholas (reply) @ 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply split that from the main article, where it didn't have any references either. By the way, that was 20 months ago, when I knew a lot less about Wikipedia. Pcap ping  04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh well, guess I'll have to hunt back to see who made the original edit. BTW, i wasn't criticising, I was just wanting to know where the info came from :) – — Nicholas (reply) @ 13:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC) (been here since 2001)

Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28
Hi, Pohta ce-am pohtit. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of character
FYI, I may try and source this and restore it. It didn't get DELSORT'ed appropriately, so I didn't even see it until you started removing links from an article on my watchlist. Just a courtesy FYI that I'm going to see if there's more than a dictdef (as I expect there will be), and a request--when you're nominating things for deletion, would you mind adding the tags to WP:DELSORT yourself? It reduces the chance of aberrant results. Normally, folks like Gene93k do them, but this one didn't happen. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had delsorted it to the games queue, see Articles_for_deletion/Out_of_character and . Where did you expect it? Pcap ping  04:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear that wasn't there yesterday! :-) I must be going senile. Yes, you did everything I would have expected--but I apparently missed it at delsort and missed the tag in my skimming of the AfD.  Sigh. Thanks, nothing to see here... Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Powergaming
Please stop removing sources from powergaming as "probably fake". If you dispute the source the onus is on you to check it and provide clear reasons why you feel it's inappropriate. I own a couple of the books you've removed (and have had the pleasure of speaking to their writers) and can confirm they support the relevant material. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only book I removed as "probable" was linked to its google books limited preview copy, is searcheable there, and does not support the material. At the very least provide a page number. Pcap ping  06:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about Taylor (2006)? Read the book, it's part of Taylor's central thesis as to the different player types that are drawn to virtual worlds.  I'm not sure how you searched it; Google Books returns me six instances in the searchable preview alone and I can confirm it's discussed further in the offline parts.  Or is it another source you're talking about?  Perhaps we should discuss it over at the relevant talk page rather than get into an edit war. Also, User:ManicSpider is a new user who was making a good-faith attempt to improving the article sourcing with sources that I happen to agree with her on; suggesting she was vandalising and threatening a block was more than a little bitey.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't use the one word spelling: . I agree it's a good source, but it shouldn't be randomly added as citation to existing paragraphs in the text unless it directly supports them, and then needs a page ref. I changed my !vote in the AfD as well. Pcap ping  07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Changing it to "power gaming" should wait for now because it would involve moving the article during an AfD, but if it survives the AfD I support renaming it to "power gaming" and doing a find/replace on the text accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy No-Consensus
That's a really good thought. I like! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give undone the speedy close and am determining consensus. Of course I just noticed that it's supposed to run for a couple of more days. I guess that explains the "speedy" part of your close! -- Flyguy649 talk 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Pcap ping  03:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Man my grammar sucked there... -- Flyguy649 talk 04:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what motivated you to undo the close? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Prod of David Reveman
I have removed the prod tag from David Reveman, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice Job with Merging Mathematical Logic
Nice job with merging symbolic logic, which is the logic of language thought and mathematical logic which is the logic of mathematics... Are you a Republican? Way to confuse the topics... Maybe if you do a search on ancient civilizations, you will only come up with Chariots of the Gods and think that all earlier civilization were founded by extraterrestrials... Then we can merge the 2 articles Ancient Civilization and Extraterrestrials... Hey, what do you know? If we keep doing this, we can really condense Wikipedia down to a more "manageable" level... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you an idiot? Pcap ping  12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Symposium on Operating Systems Principles
Hi,

You only used a powerpoint presentation as reference. This did not make the assertion "the most presitigious single-track academic conference on operating systems." clear as it is a powerpoint of a symposium making no obvious mention of this fact. The other two you added are somewhat better, but a blog is not a reliable source. As "experienced" editor you should know this. Plus please be a bit more WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries. Jarkeld (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be a clueless dick. The blog is of CS PhD, and it's actually quoting an ACM Fellow; the ppt is a talk of a Stanford CS prof: both are published persons in this area so acceptable sources. Read WP:SPS. And wipe your mouth/ass with WP:CIVIL after you read WP:RANDY. Bye. Pcap ping  23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to "one of". "The most" is insufficiently supported by the refs you added, one of which (oklabs) is not reliable as an independent source given they have a vested interest in elevating the importance of the conference. Should you wish to reinstate your preferred wording, it would need to be discussed thoroughly on the talk page beforehand. I also concur with Jarkeld, and suggest that you tone down your edit summaries and talk page responses. Regards. wjemather bigissue 09:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)