User talk:SkyMachine

Orphaned non-free image File:Ripped Greg Kot Cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ripped Greg Kot Cover.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * _ File is not orphaned as it is used in article about the book this file describes SkyMachine (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * _ Ok I see what you mean now. I must have resized this at some point leaving this file orphaned. SkyMachine (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The Information Gleick 2011.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Information Gleick 2011.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ebook
Greetings, The Information is also available as a nookbook (I didn't check for Kindle). I downloaded the eighty page sample a few minutes ago and can't offer any further comments at this time.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * _ Thanks, just added info on ebook and audiobook editions to introduction section. Didn't mention any particular vendor as other editors usually pare such edits back for being advertorial. SkyMachine (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand
Hi Sky Machine, I undid your addition of a cite needed tag to the New Zealand article. The lead section does not generally need citations if the information is already cited in the body of the article. You can find citations for that statement under Foreign relations and the military. Regards. AIR corn (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth
As far as i know Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that can support life. I read the earth talk page and still don't get why the statement "Earth is the only planet in the universe that can support life" is wrong? What is your point that you're trying to prove? I disagree with you. What is your proof on that there is another planet beside Earth that can support life? If you can't prove it then as human assumption Earth is the only one that can support life hold true until someone prove it wrong.Trongphu (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is yes Earth is the only planet humans know of that has had life arise, but then we have explored only a few planets within our solar system up close. We have detected a few hundred exoplanets so far (mostly Hot Jupiters close in to their stars as these are easiest to detect by transit or star wobble methods). Our detection techniques are not currently good enough to detect extrasolar terestrial type planets yet. But the fact we see these planets where we find them suggests there are more planets in our galaxy than stars (~100 billion). Estimates just for interstellar rogue planets are as high as 200 billion in our galaxy alone, and there are around 100 billion galaxys in our observable universe. So very roughly that is 3 x 1022 planets in our observable universe. It is therefore a violation of Copernican principle and the Principle of mediocrity  to just assume that apart from Earth none of these planets have life, especially when we consider Earth's case where life appeared fairly quickly after formation when atmospheric and surface conditions were very different then than they are today (and hostile to human life).


 * The current Earth page consensus is to not mention extraterestrial life (even the negation of) because of ongoing disagreement between editors who support the Mediocrity principle and those who support the Rare Earth hypothesis. Also other planets such as Mars contain resources that could support life with a little technological intervention from knowledgeful creatures such as humans. SkyMachine (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As mankind knowledge at this moment. I don't think we can claim or prove any sort of whether or not Earth is rare or special. But so far Earth is "only" planet that we know that can support life so it can be claim as a fact if no one else can prove it wrong. You may argue in 3 x 1022 planets, there must be more than more planet that can support life forms but here is the problem it's just a theory, it doesn't has any strong proofs that can convince people despite the fact that it is a really really big number. I believe for most people living on the Earth right now, they would think that Earth is the only planet sustainable for life. I do believe that we are not alone too but in science you can't just tell something and expect people to believe without strong proofs. Some people can argue none of 3 x 1022 planets are life supportive because this is what have seen and known so far. Don't make assumption is a simple rule in science. With out current knowledge i think it's best to indicate Earth is the only planet that can support life.


 * "Earth is the only planet that can support life" can be easily support by obvious proof we have today since we haven't found any planet that can support life. If you say Earth is not the only planet then where is your proof beside those theories still debatable among scientists? I think less people can argue that my statement because it has a better proof and more acceptable by most humans. And yet my statement is holding true for now so there is no reason to remove it base on your opinion, one day if someone found another planet that can support life then you're welcome to remove that statement, i will be glad to see that happen.Trongphu (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The laws of physics and principles of science are universal. Gravity works the same way on Earth as it does near Jupiter, the parameters are just different (mass, density, distance etc.) If it didn't we would not have had the ability to send space probes to Jupiter as our calculations to get there depend on gravity, and the fact we have sent probes there proves gravity is universal. Chemistry is also the same for Jupiter as it is for Earth. Life is complex emergent chemistry so the chemistry elsewhere in the universe is the same as it is here, the parameters are just different. Under the right parameters (conditions) life will arise elsewhere as a consequence of entropy. SkyMachine (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know laws of physics and principles of science are universal but so what? It doesn't prove anything. "Under the right parameters (conditions) life will arise", what it takes to get to the right parameters? And what determine all the factors? Random, chances? Is there any law that control it? We don't know but what we know is Earth is the only planet that can support life. Don't make up something out of our reach right now and use what we can prove and understand right now. Your POV is very unpopular among people. We can take a voting at the earth talk page if you want to see whether or not majority think the statement is true. It's just no point to argue, it won't end because we each have different point of view. That's why there are some arguments still going for thousands of years and still haven't satisfy all and perhaps it's impossible to satisfy everyone. All we can do is go with majority until something struck us as an obvious need to change.Trongphu (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we thus disagree. That editors disagree on this is why we have the current consensus to not to favour one point of view over the other. SkyMachine (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is not to favor one point of view over the other then why is my statement is gone?Trongphu (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement above is contradiction. If you removed my statement that's mean you favored your POV over my POV but it supposes to be neutral. I think you should add another statement after with my statement into Earth article something like "Earth is the only planet in the universe we know so far that can support life" but some scientists argued that since the laws of the universe are the same, there must be another planet that can support life somewhere in the universe (remember to add a source to your statement too). This is fair enough i think. Satisfied both side and it's up to the readers to decide whether or not Earth is unique.Trongphu (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You say If you removed my statement that's mean you favored your POV over my POV but it supposes to be neutral. I say no I reverted back to the established consensus. BTW it is not me you need to convince, the Earth article is a featured article and has 300,000 monthly views and thus requires a higher standard of edits. If you want to move futher why don't you take this up at the article talk page, there are a lot of editors who watch that page who would want to have their say. SkyMachine (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Khamis
Please read my latest change it has been cited, sorry for forgetting to site that, please respond before you end up changing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.160.166 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit repeatedly being deleted by a cyberbully
Hello there SkyMachine,

You say grump, I say bully. After all, the definition of bullying in general includes verbal harassment and one form of cyberbullying also includes pejorative labels.

You see, someone who writes statements as in the following talks

-Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement

You are wasting your time posting garbage like this here. We don't give a rat's arse what you think drinking overpriced bleach did to cure your toothache, and we don't care what the 'trustworthiness' rating of this article is either. Unlike quacks like Jim Humble, we don't lie to people to increase our credibility. Drinking bleach is dangerous, MMS is a con, and you are either a dupe, or more likely one of Humble's many cronies (if you aren't Humble himself). Go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

-Talk:Patterson Power Cell

Go fuck yourself. We aren't interested in your garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

-Talk:East Germany

Listen asshole, I don't need lectures on the criminality committed by agents of the USSR in eastern Europe - I am well aware of them.

-Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman


 * Thank you for the further demonstration of how to produce patronising pseudo-learned off-topic waffle. I'll almost miss you when you are gone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

-Take your over-inflated ego elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

-User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/January

You can consider my remarks about you however you like. Your comments on the article talk page about the Palestinian journalist were a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, so I'd suggest you shut the **** up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

-Talk:Ed Miliband

Fuck off, troll. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

-Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri)

I see no reason to discuss such meaningless trivia anywhere, regardless of how much you'd like to carry on with your nitpicking, POV-pushing bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

-Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive125

Religion in infobox

Bus stop, we aren't going to add fields to infoboxes just so you can insert your POV-pushing garbage. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

is not only a grump, unless you consider the contents of those excerpts respectful towards the individuals it was addressed to, and therefore not pejorative, offensive, insulting and vulgar.

As I've already stated, I started contributing to this encyclopedia with the intention to share relevant and valuable information and knowledge with the international community and not to be dragged into an edit war and subsequently being verbally abused by someone who is constantly breaching guidelines and insulting other users. I don't wish to be one of them.

Now I would like to point out a few things regarding the edits added by me and the numerous subsequent deletions.

If you take a look at the Difference between revisions of the article "Julian Assange", you'll find my edit under "Revision as of 07:48, 13 February 2012" (the first time I've added this edit was a couple of hours after the news came out ; it can be found under "Revision as of 05:54, 31 January 2012").

As you can see, it has been written according to Wikipedia's guidelines ; the information itself is true, it includes a reference from a reliable source and it is not trivia as it has been stated by the individual which deleted the very same edit (Revision as of 16:02, 13 February 2012, AndyTheGrump ; "Trivia - this article doesn't need random 'popular culture' entries, and see WP:CRYSTALBALL").

"Revision as of 17:52, 14 February 2012" of the same article, shows the same edit, but that time I've put it under "Public appearances", which resulted in the edit being deleted by the same user, who commented "Not a 'public appearance' and DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE!".

Now, "Revision as of 12:46, 19 February 2012" of the page shows that user Sladen has written the following edit : "In February 2012 the The Simpsons' 500th episode "At Long Last Leave" features Assange in a cameo scene written by Australian Kathy Lette, the wife of Assange's adviser Geoffrey Robinson QC.", which he put under "Public appearances".

This edit hasn't been deleted, even though the content of my edit (which referrs to the very same appearance) has been regarded by user AndyTheGrump as "Not a 'public appearance'."

After I added my edit "In popular culture ; He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012. He was impersonated three times on Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010.", user AndyTheGrump deleted it 18 minutes later, still not noticing any flaws in user Sladen's edit.

Right after the episode was aired, the edit was changed, and user Sladen's edit was corrected ; "On February 19, 2012 the 500th episode of The Simpsons' "At Long Last Leave" was aired, which features Assange in a cameo scene written by Australian Kathy Lette, the wife of Assange's adviser Geoffrey Robertson QC.". It was corrected by me, since the The Simpsons sounds more like a homage to "The La Trattoria" from "Mickey Blue Eyes", and Geoffrey Robinson is simply false, since the person's name is Geoffrey Robertson.

It is interesting to see that the user who kept on deleting my edits, seemed to have found them flawed, false and trivial, user Sladen's edit on the other hand impeccable, which was not the case.

If he had considered the content of the edit important enough to be added to the article, but considered my way of editing wrong, he would have changed it and wouldn't have repeatedly deleted it. Instead, he wrote on my talk page "Can I ask you to read the last paragraph of Julian_Assange#Public_appearances to see how such matters should be dealt with - and suggest that you actually take the time to read articles before editing them? (01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC))", indicating that user Sladen's edit is a good example of an edit, even though on February 14, 2012 (18:05) he stated "Not a 'public appearance'." as an answer to the very same event.

Another important aspect is that many articles have the segment "In popular culture" (in some cases there are even articles created for that term as is the case in "Nikola Tesla in popular culture" and "Marilyn Monroe in popular culture", only to name two), such as "Neil Gaiman" ("References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job.") and "Lindsey Buckingham" ("In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch.").

So, both my edits are appropriate encyclopedic content (as I already stated in a message sent on February 17, 2012 to Kevin Rutherford); if "References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job." is appropriate, then "In popular culture ; He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012." is as well ; if "In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch." is approriate, then "He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010." is as well. Plus, both edits include references from a reliable source, as it can be seen under "Revision as of 00:46, 20 February 2012" of the article.

The question I would like to ask you now is : what am I to do in order to keep individuals from deleting my edit repeatedly and without any reason ?

Thanks in advance

Audrey Horne 89 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Audrey (good to see you're using talk pages). Wikipedia basically is kept in some degree of order by an army of recent changes patrollers plus by editors who "watch" pages they are interested in (via their watchlists). That being the case it is not unusual on wikipedia for edits to be reverted or further modified by these editors to "wikify" them. You may be interested in reading the WP:BRD cycle (Very helpfull advice). In your case your initial edits on Julian Assange may very well of had a case to justify them, and this is why editors are expected to discuss changes on article talk pages (to achieve a new consensus yey or ney for any initially disputed changes). The manual of style WP:MOS has a section on trivia/pop culture sections (WP:TRIVIA), some editors are for and some are against triva sections in articles, and this is is why some articles have them and others do not. The argument for including Assange's appearence on The Simpsons was there and was justifiable, but instead of re-adding the content after it was reverted by Andy you should have made a new section on the article talk page outlining these justifications.


 * As to your allegations that Andy is a bully, having outlined in the previous paragraph what is expected of disputed edits regarding reaching a new consensus (Discussion, per WP:BRD), Andy reverted your first edit & he would have expected your effort to move to the talk page per BRD cycle. Instead what followed was an edit war of you adding and Andy reverting, with Andy saying "Discuss on talk page" with each edit summary. Now Andy became increasingly less civil with each of his edit summaries (see WP:CIVIL) but remember that your actions (edit warring, not discussing) could have gotten you banned (maybe for 24hours, first instance) if any involved editor was keen enough. With regard to your examples of past uncivil behaviour by Andy, yes it is unfortunate for an admin a senior editor to act in such a way, but he is still a valuable editor contributing to keeping wikipedia from disorder.


 * That the Simpsons were eventually edited into the article by another editor shows that there was support for your inclusion, so you made a mistake by not discussing on the talk page as you probably would have found support with a good argument to justify the content, and discusion would have led to wikification of edits to comply or override (with justifications) policies such as WP:CRYSTAL etc. Article Talk pages attract interested editors so you would not necessarily of had a face off with only Andy, plus if he was uncivil on such a discusion the winning argument would most likely have favored your side, but alas for now let bygones by bygones. Going forward just remember BRD is what is expected by other editors, and they may become confused, annoyed, (uncivil), by repeated lack of discussion. As I have said in my previous post you have nothing to fear by discussing on Article talk pages, and it is kind of expected of you if consensus is to be reached, civility is expected too but you never gave Andy the chance initially and if you had things would have worked out alot quicker and more smoothly. So you might as well put this experience down to the learning curve new wikipedia editors usually go through, any way happy editing for the future. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback request
Hi SkyMachine. I've added the rollback flag for you. Please check over WP:ROLLBACK if you haven't already. Happy editing. Pedro : Chat  21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation Overkill
Hi, SkyMachine. I appreciate your expression of your viewpoint. Regarding editors vs. admins, you are not required to defer to administrators just because they're administrators, nor should you ever fear being "beaten up" for disagreeing with one. Administrative status merely means that I have some extra abilities that others don't have, like page protection, blocking, etc., but it does not give me greater authority in terms of editorial content. (See WP:OWN). If you genuinely disagree with my viewpoint, then we can discuss it on the article's talk page, and if you wish, request 3O, and/or start a consensus discussion on the matter. It is not my position that 3 or 4 consecutive cites of the same source in the same paragraph should be removed because I'm an admin; they should be removed because they're redundant, and imply that each individual sentence needs its own individual cite, even when it's the same source in the entire paragraph, which IMHO, is wrong, and could potentially to even worse cases of citation clutter.

With respect, I disagree with the argument that additional citations prevent people adding citation needed tags, as I've never encountered, as a serious or recurring problem, the addition of unwarranted citation needed tags since I began editing here in March 2005. If someone were to add such a tag to a portion of a paragraph that is entirely supported by the one source cited at the end of it, then you can simply remove that tag and note in your edit summary that the citation at the end supports it. This is what I do in such rare instances. Similarly, when I have to reorder or edit a paragraph, I simply make a point of keeping careful track of which reference supports which passage, since this is an inherent part of careful editing.

As for WP:PAIC, that pertains to the issue of placing a space in between a sentence and its cite, which is a different matter. Nightscream (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to think from the reader's perspective. We should not be making it more difficult for them to find footnotes containing the references than is necessary. A reader that does not care about the references isn't going to be bothered by the extra numbered notes, but someone who does care may have difficulty finding them, especially if there are additional references in between a quote and its reference. That isn't the circumstance in the change that you made, so I guess I am not to worried about it in this instance. I do feel that your Zen concerns about clutter are very minor compared to these reader access issues. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 23:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I warn users
I have been doing a lot of vandalism undo, but users do it again and again. What can I do?--WOLfan112 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When you rollback using twinkle, twinkle will automatically bring up the user's talk page in a new window. To warn users you can use the drop down list menu at top of a user talk page (Should say TW since you are using twinkle). From this list you have the warn option which will bring up a form for choosing from available warning levels and messages. If the usertalk page is empty with no previous warning messages you should start off with a level one warning for vandalism or edit testing. If there is already warning messages on the usertalk page you should offer the next highest warning level from the last posted warning. If there is already a final warning (4th level) you should report the user to WP:AIV which you can do through the twinkle drop down menu at the top of the talk page (ARV on the list). Doing this will bring the vandal or disruptive user to the attention of admins who can then issue a block that would vary in length depending on that users past history of behaviour. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:WOLfan112, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, genuine mistake there. Browser window froze up and appeared not to make the first edit. Tryed it again a few minutes later and it deleted your subsequent comment of which I was not aware. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

More thought
This revert you made to Ed Hillary lacked a little thought. I reverted User:121.79.198.14 who had previously made only 13 edits, all of them vandalism. His 14th edit, the one I reverted, was unhelpful because it created a style inconsistency in that sentence. Before he made that edit, the sentence read "Hillary was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) on 6 June 1953; member of the Order of New Zealand (ONZ) in 1987; and Knight of the Order of the Garter (KG) on 22 April 1995." Note the KBE, ONZ and KG. He removed the KBE - only the KBE - and I replaced it. You then removed the KBE, but left the ONZ and KG. Why are the latter two ok but not KBE?

Your edit summary -- "misuse of revert, possible redundancy removed by 121.79.198.14" -- is not appreciated. It is not a misuse of a revert to restore consistency of style in a sentence. If there is a question about the actual style, we have talk pages. And what do you mean by "possible rendundancy". Something is either redundant, or is not, and we shouldn't make edits to content which might be "possibly" anything. Moriori (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is you should not have reverted the edit using revert/roll back function, as that is only for obvious vandalism, not edit tests or possible good faith edits. You should have at least done a manual undo and left a reason in the edit summary. Otherwise this comes across as biting the new comers. You may wish to reread WP:ROLLBACK. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 06:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. It is naive for you to say I was biting a newcomer. I reverted the unencyclopedic edit of a vandal who first edited back in 2009. Older hands don't get sucked into the games of vandals meaning we sometimes don't leave edit summaries for those who disrupt wiki but have never ever left an edit summary. You advise me to read ROLLBACK. I advise you to watch this space -- the next time this user causes disruption he/she is out of here as a preventive measure. Promise. And if you disagree with my action, you can take me to ANI.


 * You did not comment on your unencyclopedic edit which left the sentence inconsistent re contractions. I have fixed it for you. Moriori (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You needn't take my criticism personally. Whether one is Old hand or new hand is irrelevant. Do you hear what I am saying, rollback is for obvious vandalism, if you have a reason for undoing the edit that is fine, but it would help if you let others know what your reasons are. The relevant section from WP:ROLLBACK:


 * "Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. Rollback may be used: To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. "


 * So that's where I am coming from, don't be so trigger happy. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where you are coming from is not the real world, and I suggest you read IAR There actually are situations where an explanatory edit summary would not normally be expected. I'm taking not being expected by perps, those who vandalise but never leave a summary or react to one. That is the case here. I was dealing with a perp. If the perp bitched about no summary, then we would have miraculously established communication, but I can't recall the last time that happened.


 * I believe I am effective in the way I deal with disrupters/vandals. I am not trigger happy, and your -- I repeat -- naive "misuse of revert" is laughable.  Moriori (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't let that sysop thing go to your head. I wouldn't want you to develop a god-complex or any thing, but it sounds like you are on the way there with all that laughing at the mere mortals around you. Good luck with your head hunting of this "vandal". Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 09:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandals don't have to be head hunted -- they publicly self destruct. As they step out of line, there are people who deal with them. God-complex! Wheeeeeeee. Moriori (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. There are people who deal with them. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 09:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Hillary pictures
In response to what you wrote on my talk page - I respectfully disagree: these images are in the public domain. Images taken from the National Library and The Alexander Turnbull Library are routinely used on Commons (an example is most of the images Commons:Category:Ropata Wahawaha, there are many more). The library's request for permission for commercial use, as I understand it, is to ensure copyright compliance if the works are not in the public domain, as the libraries do not own the copyright to items in their collection. From Public domain:


 * "Another class of uncreative works which are unable to claim copyright protection in the U.S. are those resulting from mechanical reproduction. Following Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph. Many other countries (but not all!) recognize a similar ineligibility for copyright for reproductive photographs of two-dimensional public domain works."


 * "Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph."

And from Commons:COM:When to use the PD-Art tag:


 * "A mere mechanical reproduction of some other image, such as an unmodified photocopy or scan of a drawing, cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted."


 * "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain. If museums and galleries not only claim copyright on reproductions, but also control the access to the ability to reproduce pictures (by prohibiting photos, etc.), important historical works that are legally in the public domain can be made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers.


 * WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works. And, if we ever were seriously legally challenged, we would have a good internal debate about whether we'd fight such a case, and build publicity around it. This is neither a policy change (at least from WMF's point of view), nor is it a change that has implications for other Commons policies. —Erik Möller 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)''diff"

There is no element of originality on the part of the libraries, therefore they cannot own the copyright to the images. The creators of these images are unknown, the photos were taken more than 50 years ago, and therefore the images (and the reproduction on Commons) are in the public domain in New Zealand. TimofKingsland (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) (edited TimofKingsland (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC))


 * Explanation accepted. I will not further revert if you add these back into the article. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 10:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
I have a feeling we might have a tad of sock and meatpuppetry going on.... Looking at the contributions etc of most of the discussants, they are very similar. I have SPA tagged a couple in the thread, well done on the warnings. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes definite parroting of the same points and stylistic similarities, plus one account addressing questions that were put to the other etc. May pay to open a SPI if this continues. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Proposed deletion of David King (historian)


The article David King (historian) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not meet notability guideline, no evidence of sufficient references to sustain article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TeaDrinker (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sex at Dawn Ryan Jetha 2010.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sex at Dawn Ryan Jetha 2010.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)