User talk:Slowmover/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Happy editing ! --Bhadani 15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting
Hi there. I read on the new user's log that fact checking would be your primary contribution to Wikipedia. I thought you might like to know that there is a WikiProject for fact checking. - Akamad 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox changes
''I have the same problem. The lack of discussion or notice is NOT appreciated! Remember when you change a template, you affect all the linked pages, so it should only be done with great care. I live in Canada but originate from the U.K. The phrase "comes from" does not mean "lives in"! I'm just removing the userbox from my page until the purpose of the box is settled. Slowmover 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)''
 * Did you check the edit history? If you would care to, you'll see my edit summary includes a link to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom where this issue is being discussed and everyone who has responded has agreed with the reformatting. I regret that there is no easy way to contact everyone using these templates directly, but as noted there was the original link and every template I have changed now has a notice and link to the same discussion on their talkpages. The distinction between "comes from" and "lives in" that you note is precisely what has spurred this on, as there was (and to an extent still is) a degree of confusion and clear error relating the text of user boxes and the assigned categories i.e. One userbox read, "This user comes from X" but included the category, "Wikipedians in X."
 * I completely understand your position, but I would ask that you attempt to understand mine and in the practice, I believe you'll find we think alike on this. The suggestion that I have not thought this through or been careful in my edits is not appreciated itself. - Hayter 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I apologize for being so abrupt and jumping to conclusions. Slowmover 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi
No offense, but can I do things in peace - its not like I am doing something criminal here (and maybe I do think it is a well-argued nomination). Also, I advise you and Diez to peruse some of those votes of mine, to see that some were keep or redirect or merge - plus I think that if people who write Delete ~ aren't being complained to, I shouldn't receive so many complaints either. I understand that you did this in good faith, though - but I think that you all are getting a knot in your pants for no reason. ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Since Wikipedia is a public environment, unfortunately it is hard to do things in complete peace.  I made my comments to you because Grocer had argued that the article was "nonsense" and an "advertisement" and "unsalvageable" when it was none of those things.  It was basically true, but badly written, and not really useful.  So your "well-argued" description appeared to be disingenuous or ill-considered, so I stand by what I said. Perhaps we can agree to disagree and let it go at that. Slowmover 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Three forms of mathematical induction
This article was intended to be comprehensible to all mathematicians.

It was not intended to teach mathematical induction. It was not intended to explain what mathematical induction is, nor how to use it.

What I see is (mostly) a bunch of non-mathematicians looking at the stub form in which the article appeared when it was nominated from deletion, and seeing that
 * It was not comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians who know what mathematical induction is, and
 * The article titled mathematical induction is comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians, even those who know --- say --- secondary-school algebra, but have never heard of mathematical induction.

And so I have now expanded the article far beyond the stub stage, including
 * Substantial expansion and organization of the introductory section.
 * Two examples of part of the article that is probably hardest to understand to those who haven't seen these ideas.
 * An prefatory statement right at the top, saying that this article is NOT the appropriate place to try to learn what mathematical induction is or how to use it, with a link to the appropriate article for that. It explains that you need to know mathematical induction before you can read this article.

Therefore, I invite those who voted to delete before I did these recent de-stubbing edits, to reconsider their votes in light of the current form of the article.

(Nothing like nomination for deletion to get you to work on a long-neglected stub article!) Michael Hardy 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the article's AfD page Slowmover 23:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Movement
Howdy Slowmover. I put a speedy delete tag on this one because it fell under the speedy criteria of "patent nonsense". :) Cheers. --F a ng Aili 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A big thanks!! Slowmover 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! I also speedied that ridiculous picture. --F a ng Aili 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted edits
Deleted edits are edits made to articles which were later deleted. In this case, things like Bruce Gladstone, Big noses, Apparatus Dysfunctional Grudge were due to you nominating them for AfD. So "Deleted edits" isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a way to not leave anyone out with editcountitis. --Interiot 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I thought I was getting reverted without knowing it! Slowmover 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ascent Media
Hi. I've added information to this deletion debate with you may not have had available to you at the time of your vote. I invite you to revisit this debate.

This is an informational notice only, provided as a courtesy. I am not soliciting you to change your vote. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia tidy! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn
Dear Slowmover:

Pls. explain what POV I committed in editing Katharine Hepburn's page. Thanks!! 216.194.58.82 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I only made one edit to your extensive changes to this article, so the answer should be obvious. The sentence "Given some of the Academy's awardees over the years, it's hard not to share some of her contempt." which I removed, is a point-of-view that is not substantiated, presumably your point of view.  Please read WP:NPOV.  I have assumed good faith regarding the rest of your edits, per the guideline Wp:assume good faith.  However, you could improve the opinion other editors take towards your contributions if you create a user id and stop editing under an anonymous IP address.  Slowmover 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Toto/jesus cult
Are you infact putting this talk page with no history on AFD or is this some kind of mixup? If it is the first it is likely a CSD8 as a talk page without an article. kotepho 19:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ''That's what I was trying to do. I suppose it's unorthodox, but I was just trying to clean up one last piece of the mess created by Connorx. Slowmover 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to figure out what was going on. It was speedy'd anyways kotepho 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Outer Limits
I've added plot synopsis to a few of the earliest episodes. Some others that are difficult for me to remember (or the plots are somewhat convoluted) I am skipping over. You may want to look these over and make corrections where my memory may be faulty. ZincOrbie 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been reading them during the day. I've been watching episodes recently for the purpose of editing on WP, and the synopses all seem accurate as far as I can recall.  And well written IMHO.  Now if Motor would just upload some more screenshots....  Slowmover 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, the problem is making the plotline coherent and keeping it short. In my opinion, going beyond a paragraph in description reveals too much, making the synopsis into a pure spoiler. I'd rather people watch the show. =) ZincOrbie 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there are far too many detailed plot outlines written by overzealous fans. That point is discussed here: Television episodes. Slowmover 01:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypermodernity
hi Slowmover -- well, I have to admit, I am really entertained by this one. It seems clearly like a goofball project by somebody who thought they could just place an article on WP and amuse themselves and their friends. On the other hand, there's a chance it's for real. So I am trying to balance taking it seriously enough (I did actually look up the book in the University of Saarland catalog!), but also recognizing that we are probably just being baited by someone who thinks that claiming to be a college professor will snow us all. Most AfDs are not like this, but it's definitely true that when yo try to delete someone's pet project (or bio), they can get really mad, and AfDs can get out of control. WP:AGF is a great tool for keeping it civil (as is WP:CIVIL). And you have to just let it roll off you -- what do I care if some anon user, who is as likely to be a high school student in NJ as anything else, claims I don't know anything about "continental thought"? I think you're right on with the sympathies to the closing admin. don't let the crazies get you down, and have fun with it! best, bikeable (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Duggan
Hi SM, the AfD has been closed. It was vandalism by a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, not a serious AfD. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rolf Harris
Thanks for experimenting with the page Rolf Harris on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. → A z a  Toth 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear AzaToth, I don't know how you can accuse me of vandalism to a page where I reverted vandalism and you then summarily put it back. Are you using some kind of bot for this? Did you even read my edit summary? Since you reverted me, Tintin1107 has again put the page back to the same version that I did, the last unvandalized version by Jmabel.  Please be careful with your unfounded accusations and thoughtless reversions. Slowmover 16:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there might be some wrong, but I did remove Italic text from your edit, see. I'm sorry if that was unintentioned from your side. → A z a  Toth 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant to fix the italics at the same time but I think I screwed it up somehow. No harm done. Slowmover 19:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fake Posting @ 911 Eyewitness deletion page.
Just to keep you informed: Someone fake voting as you |Comparison
 * Thanks! Slowmover 19:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United Hardware 2
Excellent analysis. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Recat
I'm going to start doing season 3 of the new series... just letting you know so we don't tread on each other's toes. - Motor (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll be done all the new series existing episodes in a few minutes.Slowmover 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just noticed. You have been busy. :) - Motor (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Administrator, verification required
I'm having a problem with Administrator SlimVirgin on Judi McLeod and Canada Free Press.

You recently reverted an AFD tag she deleted in an unrelated matter. 

Wikipedia policy encourages third-party help. So far as I know you have no prior interest in the relevant pages.

Our dispute partly centres around the Edward J. Hayes Memorial Journalism Award. SlimVirgin disputes both McLeod winning the award, and the award's importance. She inexplicably objects to any mention of the award because it's 23 years old, although the article is a biographical piece. She seems to imply that any Ontario newspaper award or perhaps any journalism award won in Ontario is frivolous and not worth noting. She also implies that I might be lying: she writes, "assuming it was won." One of the Globe and Mail articles referenced refers to Peter Desbarats, former Dean of UWO's Graduate School of Journalism. According to the article, ''Her coverage was judged by Peter Desbarats the best of any in 22 Ontario dailies from Western Ontario. Mr. Desbarats praises her articles highly.''

She claims few verifiable third party sources exists, which she uses to limit the article's size... and yet she seems to have little familiarity with Canadiana, and apparently can't access Canadian news indexes which are widely available and index verifiable third party sources. A senior editor experienced in Canadiana can quickly confirm my referenced newspaper articles. Your University affiliation presumably means you can access Proquest and The Globe and Mail online indexes to confirm the articles. Proquest also confirms that McLeod wrote for the Kingston Whig Standard.

Unless I've misread her, SlimVirgin seems to only be relying on Google for her fact checking. The pitfalls are obvious: an administrator's verifiability checks and sourcing abilities are only as good as the indexes and databases available to her. SlimVirgin's lack of familiarity with the subject and Canadiana also resulted in mistakes. For example, she thought the The Toronto Star was only a blog. This is one reason why I believe she should remove herself from the article.

She also seems to be editing under some distress in a number of unrelated articles.
 * ''James, I can only assume you are very young, because this level of immaturity is extremely unusual, and you have no idea how tiresome.
 * Then quit behaving like someone who's going through the terrible twos and needs to be put in the time-out chair.
 * I'll read that (WP:CIVIL) if you read all our other editing policies and start editing in accordance with them.
 * edit summary comment: (rv stop your incessant POV pushing; the revert has been explained on talk) Fifth of 5 reverts in the last week of February 2006.
 * edit summary comment: (right, campaigns strongly for the right of animals to donate their skins to her)
 * edit summary comment: (rv the burden of evidence is on you, and if she's an animal-rights activist, I'm the King of France)
 * You're very close to being blocked indefinitely if you don't quit your personal attacks, snide remarks, bad editing, reverting, and whining. We've had enough.

These outbursts seem to be increasing. The arbcom committee ruled against her for making personal attacks some time ago. 

She made several excellent edits in Judi McLeod and Canada Free Press and I have no problem incorporating some of her changes and complaints. She tightened a number of sentences and polished parts of the articles. Her restructuring of one article's introductory section was a welcome change and long overdue. But many of her changes make no sense. Another administrator Bearcat questioned some of her edits and requests for citations here.

I have more to say, but it's probably easier if we take this one step at a time. --Cyberboomer 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are some thoughts. First of all, I'm guessing we're both currently from Toronto, so the story is in my backyard, although I'm not familiar with it.  Regrettably, my UWO affiliation is historic (I'm an alumnus) and I don't have access to Proquest.  Although I subscribe to the Globe & Mail print edition, I don't like their online service, so I'm limited to whatever they released to the web in the last 7 days or so.  Probably, that makes me not very useful for helping verify the article content.  I'm passingly familiar with the Ontario Newspaper Association, but not their award(s).  I can see how an award from them might appear NN to someone who seems to be from the UK, and a more cooperative person might have backed off on the argument by now.  My feeling is that you may be in a losing battle, given that Slimvirgin is a sysop with more edits than God.  My subjective impression, based on the rather abrupt AfD tag revert incident, and reading some of the other usertalk pages, is that he/she likes to operate unilaterally, and having been around so long makes it easy to behave that way with some impunity.  On the other hand, WP needs some rotweilers to keep the vandals in line, and he/she may fill that role quite handily; it's just a good idea not to get on the wrong side of a rotweiler (which I might be doing by saying this).  I think you need the help of another Admin (which I am not).  Good luck! -- Slowmover 23:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

UWO Template : Thanks
Thanks for showing me Template:User UWO. Looks nice. I've added it to my page. LinuxDude 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Klaatu barada nikto
The article Klaatu barada nikto is more precisely termed Klaatu barada nikto in popular culture, in line with other articles in Category:In popular culture. Clearly, the reason for moving the page to a more precise title is self-evident by the current content. Before I performed the merge, the article amounted to nothing more than "Klaatu barata niktu originates from the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still", with one reference to popular culture. After more than a year, the article is nothing more than a collection of popular culture references. For this reason, I am following WP:PRECISION. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point. The article itself is a bit frivolous, and the content might never be more than a list of the pop culture references to the quotation (but then again, it could be expanded).  My problem with the page title is that is doesn't really help distinguish between the current content and some other more general article about the quote (since there isnt' one).  So I don't think the purpose of WP:PRECISION is really met by giving it a longer title and specifically a title which nobody would ever think of typing in the search box.  It seemed excessive to me to go around changing the titles articles in this way when the category groups them for you anyway, unless it is making a distinction from a different article on the same topic, which is what I understand to be the intent of WP:PRECISION.  Many articles will contain a pop culture section, where it would be appropriate to include the article in Category:In popular culture, but not appropriate to change the title.  That's my position, but I don't want to start a revert war over it.  Slowmover 14:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edge of Darkness
Hi - I don't have a source for the use of a real bullet in this; it's from memory, and a brief Google search didn't produce an immediate source. However it was from a TV program I saw (quite a few years ago) which talked about how the shot was done in some detail, so I'm pretty sure it's true. Apparently they used a real bullet (and quite a powerful gun) so that the actress would be thrown backwards in a plausible way. Ben Finn 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Colombo Article

 * Thanks a lot for your advice and help, I will sure keep what you said in my mind, happy to learn from you.  « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T) 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr_mormon
Now indefinitely blocked. I don't think he will be missed - thanks for bringing it to my attention. I live twenty minutes drive from The Wirral, by the way ... weird. Proto /// type  15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Slowmover 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tornado (disambiguation)
The MOS says:

''Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example: "Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead ''

So why do you insist on having links for Garbage (band), Six Flags, Coney Island, etc, but not allow one for Adventureland (Iowa)? The MOS specifically lists an example with a band saying not to link the band name. Please be consistent!--Rehcsif 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''I thought it was obvious, but I'll try to spell it out. The general idea is that there should only by one bluelink (active link) on each line of a disambig page.  This is because you don't want to direct the reader to more than one location.  The roller coaster at Adventureland already has a link, and the Adventureland link is a duplicate, which the reader can find by going to the roller coaster article, should they be interested.  Having both links does not conform to the MOS.
 * ''However, the other 3 articles all have redlinks. I.E., they do not yet have articles associated with them.  Therefore, the MOS gives you two options: (1) remove the item because it is non-notable and will probably never have a Wikipedia article; or (2) add a secondary link that relates to the item and gives the reader some information, or a lead on where to find more information; this option is to be chosen when you think the redlink might eventually become an article.  If an article is written, the red link turns blue, and the secondary link would be removed, in the same way as I removed Adventureland. I chose to do this for those other 3 items rather than removing them.
 * I hope this is clear, because I'm done arguing over this one. -- Slowmover 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

BAFTA Award for Best Film.
I followed the advice you gave me. You may want to take a look. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a real improvement, since there is now much more information about the award. Somebody might miss the old table format, but I don't think it matters.  Best regards, -- Slowmover 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot
Thanks for the note. We are trying to avoid this with whitelists see Date formattings, but project still in infancy. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 22:34 26 June 2006 (GMT).
 * Thanks for pointing out the lists. -- Slowmover 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)