User talk:Stardust8212/Archive1

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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Why do we have so few engineers as Wikipedians?
I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:


 * Are you a university graduate engineer?
 * Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
 * Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
 * Bioengineer or biological engineering
 * Chemical engineering
 * Civil engineering
 * Electrical engineering
 * Environmental engineering
 * Mechanical engineering
 * Petroleum engineering
 * Other
 * In what year did you obtain your degree?
 * What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

Please respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Call
Why did you call me last night? Callrgeek 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you leaving this message on apparently random people's talk pages? Stardust8212 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bujinkan
I threw the baby out with the bathwater. Good catch. Thanks. EvilCouch 09:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Stardust8212 12:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pritpal Sahota
Hello. Thanks for your help on the uncategorized articles backlog. I have removed the speedy deletion tag for Pritpal Sahota that you put in because, honestly, it does not quite meet the strict requirements of WP:CSD. I have put a proposed deletion tag instead, which should have the same effect (but in a week...) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you're watching this but whatever...I almost tagged for prod but I thought claiming a 9 year old won "Sportsman of the century" from Sports Illustrated was pretty non-sensical. Oh well, prod is just as good. Stardust8212 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mini uzi
Just so you know warnings are not badges of shame that users are required to display. Mini uzi has clearly read it, so they are allowed to delete it. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd read somewhere in the past, though I don't remember where and I'd be hard pressed to find it so maybe I imagined it, that they weren't supposed to be deleted because they helped to monitor repeat offenders. Also seeing as he deleted it while putting another personal attack in his edit summary I tohught it might be appropriate to read it again. Oh well. Stardust8212 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading your talk page and that of TheGreeFaerae its pretty clear that Mini uzi is objecting to content changes on the Futurama pages that you and TGF are supporting. This puts you in a content dispute with him. It can only escalate any dispute for you start telling him what he can and can't have on his talk page. Even if he wasn't allowed to delete the warning, it would have been wrong for you to be the one to tell him - especially as the abuse wasn't aimed in your direction. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I never thought about it like that, mainly because I didn't realize I was even in a content dispute with him. Don't worry, I have no attention of venturing back to his talk page anytime soon. Stardust8212 21:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense page
See I was right. Lungszeague 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Right behind you ...
I was just about to fix this myself! Keesiewonder talk 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS HELMR
This is Helmr, you keep on posting statements about Stephen Michael Cohen that are libelous and poory sourced. The sex.com case was a civil case and not a criminal case. I removed all statements relating to THEFT and convictions that never took place. Mr. Cohen has not been convicted of a Theft Crime.

Cohen was never convicted nor did he served prison sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery. Cohen was convicted of a Bankruptcy Fraud case out of the District Court in San Diego in 1992. During our interview with Cohen's attorney yesterday, my cammerman saw a subpoena for all records of Wikipedia issued from the District Court

Wikipedia has strict policies about poory sourced information and libelous statements. Cohen's attorney also claims that the picture posted has a valid copyright filed in U.S. Copyright office. You should check with Wikipediato determine if the subpoena has been served. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmr (talk • contribs)
 * The information I have added to Stephen M. Cohen has come from reliable sources and I have included these sources in the article. I have now removed all unsourced information from the article, including that which you added. Stardust8212 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|25px]] You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.


 * Stardust8212, on April 11 you introduced into the Cohen article two sources from JewWatch, referring to them as "reputable sources" and right above as "reliable sources". You insisted on reinstating them even after they had been removed.


 * Wikipedia's Attribution policy proposal refers to "websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist" as "questionable sources", and asserts they "may only be used in articles about themselves". Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy begins with the words "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies".


 * JewWatch is widely acknowledged as an extremist racist and anti-religious website. Please take care not to use it again as a source in gratuitous articles, especially not in articles about living persons, and most definitely not in articles about Jews.


 * Thanks. Itayb 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not familiar with the website in question and did not know that it was considered racist and anti-religious. The articles which were on the page claimed to have originally come from other sources and I made the mistaken assumption that they were merely archived there. I merely wanted to add at least some source to the information which was already included in the article which was defamatory and completely unsourced. I readded the links because, as previously stated, I thought they were ok in my admittedly limited knowledge and the person deleting them refused to offer any information showing they were incorrect. This of coure is why my next step was a request for comment because I really didn't know what step to take next. Fortunately this has resulted in people supplying more links and I think now I can come up with a version which is acceptable to the wikipedia community as a whole. Anyway, didn't mean to cause trouble, all I really wanted when I first came to that page was to restore the deleted categories, don't know why I even bothered with the article beyond that. Stardust8212 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have been too harsh on you.


 * 1. I acknowledge that the article you referred to originates in a perfectly benign and reliable source, namely courttvnews. In fact, i've restored a reference to this source in the Cohen article, adjusting the link to point to the original, see.


 * 2. The Attribution paragraph referring to extremist sources seems to be controversial and ambiguous, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.


 * 3. You have used JewWatch only as an archive of reliable external content rather than as a source for original content. Such use may actually be explicitly permitted by the RS policy, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources


 * However, i do think that referencing anti-Semite sources in biographical articles about Jews, particularly living persons, even if they are only used as archives, is problematic. Itayb 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I should have paid a bit more attention to the website as a whole before using it but rushed myself a bit too much. I am glad you were able to find a less biased archive, makes me feel a little less guilty about using it in the first place. I will see what I can come up with on rewriting the article from the new sources in the next couple days. Stardust8212 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

International Mobile Satellite Organization
Hi there, the reason I removed all links and categories is because they belong to the article Inmarsat and not the IMSO article as I wrote in my edit summary and has been discussed many times in this article. The links and categories do exist in the article Inmarsat and should not be duplicated in the IMSO article because they refer to Inmarsat and not IMSO. --   Avg     16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I really appreciate it.Professor marginalia 15:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. Therequiembellishere 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Query
Hi there. Firstly, compliments on your contribution to Composite material, and for your useful editing tips on your User page. I now understand 'dismbiguation' in the Wikipedia context. My query relates to the word matrix. The article Matrix is a mess, needs a clean-up starting with an opening definition. There is an excellent definition at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matrix. With your far greater knowledge of Wikipedia rules can you tell if it is permissible to reproduce this definition (with acknowledgement by citing the link) ? Thanks & regards Geoffrey Wickham 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for reply. WilcoGeoffrey Wickham 05:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Hello again. Thanks for motivating me, by your tip, to improve my home page. Re your edit on discussion of Composite material of 19th May, I fully agree that the article needs overall restructuring in a more encyclopedic form. Re the lead 'definition' I think it is Ok because it defines composite materials in the broadest sense, but the text then becomes a bit confusing to the general (non-engineer) reader in the subsequent sections which talk about fiber reinforced plastics as well as aggregate reinforced concrete etc. Perhaps additional text to the lead definition could clarify the difference between the two. I'll ponder that but my way of doing things is always to get all possible knowledge & opinions from others before acting. I've added a comment to Discussion suggesting the section 'Geometry' be deleted. Basically, it just doesn't fit within the context of the article, is unspecific as to what the writer is talking about and is unlikely to be clarified. I suspect it's about polymer chemistry which is well covered in Polymer section "Structures and properties". Would appreciate your opinion & that of others. Best, Geoffrey Wickham 58.168.192.56 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jan Roskam
Hey Stardust. I actually tried to create an article on Dr. Roskam about a year ago (I think it was about when he retired), based on the information provided at his DARCorp web site, since I noticed he had a redlinked entry at List of aerospace engineers. Well, it was speedily deleted while I was still editing it: an administrator apparently thought I was plagiarizing DARCorp's web site. I actually did copy the DAR-Corp material and was still sand-box editing to remove the "appearance of plagiarism" when I hit "save" instead of "preview"; and then was gone before I knew anyone was even looking at it. Just goes to show a well-intended deed never goes unpunished. Anyway I would love to see a standing high quality Wiki-article on Roskam: he is as notable as they come. Just could not come up with any verifiable information other than what is posted on his web site, and I'm still smarting from the last attempt. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (KUAE BS '83 MS '86)
 * Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with your Roskam article, hopefully this one will last a bit longer! Feel free to edit my start, I've just moved so I won't be working on it steadily for a few weeks. I'd love to have any input you could offer. Stardust8212 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (KUAE BS '05)

"Retired" may be too harsh a word...
Thanks. I "retired" several months ago, but i've kept editing on a much smaller scale ever since. Nowadays i consider Wikipedia's worth to lie primarily in the "External Links" sections. I'd rather not get entangled in any conflict here. It's not worth my time and energy. Withing these limitations, i'd be happy to offer you my assistance. Itayb 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, i'm not up for the job. I'm not interested anymore in improving Wikipedia. I'm here for fun. My own, nerdy definition of "fun". This definition does not encompass getting myself into disputes with other editors. I wish you luck, though. Cheers. :) Itayb 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor error
Hello. I noticed you mdae this edit which restored the version with vandalism. I fixed it for you. :) *Cremepuff  222*  01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had a popup related booboo, not quite sure what happened. Was getting ready to fix it when I saw you already had. Stardust8212 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Comment
Thanks for your comment. As you presumably saw when you went to the user's talk page, the various AN/I, the self-admitted sockpuppetry, the trollish behaviour, the extensive postings from all kinds of editors asking for the user to desist in making attacks, and so on and so on means that we need to be clear when dealing with querulous, fractious, disruptive editors of this type. Wikipedia works by consensus and good faith. Editors who, as a matter of course, flaunt those rules, try to game the system, troll, or routinely promote their own views in a way that violates the spirit of Wikipedia need to be told so, in my view bluntly and directly. You draw my attention to kettle, so my apologies that you feel I, too, am systematically uncivil, wikilawyerish, trollish, pointy and disruptive. However, my own shortcomings aside, please accept that my comment has nothing to do with the arbcom case and is a statement directed at the editor's credibility which, in my view, is 0. At any event, Vivan will come back at me swinging and I anticipate a flurry of indignance, heaped with accusations of incivility, bad faith etc... which may well convince editors that my own credibility is also sorely lacking. Plus ca change.... Eusebeus (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the Category redirect template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria
Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability
I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!


A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Happy Valentine's Day to you as well. Stardust8212 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFC error
Probably a glitch in the algorithm used by the RFC bot to detect errors. The issue you pointed out rarely happens. You were right in reverting it. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

a strange contrail
Hi,Stardust8212, May I please ask you to take a look at this and tell me, if it could have been created by Crow Instability. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do not know, it still would have been nice to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been out of town since the afternoon of March 8th and have only just gotten back today. I had very limited internet access until now and I hadn't had the time to look at the picture. I was hoping to take some time to look into your question after I returned home and had normal access to my resources before responding but if you want an immediate answer then, no, I don't know. Happy editing! Stardust8212 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a Happy Spring Day!
--Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting
Hey, thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Useight (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lifetime
I'm not sure why you're removing this template in your clean-ups, but please remembers that it also sets DEFAULTSORT, so you should include that as well as the birth and death year categories. David Underdown (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it seems Autowikibrowser did that and I didn't notice, I'll keep an eye out for it in future runs though. Stardust8212 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
When is your wikipedian birthday/did you create your account?Tm93 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my first edit was May 17 2005, so I suspect that's probably the same day I registered, to be honest I don't really remember anymore! Stardust8212 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ta...
...for having a go at categorizing people by birth. It'd be nice to get a few wikignomes attacking this one! Dsp13 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Heliotrope E-Zine
Greetings,

What exactly is the problem with the heliotrope ezine entry? It's all fact as all the issues are online and linked to to verify every statement. You can't get more verified than that.

I just want to get in line an with requirements. Certainly I'm affiliated with the publication but I don't see a conflict of interest. Other sites like it are listed and I'm not lauding the site or material, merely stating contents which are completely verifiable on the page.

Thanks for any assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotro (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Heliotro there are a couple issues with the article even though everything stated in the article is verifiable. One problem is Notability. On Wikipedia notability is established when the subject of an article is discussed in reliable secondary sources. Has any magazine, newspaper or other news source published information about Heliotrope besides Heliotrope itself? The article currently has no information on why the topic is important, only that it exists. Also because of your username it is clear you are associated with the E-Zine, while it is not forbidden to edit an article with which you are closely related it does create a conflict of interest, this means that you may not be able to edit the article from a neutral point of view, one of the key concerns at Wikipedia. Another issue with the article is that the way it reads right now it could be considered a bit like an advertisement for the E-Zine, it's really not too bad and seems mostly neutral (well done) but there are a lot of links to the website which could be considered as an attempt to draw traffic to the site. If you want to continue to improve the article I recommend you spend some time looking for sources which are not directly associated with the publication itself and then include that information in the article using inline citations. Also, when someone "tags" the article to show it has a possible issue please don't remove that tag until you have either addressed the issue or discussed it with the person who put it there. Stardust8212 11:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help but this has become a bit of a hassle for a rather simple/innocent thing! I'll just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotro (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, I hope this won't put you off of contributing to Wikipedia in other areas, perhaps once you have editted some other pages you will feel more comfortable working on this article. Best of luck! Stardust8212 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Barcol hardness test at DYK
Thank you for pointing out the problem, Stardust8212. I was trying to keep the hook short. Is it better now? Please feel free to tweak it further as you see fit. --PFHLai (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you approve. Thank you. Happy editing! --PFHLai (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day
Hello, I notice you're using one of the motd templates, run by Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all,, every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday and Holidays!


MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki  talk   contribs  wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. MisterWiki  talk   contribs  03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)