User talk:Tarl N./Archive 2

Ethnic groups
Hi, regarding the section of ethnic groups in the article of Mexico, on wikipedia official data is the one that must be favoured over third party sources that certainly haven't realised extensive, person-per-person studies and surveys in the country and whose estimations are based on outdated old data. Data from official census will always be more accurate, I started a discussion in the Village Pump section of wikipedia and that was the result. Check this out. Aergas (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered with original conversation on user's talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You wrote: Precision isn't the issue here, it's detail. The Mexican poll you quote does not offer ethnic groupings - it's a self-identification of *ONE* cultural group (not ethnic, which is the box you replaced), entirely ignoring everything else. As for the name, by saying that some percentage are "Mexican", you are claiming that those of indigenous origin are not Mexican. That's absurd. If you want to further discuss this with a wider audience, use the Talk:Mexico page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the official census, not a random poll, i really don't think that it imply that these people aren't mexican, just like in the article for Spain people outside the "Spanish" category don't automatically become non-spaniarss, they still have citizenship, they are just outside the main ethnic group. I don't think it is really an issue but in case you consider it too much of an issue the only ethnic group recognized in Mexico that should go in the infobox would be indigenous peoples at 14.8%. Aergas (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that the reference you are using is one self-identifying cultural group, and you are using that to replace all ethnic group information. That doesn't fly. Don't take my word for it, take it to Talk:Mexico.
 * And how is an estimation done without actual bases like the one that Britanica presents more accurate or reliable? Is not my intention to start a discussion in the talk page because the user that is opposing this is you and only you, even when I started a discussion in the "village pump section" that resulted on official sources being favoured. I want to setle this with you, because you are the opositor. you said that Britanica was the one to go before because it added more detail even if it was baseless, but official sources must be prefered over thir party ones, look at the article of Sweden, by official disposition no ethnic data exist, and even though there are third parties that might bring up more insight on ethnic groups official data must be favoured. Aergas (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again: I didn't say "more accurate or reliable". I said "detailed". And in particular, the detail the box called for, not something else - the box called for ethnic statistics, you presented cultural statistics. You didn't ask this specific question at the village pump, you asked a generic question about official vs other sources. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But what's the point of "Details" if the details aren't true and there isn't any research behid them? you complain and call the official census cultural one, which wouldn't be true at all because not all the people who considered themselves native speak an indigenous language according to the chart, but it is the only real source that exists either way, and official statistics shall always be put over third party ones like on the case of Sweden. You complained because on my initial edit I separated "Mexican" and "amerindian". I propose you to sort the ethnic groups as "Mexican", "amerindian Mexican" and "other", this will fix the issues you had with my first edit. Aergas (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote: But what's the point of "Details" if the details aren't true and there isn't any research behid them?  - I guess that finishes this conversation. Claiming that reliable sources aren't true and have no research behind them indicates we aren't on the same page. I'm not interested in arguing. You want to argue, take it to Talk:Mexico. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that there is real extensive field research on the numbers given by Brittanica? because they don't match with the numbers reported in an official real census that included a real field research and that requires a good explanation. It looks to me that you are just trying to avoid having any discussion with me and only want to redirect me to the talk page to drag this more, but the only one that have a problem accepting that official sources must be favoured over third party ones is you because i already took this issue to the Village Pump section of wikipedia and the result was that official sources must be favoured, and if we continue and go as far as to need the direct intervention of administrators official sources will be favoured aswell, im trying to end in good terms with you. Save time to both of us. Aergas (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression that you don't only care about the proportion of amerindians, but are concerned about the other "racial groups" aswell, yet you must be aware that Mexico does not work like that, it has a different way to aproach race and ethnicy than say, the United States and this makes misunderstanding very common among Mexicans and basically anybody that isn't Mexican. The biggest problem is that you haven't realised that all the information you consider racial in Mexico, including the scarce official census done in the country, and the data from which Brittanica makes it's estimations, have always been based on culture, not biological traits, the most recent and somewhat competent racial investigation done in mexico, by the University of the state of Mexico ranks the racial groups as follows: white 15%, mestizo 70%, amerindian 14%, mulato 0.5%, asian 0.5%, yet in the page 196 the author makes a remark that is usually omitted: in countries with a heavy mestizo culture, such as Mexico, a huge amount of racially white people identifies as having cultural traits from Europeans and Native Americans (technically speaking mestizo culture, although the term itself is not used, and rather than mestizo culture it's refered to as Mexican culture), due the strong influence of the aforementioned Mexican/mestizo culture (in the particualar case of Mexico, this culture is actively promoted by the government, and to this day it continues), this is the main reason why on Mexican Tv for example, people that is not Mexican might believe that the actors etc. are white, and that Tv is racist because it shows many whites, but in reality if asked about their race, the majority of the people that you might consider is white wouldn't know what to answer about which is their race, (In Mexico the word mestizo itself is not in use and has offensive connotations) they would just say that they are Mexican. For all this accurate, realistic racial data for Mexico doesn't exist and has never existed, that's the point of the Mexican culture, that's why the Mexican government does not ask for race. Aergas (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As it happens, you're mistaken. On Wikipedia, you'll be well advised to reserve your attacks for articles, and not make assumptions about the personality of the editor. At least not until you know me a whole lot better than you do. See WP:PERSONAL. I'm well aware of the ethnic distinctions in Mexico - I grew up there. One of the particular reasons that I object to your change is that you entirely remove the distinction between Mestizo and White/Caucasian/European. It matters in Mexico - the upper classes are dominated by those of european descent, and ignoring the distinction does the article a disservice. The census data you point at is probably contaminated by political agendas - when I grew up there, describing yourself as "indigena" was more a political statement than a description of your heritage or peer groups. Either way, I've asked for an impartial 3rd party to review the change, I'll abide by that review.
 * "One of the particular reasons that I object to your change is that you entirely remove the distinction between Mestizo and White/Caucasian/European." - The problem here is that mestizo (in Mexico more than anywhere else) is not a race while white is, especially when in Mexico basically anybody, even people without native blood might be considered mestizo. As the investigation by the University of the State of Mexico states: many white people are labelled as mestizo due cultural influence, and there is no rough-by-race census, only census based on culture, this includes numbers on Britanica, any number you want to introduce to the wiki will be misleading since the ethnic definitions in Mexico are different than anywhere else, they are cultural, not biological. Aergas (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'The problem here is that mestizo (in Mexico more than anywhere else) is not a race  - Really? Dia de la Raza, which celebrates the creation of the Mestizos? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In Latin America día de la raza is the popular name given to colombus day. It marks the meeting of two different cultures. wheter to considering racial or not is up to every person. Aergas (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution
There is a dispute resolution on which you might be involved. Aergas (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Marquisate of the Valley of Oaxaca
Hello

I'm Luz Ma. Silva. Mexican. I'm not a native English speaker and I live in Mexico. I teach history of Mexico. I hope to be clear. If something is misspelled please correct it.

There are two reasons to remove the Marquis ended in 1814: 1. The Constitution of Apatzingán never ruled and if not governed, its provisions were not met. 2. Marquis exists to date.

As the article, there is the title of Marquis, not its properties in Mexico, there are so far. The properties were selling the descendants of Cortés and its administrators. As you know, the nineteenth century was very problematic in Mexico.

I'll make another correction because the lands of the Marquis covering the state of Mexico and Mexico City. They are different. The City is the capital of the state of Mexico and a neighboring entity. As Washington, DC and Virginia.

Regards

Luz María Silva Luz Maria Silva (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Luz Maria,
 * The heirs to the 12th marquis (his sons Diego and Antonio) did not bother renewing the title in 1859, evidently it was no longer meaningful. To me, that says the Marquisate was extinguished. Years later, the 16th Duke of Monteleone (grandson of the 12th marquis) acquired the title, but that gap indicates to me this is a new instance of the title. Not the gap itself, but that they allowed the gap to occur, indicates the 12th Marquis regarded the marquisate as extinct.


 * What I have been able to track down:


 * In 1973, Diego Pignatelli requested the title be rehabilitated. . See first paragraph under "Otras disposiciones". I've found other references indicating this is follow-on to actions dating back to 21 Feb 1959 and 30 April 1960, but have been unable to find those decrees.
 * In 1981, Jorge de Llanza requested the title be rehabilitated. . See decree 7907.
 * in 1984, the title was granted to Jorge de Llanza (father of the current title holder). Explicitly, this was not a simple inheritance., see decree 19804.
 * Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gracias Le escribo en español entonces. Vi que tiene nivel de casi nativo y una persona de 18 años habla bien, si es culta como usted.

Estoy revisando la traducción que hizo una alumna sobre el Marquesado del Valle de Oaxaca. Le quité los errores del inglés, como lo de 1814. Si usted vivió en México sabe que Morelos nunca gobernó y la Constitución de Apatzingán nunca rigió, haya dicho lo que haya dicho. ¿Cómo va a ser abolido un marquesado que aún existe, como lo muestra el propio artículo?

Hubo una época en que hubo problemas muy serios entre el Marquesado y la Corona española, pero no tuvo nada que ver con Morelos y 1814. Además ¿cómo iban a abolir algo que ellos no otorgaron? Por cierto, lo dice el artículo pero ya me había enterado (y escandalizado) el gobierno de México independiente, que era pobre de solemnidad, ¡pagaba sus derechos al Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca! porque a eso se comprometieron con España. Uff...

Volviendo al artículo. Recordará que Coyoacán está en el DF. En la delimitación del Marquesado está México, supongo el Estado de México, pero falta México, D.F. El Marquesado abarcó parte de ambas entidades.

Ahora lo busqué otra vez porque me costó trabajo encontrar qué parte del estado de Morelos es Acapixtla, como dice el artículo. Eso está mal. Me doy cuenta de esas cosas al hacer las ligas. Es Yecapixtla ¿algún día fue cuando vivía en México? Es la tierra de la cecina de res. Acapixtla está en Veracruz (desde luego lo acabo de aprender).

Los otros dos semestres que puse a mis alumnos a escribir en Wikipedia y algunos tradujeron, no me costó mayor trabajo, pero este semestre escogieron unos artículos larguísimos. Éste es uno. La verdad, ya lloro. Llevo tres días editándolo. No puedo permitir que tenga errores. Ya no voy a dar permiso de traducir porque aprenden mal y es más difícil corregir que si hacen el artículo ellos solos, desde la nada. De todas maneras, creo que darles la opción de escribir en Wikipedia en vez de hacer el segundo examen parcial es una buena oportunidad de aprendizaje para todos. Son alumnos del ITAM. No sé si haya oído hablar del Instituto. Tiene mucho prestigio en México.

¿Ya no viene a México? Qué bueno que vivió acá. Con razón sabe tan bien español. Yo, como habrá visto, no domino el inglés. Leo mejor que escribo y me gustan las series policiacas inglesas, así que tengo un vocabulario un poco especial. Claro, leo sociología (mi carrera) y de e-Learning, que es lo que ahora estudio. Si no leo en inglés de ambas disciplinas, me quedo en la edad de piedra :-(

Que esté muy bien

Luz Ma.

Date of Manlinche's death
Why do you believe Thomas's date of 1551 to be controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Red Eagle (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly because other references I've seen show 1529, and she's generally believed to have died fairly young. I haven't seen Thomas' claim substantiated by other publications. For someone of such prominence to essentially disappear from the record for twenty years while her son grew up into a significant power is unlikely. There is no record of her death being marked by her son, Martín Cortes el Mestizo, which makes more sense if she died while he was a child than her dying while he was an adult at the Spanish Court. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis de Sales
The sources are: German, Italian, French and others Wikipedia. 91.127.91.214 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please cite those sources, then (see WP:CITE). The sources I have easily available simply state that he was canonized in 1665 by Alexander VII. If you have a source with a more specific date, please cite it. If you wish, you can challenge the current date by adding a citation needed, but simply changing it without specifying a reference is not allowed. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment - when dates given are 11 days apart, in the years 1582 to 1750, it is likely there is confusion caused by change from Julian to Gregorian calendar. See Old Style and New Style dates.

Dreadnoughtus
Hello there, I would like to tell you that argentinosaurus actually has the largest land weight of all creatures, even BBC themselves have said. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diplodocus4ever (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A) Did BBC say this before or after the discovery and description of Dreadnoughtus? B) Is the BBC a reliable source on dinosaurs? C) We are not obligated to take your word for this until you provide reputable, reliable sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What Mr Fink said, but more specifically, please see policies at WP:RS and WP:CITE. As a secondary issue, specifying anything in the sciences as the "second most" (anything) is probably an exercise in frustration. Discoveries change relative rankings all the time, so other than the single extreme -- "the most" -- it's probably best to describe close cases as "among the most", rather than trying to give a specific ordinal. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Concept of the State references.
This is not Citation Spam. Please read the book before jumping to any conclusions. Are you from the fields of political science, political philosophy, or international relations? You might want to reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1181:B080:A158:1060:A574:E7A6 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy at WP:LINKSPAM. As best I can tell, that is a direct description of what you are doing. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Drop Bear
I did not add any new information in my edit, I rearranged the sentences. I will redo my edits, if you feel there is something wrong, please discuss it before reverting good faith edits. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the policies at WP:HOAX. They provide an example of Piltdown Man showing exactly that what you tried to do at Drop bear is unacceptable. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Typhoid patient.jpg
why is it non encyclopedic? It will be easy to remember the clinical features for medical students in one look. If the drawing is not looking good then you can let me know. Armanjain011 (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Mostly, that cartoon constitutes WP:OR. Wikipedia is a tertiary source (see WP:TERTIARY), we summarize what is reported elsewhere, but we don't synthesize new material (WP:SYNTH). Probably the best summary comes from WP:TEXTBOOK,  Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter.  Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my edit on renal function
I have just added another definition to it which I do believe assists in improving the article. Especially for a common person who looks at it. Why did you feel that it was un-needed. Supravibhatsupravi (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a run-on sentence, it did not seem to provide any useful new information, it just repeated what was already said. It seemed an edit for the purpose of making an edit, which coupled with your previous unnecessary and harmful edit, didn't belong. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

existence versus release
So, you're saying, that even if the TMS1000 existed before the 4004, it's place in the chronology is after the 4004, due to delayed public release? Then why even the 944 is in the list? It was a secret military project, it was never released to the public. --188.36.12.34 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're confusing release to public with release from engineering. A product (in particular microprocessors) goes through many phases of prototype development, and is considered released when the engineering team stops making changes. This is usually a formal handoff from engineering to manufacturing, followed by sales. In the case of military technology, even though not available to the public, the same handoffs will occur. The information we have about the TMS1000 is explicitly from its release date in 1974; I can assure you that they were not using 8µ technology in 1971. What they had in 1971 was a prototype in some form, not the finished product. All throughout this list, every processor would have to have revised dates if the first prototype date were used. My specific knowledge (as a firmware developer at Sun/Oracle) shows that all the SPARC chips would have to be moved to dates 2-3 years earlier if the first silicon spin date were used. That would be meaningless, since many of the details provided for the eventual chip would be incorrect for the first prototype. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't clear, that by "release", you did not mean public release, but the finalization of the design, usually "release" means, public release.
 * I understand that they could not use 8µ, but still they could use a wider technology, aren't they? While i don't exactly know, if they changed the designs, after 09.17.71., but is there any document about that they did, that the TMS1802NC was only a prototype? Based on the writings, it was the final product and they used it in TI calculators from 1971, they actually did released it, but not as a separate product.
 * Sorry for the edit pingpong, i thought that you're one of the wintel-fakers, i'm glad, that you're actually a SPARC programmer. (Those guys always write bogus data into articles, check the article of the 4004, i'm just corrected it for the umpteenth, that the 4004 wasn't the first CPU in history...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.12.34 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With a chip that will be sold to the public, "engineering release" and "public release" will be at the same time. A chip that is used for classified military purposes obviously won't have a public release, but there is still a release, which marks when engineering stops fiddling with it. In the case of the MP944, once it was installed in operational equipment, they really didn't want engineering fiddling with the design any more - it has to stay identical for decades after that. So there was clearly a release cycle, albeit not public, and the dates are not entirely clear. Whether that processor really deserves to be on the list is certainly questionable, but separately from the issue of all the other chips being sorted by their release date. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thomas More
Trivial as the reference to More may have been in an even more trivial movie as the ill-conceived update of "The Saint", the fact remains that More's name and what he represented WAS directly relevant to its choice in the first place. However low-brow that may seem to you, it's NOT to exaggerate some Hollywood film's significance as much as to note even the pretentious attempt to "class it up" by such use. --RRawpower (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is, there was no reference to Thomas More the person in that episode. There was only a use of the name, with no relevance to the person, so there is no point in referencing the episode from the Thomas More page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I readily indicated all but disdain for such a cinematic trifle that I just happened upon again flipping cable channels, I strongly suspect you either have not seen the flick yourself or else recall it too vaguely to know whereof you speak. For I'd made abundantly clear that MY point, however debatable the film's quality in general or dialog in particular, was that there absolutely IS direct cause for invoking More's CHARACTER and historic principles NOT at all arbitrarily when Templar ponders aloud to himself "What she wants is Thomas More". What ELSE could or would that SPOKEN reference otherwise mean?! Let alone the expository FACT cited on the film's iMDB page: "Simon Templar: My name is Thomas Moore. I was named after a saint who died for his faith."

Q.E.D.

RRawpower (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your question
Thank for the revert, well spotted. In response to your question I am slowly translating the article into Spanish on es.wikipedia. I have no idea how that got there other than that, but I do work on both "article" at the same time. I need to start using the preview changes button for live changes of this sort. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! That explains the mystery. Glad it's cleared up. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sephardic heritage of Niels Bohr
Western scholars are limited in their understanding of Sephardic heritage, which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a long-standing tradition of scientific learning. Niels Bohr came from a very old line of Spanish Jews who arrived in Denmark some time after the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain. The distinction has little to do with his atheism and more to do with the community from which he outcropped -- a 300-year old tradition of Danish-born Sephardic Jews centered in Glucksberg and later Copenhagen would surely have influenced his interest in science, as Sephardic learning had an emphasis on scientific learning even beginning with the writings of Maimonides, who integrated medical science with philosophy. There is a general prejudice among Western communities which purports Sephardic Jews as Middle Eastern and highly religious. This is a misconception which should not influence or limit the statement of his Sephardic heritage, lest his achievements be misappropriated by any other group, Jewish or non-Jewish. Understanding the context of his Jewishness would be a priori to any statement per his Jewishness, and between the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities of Denmark there are marked differences in context, timeline, and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephardicScholar (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments on the Talk:Niels Bohr page, please continue the discussion there. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tanna
Hi - why is it not "meaningfully notable enough" to add a red link to Tanna (film), an award-winning film, to an article on the island which shares the film's name and is the location for the film? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what awards it has won, but I've never heard of it, and it evidently doesn't even merit an article in WIkipedia. Given that, the 475,113th re-hash of the Romeo and Juliet story on film doesn't merit a chance in the article about the island. If the film were about the island, maybe it would deserve a mention, but just being the name for a re-hash of old story, doesn't. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read the source I provided? The film is newly released, and it is the first film solely shot on the island.  WP:REDLINKs are appropriate to grow the encyclopedia, particularly for topics which are of the same name.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, it was a very limited release. I can't find evidence of it having been released anywhere other than Italy (perhaps it has, but I don't see tracks of it). I can't find it on various electronic releases, either. For me, that says "non-notable". If you think it is significant, perhaps you should create the Wikipedia article about it. Redlinks were appropriate to grow the Wikipedia back in the day when there were huge areas which needed reminders that subjects needing covering, nowadays they are almost always an indication of someone saying "well, I think it's notable even if nobody else does, maybe this will force someone else to write an article about it". Given that redlinks make articles harder to read, adding them for non-notable subjects is a problem.


 * I'm not opposed to this mention entirely, I'm opposed to adding a redlink to something of questionable notability. An award from a Vienna film festival isn't necessarily notable. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because you don't personally know about something, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. As it is an art film, it won't have the major "electronic release" (whatever that is...) of a Hollywood blockbuster. There is an official Facebook page here, if that's what you mean?  As it is the first non-documentary film shot on the island that would count towards its notability, as part of a hypothetical topic on Vanuatu cinema.  I've scabbed together a draft for the film here: Draft:Tanna (film), which should adequately show that it meets the notability guideline for being the subject of critical commentary.  Apparently the Romeo and Juliet story was a framework the directors laid onto an actual event that occurred in the community in the 1980s.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that Facebook isn't a reliable source. I'm delighted you are putting together an article for the film, when it's accepted, that would certainly end my objections. In the meantime, I highly recommend you create an account for yourself so you can create articles directly. It also has the advantage of providing a history to other editors so we controversial issues crop up, we can see if this is an issue you've already dealt with in other contexts. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've undone your edit, because, as I have demonstrated in my draft, the film is not of questionable notability. Leaving red links in articles helps people find them from the start and creates awareness that Wikipedia is not finished.  I prefer to do my edits to Wikipedia without registering for an account, but thank you for your kind invitation. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fire in the sky
I'm disinclined to remove redlinks on the chance somebody will create the page. If you want to delete them, I won't fight about it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

San Miguel de Allende Spanish IPA
It's not just “that some people slur the words together.” In no ordinary Mexican Spanish enunciation is the particle de distinguished as a separate phonetic entity before a vowel; a similar phenomenon to how words like peatón or campeón, in theory trisyllabic, are pronounced as having two syllables except in consciously careful pronunciation. It seems to me that closed notation should reflect such phenomena, but by all means have it your way. —Koszmonaut (talk / contribs) 01:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation on this? My experience is that people speaking carefully (such as on the record), will separate the syllables, a phenomenon I don't see in peatón or campeón. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk comments
I'm sorry, but your multiple sentences in multiple different comments were too hard for me to understand. I have removed them instead. 87.254.85.56 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is an asinine reply to comments I left on the IP's page during a dispute. He's making huge edits which produce effectively no meaningful difference in output but are quite hard to review because of how he changes non-functional whitespace. I'm not the only editor to complain and revert his changes. His response was to revert the edits to his talk page informing him of the reasons for the revert, with the above comment. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Gunni
Hey after our productive discussion over at Drop bear. What do you think of Gunni? I just started a discussion on its talk page - doesn't seem notable at all.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it before, that single reference doesn't seem to advance the case of notability. I'm not a Australian resident, so I don't know whether that cryptocritter has any local traction or not. A quick glance on the web turns up basically Wikipedia and Wikia, which suggests a hobby-horse rather than any real rumor. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

IP on Space Elevator
FYI: This IP 69.86.6.150, already has an established account which he's still using. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Any idea why he's using his logged-out IP address instead of his account, since he still uses it? I presume it's not a case of sock-puppetry. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No ideas. I've seen him on other articles, one in particular most recently, where he caused a lot of disruption under his named account. He goes from page to page doing that. And yes, he's been a sock on a few articles. Under one of his named accounts, he's been indefinitely banned. He has several named accounts that he eventually abandoned, but he has one named account that he always goes back to. He's harassed me for a long time. I always know it's him because he always lets me know he's around. He always finds a way. Look at his talk page history. He deletes what he doesn't like. You'll get a better idea of him from that. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tarl, What do you think should be the status of the NPOV tag on Space Elevator? I'd really like to make it go away. I imagine that since IP69 posted it and because he's banned, that it could be removed summarily as the work of a banned editor. I'd prefer not to do that though. I'd rather there be some agreement. Have you had a chance to review the "will" --> "would" changes? Skyway (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Further revised the lede and removed the NPOV tag. As for the IP, as best I know, 69.86.6.150 is not banned. If he is using that IP as a sock puppet of a banned account, you can complain at WP:SPI and get the IP banned, but I don't have any evidence for such myself. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to say. Skyway (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only way to know is if you recognize him. Right now a checkuser would not be useful since they can't compare his old account with the new one. Too old. But he's on that article to make trouble. That's his goal and he'll manipulate and use policy, and keep at it until he gets tired of it. I agree, you should remove the tag. Also be alert to any interest in the article from a named account that suddenly shows up and supports him. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri
I Was just letting you know about your change of the alpha centuri page. You said if you click on the it says billion years but when I click on it I get but or Gregorian year. What you are talking about is ga which equals 1 billion years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.145.186 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Answering on User's talk page, where a discussion is ongoing. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: your revert of my edit
Please take the time to read my explanation of why I made the edit to Template: New England Patriots roster that I did on its associated talk page. I hope you'll understand the logic behind it. 143.229.237.46 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Answered on Template talk: New England Patriots roster.

Counting chromosomes
Hey there. Maybe your simple math is right, but given that the source doesn't appear to do the multiplication, isn't it WP:OR? Diff I updated that article and the related list. The claim was a gigantic one, in my opinion, (most chromosomes of any known organism) and the source didn't support it, did it? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * : You're right. My main point for making the edit was correcting the 1,262 which had mysteriously appeared (and been used as evidence to change List of organisms by chromosome count). For the article, you are absolutely correct, the number is 120, giving the detail about polyploidy causing huge numbers. For the table, given that entries are specified as being "2n", the number that should be used is the number of chromosomes in a complete organism cell. It the source specifies 630 as the haploid number (which I recall the book does), the diploid number in the table should be 1260 - absent better evidence. The table isn't the place for definitive numbers or complex explanations, it's just a guide to find the articles which should have the definitive references to explanations. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will further suggest that you move the explanation of "n=120–720 with a high degree of polyploidization" to the next column. The count column should have numbers and be sortable, comments about it should go in the column not used for sorting. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I made an edit: If 720 is hexaploid in O. reticulatum, then 120 would be haploid and 240 would be diploid, right? I put 240 in the sortable column. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . Sounds good. Since you can't find a specific reference to the number of chromosomes in a complete organism cell, doubling the haploid number is right. That table is for comparison, so the entries should be apples to apples, even if it requires specific adjustment to make them directly comparable. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

1994 New England Patriots season
Here's why I removed the piping.

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost. (The additional runtime cost of processing a click on a redirect is trivial, and even then is rarely incurred as most links are accessed only rather infrequently.)

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:


 * 1) From Piped_link:
 * It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
 * Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
 * Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.


 * 1) From Redirect:
 * There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect.

renaimg Colonies Chris (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My concern is exactly the possibility of a rename. By going through a redirect, if the article itself is moved because of a rename, we now have a double redirect, which won't work. E.g., right now you are referencing Sullivan Stadium, which is a redirect to Foxboro Stadium. If Foxboro Stadium gets moved (unlikely at this time, granted, because it's a no-longer existent stadium), the reference to Sullivan Stadium to Foxboro Stadium to (whatever the new name is) won't work. I'm aware that sentiment on redirects vs pipes has gone back and forth over the years, it seems the MOS now favors going ahead with the redirects and letting them break on the next move. C'est la vie. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your concern is unnecessary. If Foxboro Stadium were to be renamed, say, Neustaedter Stadium, the article move process would leave behind a double redirect (Sullivan Stadium --> Foxboro Stadium --> Neustaedter Stadium), but two things stop this being a problem, First of all, when you move an article, the process invites you to manually fix any double redirects on the spot, thus solving the problem. Secondly, if you don't do that, a bot will come along within a few hours and fix them anyway. Either way, no double redirect problem. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Libya edit
The US-NATO led invasion of Libya tremendously destroyed the fabric and stability of the country, and the move has been determined to be motivated primarily due to economic and political considerations. How is my view "strongly non-neutral" ? Kindly elaborate before reverting any edits.

Adeel.shams (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Shams
 * Can you be more specific? The edit of yours I remember reverting was this to Bernie Sanders where you tried to remove "junior" from Bernie Sander's title (he is the junior senator from Vermont, the senior senator from vermont is Leahy).
 * Oh, are you talking about this edit to Hillary Clinton back on the 20th of April? Did you read my comment? You extended the lede beyond the acceptable length and you clearly used uncited and non-POV terms such as "catastrophic", "total lapse", and added a purported quote with no source. The standards of biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP) are quite restrictive. If I hadn't reverted that edit, someone else would have and probably would have blocked you from editing - see the comment in the talk page about "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". Administrators are not taking biased edits to that article lightly. Tarl N. (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
You need to self-revert your edit or you face being blocked for reverting a sanctionable page. Your edit is contentious and the page is currently under sanctions. I am giving you to courtesy notice to self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The contentious material was added to a WP:BLP article. That material is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. That content needs to stay out. Tarl N. (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Signature test
Test colorized signature, make it easier to find my own comments on talk pages. Tarl N. (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wonder if there is a delay in it becoming active. Tarl N.   (discuss)  23:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the appearance is correct, but the link to Talk isn't working. Try something different. Tarl N.   (discuss)  23:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wtf. It needs the #top? Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Apology
I apologize for editing your home page. I mistook it for the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquilaXIII (talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Habitable zone Proxima b
To quote from the discovery paper page 10: Habitable zone range [AU] ∼ 0.0423 – 0.0816 and Habitable zone periods [days] ∼ 9.1–24.5. Why are you reverting this?  Quantanew (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If there was a reason to describe the habitable zone as an orbital period, I wouldn't have. There isn't. For an astrophysicist describing an orbit, the period and the semi-major axis are interchangeable, they are simply equivalent pieces of information. During discovery, the period will be the known piece of information, and the distance is derived. For anybody else, the applicable information is the distance. Adding a period doesn't do anything useful in the Proxima Centauri b article. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 05:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What's your logic? Is ok to display the distance in AU but not ok in days? What about the quote from the discovery paper are the scientist wrong?. Please answer carefully.Quantanew (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The distance should be given in AU, not not period of orbit. For the Proxima b article, talking about temperate zone, distance is the relevant measure. That astrophysicists, in the process of discovery, use period as interchangeable with semi-major axis around a particular star is not relevant to the Wiki article. That's their jargon, relevant specifically to people steeped in Kepler's laws. Period ranges are not meaningful to anyone else - in particular, it will be misleading because a period of 11 days around Proxima means a different distance (and insolation) than 11 days around a different star. The actual calculation is P^2/A^3 = 4 π^2 / G(M+m) - but that's not meaningful for a section about habitability. That the planet goes around in 11 or 23 days is not itself what puts it in the temperate zone, it's that it's a particular distance from the star that does. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

the missing dot
Sorry about missing the dot. I pinged you again, just to see if it works this time. Did it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. Worked fine - it's not obvious, it often looks like the period is just an end of sentence. This one notified me, but I didn't see it until now because I've been in class all day long (I'm going back to school now that I'm retired, and it's amazing how much work it takes to keep up with these darned young kids). Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining - strange btw that I was not notified by your 'ping', but I was watching your talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

IP templating while signing your name
Hello. Last month an IP left two bogus templated warnings on my talk page and then stamped your sig to them. I don't care myself as i have essentially been retired from WP for about a year and a half. Just thought I should let you know. Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. That's pretty obnoxious. The text is a warning I left on a persistent ip-hopping vandal's talk page. Someone whom I caught vandalizing other pages, and on following back his earlier actions found to be persistently deleting images from that article. If you don't mind, I'll delete that piece of text from your talk page. Regards Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This was one of the talk messages I'd left that it appears got copied onto your page. User_talk:178.41.225.113

Yes Tarl N that's fine. Thank you. Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  03:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert
I removed the "He is a 2x NBA All-Star (2015 and 2016)". Why you reverted my edit? Seriesphile ( talk  · ctb) 22:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake which I self-revertd less than a minute later. I got confused. My apologies. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

IAU Catalog
Yes, Eric has warned me of a move of the catalog. He's still Chair but has left Rochester to join NASA. Apparently, it's going to be moved to a permanent location on the IAU website or similar in the next few weeks. I like your idea, but I've done most of the articles already, and I'd probably update the link to the new location in any event (the IAU seems to be very slow in updating its webpages). It's a straightforward, if a little tedious, cut & 240xpaste job! (We could do with a reference bank, like the image bank, so you could just amend the reference once and it would carry forward into all articles using it. I might suggest it!) However, thanks for taking the time to warn me of the problem and suggest a solution! :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

William Weld
That was the first time I ever tried to edit a page. I thought I inserted the source. Maybe I did it wrong. Are you saying the source was not a good source or that it was not there? Gbybee (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is the quality of the source. Please read WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY, http://familysearch.org does not qualify as a reliable source, so cannot be used as a citation. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there. If your opinion is that the quality of a citation could be better, then think about helping out the new editor by researching and adding a citation that in your opinion more strongly supports their contribution. Try to avoid knee-jerk edits, by always considering that each new contribution might have merit even if it could be improved. Think about how to collaboratively help others out by adding to information, instead of just removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion. It's well-defined at WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:BLP (Biography of Living Persons). In the case of WP:BLP, it's mandatory to immediately remove content from unreliable sources - they cannot be allowed to ever be used in articles lest Wikipedia get hammered with legal problems. The source in question is simply the equivalent of a wikipedia which can have information added by anyone, with no obvious source. Given our experience with bogus content added by anonymous editors, the decision has been made that biographies must have such content expunged as soon as it is noticed. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 19:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)