User talk:Tazerdadog/Archive 1

In response to your feedback
Have a look at peer review. It looks good so far but could use some expansion.

Ariconte (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
Obviously not a newbie, do you have another account or are you a returning user? Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Whie I appreciate the complement inherent in that remark, I assure you that I am, in fact, a newbie. I have no other accounts, and I am not a returning user. My edit summaries should accurately reflect what I have done (so far) in Wikipedia, minus a few minor edits (fixing typos and the like), which I did under my IP address, which I will provide if requested. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Adoption?
I saw you had the adoption userbox and was wondering if you'd be interested in being adopted. I've never done it before, but have helped extensively at the Teahouse, so I have a working knowledge of helping new users. Let me know. Thanks! Go  Phightins  !  03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Go  Phightins  !  13:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Puppy Mills" is a biased article, and I removed all biased content.
If you or anyone else wishes to have me banned for doing this. Be my guest. It will just further my outspoken view on how biased Wikipedia is, and forever will be, because you won't allow anyone to go through the trouble to remove biased content, I am restoring my changes. 74.211.94.135 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Let me first and foremost agree with you on one point.  The article, Puppy mill, does contain issues with its neutrality.  Wikipedia's policy concerning biases and neutrality can be found here.  However, removing large portions of a well-sourced article is not considered constructive.  First and foremost, the thing that you need to do is stay cool, and read this.  Then, if you still think that the article has a problem, you need to propose changes to it on its talk page.  I appreciate your concern with the article.  Nobody is trying to get you banned.  We have no vendetta against you or any editor.  We are simply trying to discuss the content, not the contributor.  Cheers-Tazerdadog (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration Committee Election Vote
Hello Tazerdadog,

You recently voted in the Arbitration Committee Elections. In accordance to the Request for comment on the election process, you must have made 150 edits in the main article space of Wikipedia before November 1st in order to be eligible to vote. According to a recent count, you did not meet that criterion. If you believe we are in error, or there are other circumstances, such as a number of edits across multiple accounts, please let us know. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, missed that requirement. Thanks for the heads up, and you are right.

Tazerdadog (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFAR
I reverted your post on the talk page because it was so malformed it was impossible to see what you were suggesting should be done. Please feel free to try again, but without perhaps transcluding the whole of the instructions page and disabling the table of contents... BencherliteTalk 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hmmmm...it was working ok in my sandbox... I will try to post a more limited version...

Tazerdadog (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, That still has little formatting issues, but is at least understandable now. If you can fix them, please do so...

Pork Pie
 Tazerdadog has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Billed to Go Phighitns! for finding his final exam early. I was looking for the wikilove food item "beluga caviar with black truffles on a bed of saffron" but apparently that doesn't exist

Tazerdadog (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha. Filet Mignon would've sufficed, as long as you got one for me too :p Go   Phightins  !  04:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Tazerdadog, I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I also wanted to tell you that despite the fact you're adoption final is supposed to be due during Christmas, because I'm the friendly, caring, and understanding person I am (cue laugh track here) I don't plan on looking at it until Wednesday. In all seriousness, I hope you and your family have a tremendous holiday season. Go  Phightins  !  03:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's more or less ready now, although I still might want to do the Extra Credit. I still can't think of a good thing that needs a photograph...  If you want to start grading it now, feel free.  Tazerdadog (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Without being too specific, where do you live again? Go   Phightins  !  13:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mountain time zone, New mexico. I am 2 hours behind you.  (I was up late when I posted that...)Tazerdadog (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You know how you could have been my hero? If you'd attended the 2012 New Mexico Bowl and taken a picture that I could've added to the infobox. Thanks for the ping on my talk page, I have been derelicting my duties there. Go   Phightins  !  04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, I live an hour away, and that wasn't even the best game of the night(or so I thought before it was played)... UNM played NMSU in the pit later that night.  Tazerdadog (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll get to your test tonight, but I promise I'll give it a go in the next two days. Go   Phightins  !  03:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks!Tazerdadog (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I don't know if you saw, but I graded your test. Go  Phightins  !  04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! I'll have a look.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to dispute, complain, discuss, etc., but note that I am exhausted and have a nagging cold, so I'm headed to bed. Therefore, my replies won't come until tomorrow. Go   Phightins  !  04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, although it seemed fair overall. Content contributions is almost certainly not going to be where I am active, so the cleanup is less concerning for me...Tazerdadog (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Graduation

 * Thank you! I think I will look at contributing by translating science articles to simple, and contributing to wikidata.  That should be interesting once it gets off of the ground.  I might try to adopt, but I don't think I have enough experience to try it yet.  I would like to help you out with your adoption course, whether it's writing the lessons I suggested, or helping to get tests results, and lessons posted in a timely manner, or whatever it may be.

Your adoptee, Tazerdadog (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! For starters, you are welcome to post tests once requested by adoptees in case I'm not around for whatever reason. If you'd like to write a few lessons, go ahead and do so in your sandbox, and we can collaborate on them. Go   Phightins  !  20:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good, and I will keep that in mind...

File permission problem with File:Comparison of areas of sections of the unit circle using tau and pi.png
Thanks for uploading File:Comparison of areas of sections of the unit circle using tau and pi.png, which you've sourced to http://www.thepimanifesto.com/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw this and thought "What?" because of this:

"Copyright and license The Pi Manifesto. Copyright © 2011 by MSC. Please feel free to share The Pi Manifesto, which is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License."

Then at Creative Commons:

"You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work to make commercial use of the work" John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved. You can check the history of the file. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tau
Are you planning on moving the article on Tau to the mainspace? You'll need to make it more clear in the lead that it is not generally accepted. Right now it reads like Tau is mostly accepted and then mentions that it is not really accepted. The lead should instead define tau, explain that it is not accepted by most of the community. Explain why it's not accepted, and then mention that some scholars dispute that. Once the lead makes it more clear that it's not accepted by most, the article should be ready for the mainspace. It's an interesting read, I hate to see it sit in userspace. Ryan Vesey 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion at Talk:Pi, it's clear that consensus is against our viewpoint. They are using a notability argument, not a NPOV one.  I would encourage you to look there to see the gory details.  I'm planning on starting a RFC soon to address what the title should be and if it is notable, but I really don't know how to do that.  I will rewrite the lede soon, in the meantime if you want to help, please do so.  Tazerdadog (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of their arguments are ridiculous. If an article on the Boogie man exists, an article on Tau can.  Whether or not it's widely used, it exists(ish) and your article presents good information on it.  I'll agree that it needs to be modified some so that it doesn't advocate for Tau, but that aside, the fact that it isn't widely used isn't a good reason not to hae an article. Ryan Vesey 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think so. As your viewpoint is more "mainstream", I would appreciate it greatly if you would go in and make it as close to WP:NPOV as you can.  I hold a significant bias in favor of tau, which is why I don't want to try it. (I actually think that article is quite favorable to pi, but we both know I'm the biased one).  It's not me being lazy...Tazerdadog (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I'm ready for the lesson two test. I'm not sure if you're at work or not, but I'm off because I'm still in school and it's President's Day. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 18:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I'm done with the test. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Graded. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I answered the follow-up questions and left a follow-up question. I'm not sure why I don't understtand WP:AGF after you keep explaining it over and over. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 02:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * JHUbal, you're making this more complicated than it is. AGF is the "doctrine", if you will, that justifies others' behavior. Unless you have proof otherwise, you should assume others are here for the same reason as you: to build the best encyclopedia possible. Go   Phightins  !  02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor?
Hey Tazer, I have very little time today for Wikipedia, and I just saw that Nerdfighter finished his lesson two test. If you get a minute, would you mind grading it? I don't have enough time to sit down and do it today...I can get to it tomorrow and that's fine, but I thought if you were around and didn't mind taking a look, you could at least post any follow-ups that are necessary. Not a big deal, just if you have a minute. Thanks! Go  Phightins  !  20:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. No big deal. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I was adding
I was adding this (after Start:) to the RFC as to make it clear of what the issue really is. They are confused as to what a peer review required source article and fringe article. JohnBlackburne deleted it. He has done this to me before on making an article. He is one we have to do something about.

Start: (second addition for clarity) Clearly there is some serious confusion about this article. There is a strong view that it needs a "high reputation for scholarship in mathematics" and "peer reviewed source" and other things which are normally required in a science based article. However, this article is intended to be WP:fringe ('fringe science' if you like) and does not require the same level of citations and notability as science based articles. In fact, by definition of fringe, it can not have been peer reviewed. And, because Wikipedia is not a journal there is room to give on the issue of references. So, with this in mind, and because most the opposition or support states the reason as no significant mathematical or scientific references, lack of "serious and reliable" sources which are implying peer review, or mentions prior discussions which ignored the intent of this article to be a fringe clearly this RFC needs to reevaluated, or your opposition or support will be lost in meaning. I am sorry, and I am sure the primary editor of this page is also sorry (Tazerdadog please comment here), that this confusion has happen. If you see how to reduce this confusion in the article yet maintain the jest of article please feel free to edit it. We have been try to make it as clear as possible that this is a fringe article, yet it appears that we have failed at doing this. As to make it clear of the where peoples support or opposition is as to this fringe article on tau, currently at User:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant), I have added 'New' sections at the beginning of this RFC below for the reevaluation a persons position. Prior discussion is left in the section called 'Prior'. In other words, back to square one, start from scratch. It is also seperated by two lines of '*'. I know that it is hard to think this fringe science way, see prior edits to the page for reverts that were done to me, but it can be done. Thank you, John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * Support: The lack of tau in Wikipedia is the problem. People are looking for it (see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Tau_(2%CF%80) ), but are redirected to pi which is disconcerting. As to the second question, 'what to call the page?', I think making it Tau (2$\pi$) is good. John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with finding vandalism
Hi Tazer, it's JHUbal. I was looking at Special:RecentChanges and I found a vandal edit. I was nervous because I was like, "I need to revert this!" Someone beat me to it though. How can I revert edits faster with Twinkle or rollbacks? Does Huggle work on a mobile phone? What specific things do I need to look for in recent changes? One more question (I'm sorry!), do I need to actually revert the vandalism before warning the user? These are a lot of questions and you don't need to know the answer to all of these, but thanks for taking the time to read this. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 22:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey! Vandalism, as I'm sure you've become aware, has a very short half-life here on wikipedia.  I think Huggle requires the rollbacker hat, but I'm not sure.  In recent changes, the three things I look for are:


 * 1) IP edits. While IP addresses deserve the same assumption of good faith as registered users, a much larger proportion of their edits are vandalism.  They are generally worth checking even if there are no other obvious signs.
 * 2) A large number of bytes removed. If there is a large number of bytes removed, it is likely (though not always!) vandalism.
 * 3) Automated tags. The system automatically tags certain things, such as blanking a section or a page.  These tags are usually dead giveaways, but are sometimes incorrect, so use common sense too!

Another helpful thing is to keep refreshing Special:Recentchanges, as this page moves quickly.

The priority is to revert the vandalism. Warning the user can probably wait for a minute or two, but the vandalism needs to be undone quickly. I don't know what tool is the quickest, but I usually use the undo button next to the vandal's edit.

Good luck and happy hunting! Tazerdadog (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think I have rollback rights, but I'm not entirely sure. I see the Rollback, Rollback AGF, and Rollback VANDAL. My phone is slow, so I'll be lucky if I can find vandalism and revert it. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 22:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Rollback is different, it undoes edits more quickly without a confirmation, and also reverts all consecutive edits by the vandal. I had that too without the rollback right, and I agree, it is confusing.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The test is ✅. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 02:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Finished with the test, sorry for the delay. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 01:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tazerdadog. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 12:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tau at Queen Mary University of London
I'm told they're also teaching tau at Queen Mary University of London, where Robin Whitty is from. I find it in some of the POM links on his university web page (www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~whitty/). You can do a google search using "site:webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rwwhitty τ" for direct links to some of the pages. Sometime in the future, I might investigate it further, including contacting Whitty to find out how many instructors/courses are teaching tau there. But right now, I'm pretty frustrated with these guys and don't think anything will convince them, so I'm not inclined to waste more time on it now. I thought I should let you and John know about the lead, though, in case you want to investigate it sooner. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, but I disagree. This was not appropriate, and I would have reverted it myself if JohnBlackburne hadn't seen it first. I would encourage you to make this case in the discussion section that this is fringe, and their standards are ridiculously high. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I least I know where I placed my thoughts at. Keep in mind: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35x6rp/

John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny, now he did it to you. I saw that you were looking forward, as to what to do, if this is not resolved. I think you need to talk with Noleander -- I think he understands the 'Wikisystem'. And, you and him can come up with a good plan. John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I finished the test if you feel like grading it. If not, I understand, it's Saturday night. If it's already graded, then please ignore this message. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 05:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the process of grading right now. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TortoiseWrath
Hi there, please do not add comments to closed discussions, as you have done in this RFA. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I didn't see it was closed. (the comment was 2 minutes after the close.) Tazerdadog (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
✅ with lesson 8 test. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
✅ with lesson 9 test. When you get a moment, can you please grade it? Thank you. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 00:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Convert template
I noticed you removed this template from a page. Is there a reason? Rmhermen (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just making sure the template wasn't malfunctioning or deprecated or something. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Final exam
Can I create my final exam? Do you hae it ready yet? Thanks. JHU bal  27  16:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See Go Phigthins talkpage for the link. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Give me a minute, I need to do a little research with recent DYK's. It may well be that it's time already, I thought the proposal was about two months premature two months ago, so...


 * To answer your conditions specifically (1). It is appropriate to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related if the following conditions are met.

a) The furor about Gibraltarpedia has largely died down both in external media and in Wikipedia.  I would say the furor has likely died down in the external media, but I don't know about on-wiki.

b) Gibraltar-related hooks occur with a low enough frequency to be unnoticably more common than expected to a diligent reader who is not specifically looking for it.  I know, this is horribly subjective.  I think that this should occur when gibraltar hooks are roughly as common as those on Mongolia.  Or Paraguay.  Or Nicaragua.  I had heard about gibraltar exactly once in any detail prior to me learning about it in the Gibraltarpedia scandal.

These criteria can be stretched due to the benefit of removing the instruction creep. I don't think they can be broken.

2)I would probably land neutral or even weak support on lifting the restrictions now, as I think the above criteria have probably been sufficiently met. However, I haven't done any research yet, so I really can't comment on if the criteria above have been met.  Sorry about the wall o' text/ramble.  Tazerdadog (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed RFC
See User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant) at the bottom. Chutznik (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. It is greatly appreciated.  Tazerdadog (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. I reverted the close as it was a supervote.  You can't close discussions like that.  See WP:CLOSE. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw you strike the close. We will see if someone wants to give this another go, but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion this will get ugly at some point.  Tazerdadog (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I archived it as well. I wish I could help more, but I'm really just not qualified to close this.  A failure to get closed could be seen as "no consensus" as well, although it lacks the authority of a regular close.  I just had to revert as that was a completely improper close.  Good faith perhaps, but out of policy.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Honestly, at this point I kinda want the whole thing just to end.  Waaay too much time and effort was put into it.Tazerdadog (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Me, I would go hit up one of the recently selected admin and ask them to close.  The length of the RfC doesn't scare me, but the terms are over my head, so I just don't feel comfortable closing. I understand the desire to just get it over with, lots of RfC processes leave me feeling the exact same way, like an expectant mother in her 10th month of pregnancy. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 10:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Commending you on a very impressive effort
You came a lot closer to prevailing than I thought was possible at this point. We just have to wait for some mentions of tau to show up in more "esteemed" math sources. There's no doubt that will happen eventually. Even in the worst-case scenario, where tau never becomes more than a niche thing, like advocacy for switching to dozenal. Every day, those videos by Vi Hart and Numberphile rack up more views. Just look at the comments. Every year's freshman class at MIT now enters knowing about tau. Some of these students will become mathematicians in the coming years. And I hope you saw the link I just posted about Reddit on Pi Day. Tau continues to gain support even among current mathematicians, as you've seen with Stephen Abbott, Phil Moriarty, Steve Mould, James Grime, Bruce Torrence, Colin Beveridge, and Robin Whitty.

So cheer up! You did great. And time will prove you right. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not about being right or wrong, it's about improving the encyclopedia. I felt a tau article would do that.  Others disagreed.  They "won".  Now we need to move on and find other places to improve the encyclopedia.

Thanks much
Thank you for your participation at WP:TFAR for 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).

Regardless of the outcome, I think it's a good thing to have a discussion about these sorts of issues.

I hope you're doing well, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited for discussion
Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Echo
Hello,

By some chance, I managed to see your failed ping towards me, and so I wanted to explain how the echo pings work to you. If you add a link to my userpage, the ping will only work if you also include a full signature of with it [3 or 5 somehow doesnt work]. Or else it does not ping me. So when you fixed the link to my user page, you should also have altered the signature so Echo would identify it.

Hope it helps! Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weird. I will keep that in mind in future.  I'm going to go experiment with that a little.  Tazerdadog (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Be sure to have a volunteer or a sock account to help you around, as you can't leave an Echo ping to yourself.
 * I remember you have been assisting GoP with his adoption school, right? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was going to log out and play around in sandboxes as an IP. I am helping phightins with adoption, yes. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And I can't get it to ping me at all... fun.  Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as I said. Try getting someone to volunteer :)
 * I see. Planning your own adoption school too? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy under phightins for now. If I get the itch, I'll probably just write more lessons for him.  I'm thinking about something like making phightin's school a "core curriculum", and adding advanced classes in vandal fighting/content contribution/maintainence and backlogs etc.  If you need help getting your school of the ground, feel free to ping me here, however.  Tazerdadog (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok :)
 * Not really. I've already got my school started, just need to formalise it now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lighting a Billion Lives ( LaBL)
Excuse me, but what makes you think you have any right whatsoever to remove my review of the above article and replace it with your own? That article is nowhere close to meeting WP:CORP, which is the standard for notability that applies here. It shows one source that may as a stretch be considered independent reliable sourcing, that being this. Even that is suspect, as the article is credited to someone not a staff reporter but a communications consultant.. That is a fancy title for a PR hack. The others are primary academic papers (only reviewed academic papers published in journals are acceptable for showing notability) or not independent of the subject.

Even if your review had been accurate, that still does not give you the right to supersede your review in place of mine. Cannot tell you how many different ways of wrong that is. I would like an explanation for your actions, please. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gtwfan52,
 * From what it looks like, it appears to be a botched up edit conflict, which was seemingly caused by both of you simultaneously using the AfC script to decline it. I suggest asking someone at AfC to check if the script can tend to do that. (I say this on noting that there was clean up done by Tazer just 5 minutes before, and his decline was done using the AFC helper script, not manually)
 * I hope both of you will clear your confusion and continue working actively :)
 * Cheers,
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Soni, but if I wanted your explanation for it, I would have asked you on your talk page. I am asking this fella and I would like to hear from him what happened, not your justification of it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I suggested was a plausible explanation based on my limited knowledge of how the script works. Since the edit is tagged as done by the AFC Script, it can not be done deliberately. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Soni's explanation for how the conflict occurred seems plausible to me. However, I still do not see where you see notability in this article. I also did several different web searches and found nothing more on the subject. What do you base your statement "While I think your sources establish notability,..." upon? Really there is no thinking involved. Either they do or they don't, and in this case, they don't.

There has been a number of articles in the past few months that have passed AfC and then almost immediately, failed AfD. There have even been a couple that passed AfC and were CSD'd. That should never happen. If you don't have a firm grip on WP:N, WP:GNG, and the myriad of substandards like WP:CORP, WP:NMUSIC, etc (and stating in a review that you think sources establish notability indicates that you don't), you should probably spend more time at AfD to really learn what constitutes notability before doing any more AfC. Running an editor through the hurdles of AfC is somewhat discouraging, I agree. AfC is to some greater or lesser extent a flawed system. But making an editor do what he needs to do to create an article, while he is in an environment where having your work reviewed is expected, is much less discouraging than telling him his article is fine only to turn around and have it deleted. Please understand that retaining new editors is a high priority here at Wikipedia. Giving false hope is not conducive to that. Review articles only if you are familiar with the subset of notability that applies to that type article. If you are not sure, just leave them some comments and don't accept or decline. Yes the article does have NPOV issues. That was a good point to make to the author. However, it has fatal notability issues at this time. As you rightly said in your review, notability is the biggie.

I have dropped a note at the AfC talk page about the apparent bug in the helper script that allowed this to happen. Please don't take this conversation as any kind of condemnation, but instead as a fellow editor trying to help you. Spending time at AfD is very educational. You see in short form how consensus gets formed and you learn a whole lot about notability. Not to mention that observing some of the crazy drama there is sometimes entertaining. Happy editing! BTW, were you an adoptee of GP's? Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry I seem to be a little late to the party. First, the easy stuff. It appears our edits were within a minute of each other, and I had had the page up looking at it for several minutes, as I was trying to decide whether I could fix it. I should have use the review in progress template however.  I was an adoptee of GP's, and I am helping him run his course. Looking back at the article, I really didn't give the sourcing the attention they deserved, as I knew that it wasn't going to pass WP:NPOV, and that I couldn't fix it.  It does seem, however that if I misjudged an article that badly, then a refresher is in order.  Right after I finish writing this I am going to go reread all of the major notability guidelines.  I was just trying to help out with the backlog. I am also likely to help out on AfD.  Sorry for all of the confusion, and happy editing. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Late nights, short temper. My bad.  In any case, I am glad you listened even tho I could have been much more politic in my writing.  The best school for notability is by far AfD, because nothing else really matters there.  And some of the most experienced editors are there frequently.  My adoptor, who unfortunately is not very active anymore due to his health, insisted on 10 well thought out !votes at AfD and also made me comment at at least two different noticeboards.  Of course, I had told him up front that I thought the best use of my time on Wikipedia would be as a mop carrier.  Been having some heavy r/L problems lately; when I get those resolved I'll probably attempt an RfA.  GP and Buster have said they would co-nominate me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think i will spend some time prowling around AfD, and come back to AfC about when the backlog drive ends to ensure that that backlog stays down. Thanks for the advice, and good luck with the RfA. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Exit
Dear Tazerdog

Many thanks for your help in the creation of the new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_%28Right-to-Die_Organization%29

My concern is over an edit you made to change the title, so I thought I would get back to you rather than just try to change it back, so I can fully understand your reasons and - as a newbie contributor - not cause problems.

The edit you made that I have a problem with is the change of the title from "Exit" to "Exit (Right-to-Die Organization). This is a problem for a number of reasons.

1.Most articles about a specific subject or organization simply have the title, not an explanatory phrase in brackets. The name of the organization is "Exit" plain and simple - a name by which it is recognized internationally in books and magazines (references available). Although the word can apply to other groups or things, this is covered, I feel, in the Wiki disambiguation page.I would much prefer if you could change it back simply to "Exit." Kind regards, and many thanks for your assistance


 * Hey! First of all, I feel obligated to ask you whether you are in any way connected with this organization.  If so, you need to read wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest.  Second, this organization is clearly not the primary topic for the term "Exit".  Therefore, some in-title disambiguation is necessary.  Whether my choice is optimal or not is a debatable manner.  Third, wikipedia attempts to describe all topics in a neutral manner.  It therefore does not matter whether the organization likes the term right to die or not, it only matters whether that is the best and most neutral descriptor.  I feel that right to die organization is an appropriate descriptor.  If you would like to initiate a community discussion on the title, then the correct way to do so is to start a requested move discussion on the talk page of the article.  If Exit had a suffix such as Inc., LLC, etc. I would seriously consider a move to that title.  Cheers!  Tazerdadog (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Thank you for the points you and another wiki editor have made on disambiguation. I think I understand the position rather better now and withdraw the request. Getting this page up has been harder than I expected, but learning more about Wikipedia has been a fascinating and valuable experience. I am most grateful for your kind help and patience in view of my beginner's concerns! Cheers! ps a further apology - in editing this section for brevity I deleted both the extensive points I made originally (since you had answered them) including your reply, but realise now after checking the talkpages etiquette that this could be seen as impolite - unintended. Parzivalamfortas (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)ParzivalamfortasParzivalamfortas (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes we can get a little touchy around here about refactoring comments. I'm not a stickler about it, but many here are.  Glad I could help, and I'm glad you're enjoying wikipedia.  Tazerdadog (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirect reviews
Hello Tazerdadog, I saw your work on WP:AFC/R - thanks for that! Please make sure that when you accept or decline a request the section ends with a signature - otherwise the bot won't archive it. We also have a template for the most common replies, {{subst:Afc redirect}}. Huon (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Let me make sure I have this straight, the archive bot will archive if and only if the last line inside the collapse box is a signature (not necessarily mine) more than x days old?  Thanks for the links to the templates, I will start using some of those. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that last signature's timestamp tells the bot when to archive the section. Sections without a signature at the end simply accumulate at the top of the page. Huon (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, Thanks! Tazerdadog (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI for Geo Swan
I have responded to your question at the Geo Swan ANI discussion -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2012 August 30‎

Singing so that the archive bot may archive... Tazerdadog (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear Ethics denial
Hello,

I used my own published material to write the article, and I didn't use it word for word. Where I quoted myself, I used the standard citation format. I don't understand the problem.

TD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasedoyle2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Unless it's actually released into the public domain or a Wikipedia-compatible license, I have no way of verifying that you are, in fact, the copyright holder. The correct way forward would be to read Donating copyrighted materials, and follow the instructions there. Until the text that was copied is released under a wikipedia compatible license, Wikipedia cannot accept it. Sorry about the confusion. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for explaining the issue. I'll rewrite the piece without using copyrighted material.

TD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasedoyle2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good. Other than the copyrights, it looked good.  Note that you can automatically sign your posts by typing 4 tildes at the end like this:




 * Tazerdadog (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I uploaded a revised entry today. I'm not sure if you will review it or not.

Thomasedoyle2 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that none of us can find that new shiny revised article. This makes it slightly difficult to review.  Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

This is the second time I've submitted a piece on nuclear ethics to Wikipedia. This time, I wrote the piece without cutting or pasting any text into the text box. I am one of the authors I cite. (Thomas E. Doyle, II) This is frustrating, since I am one of the contributors to this academic literature, and what I wrote today was original. I also used acceptable citation form for referring to other people's work. Please tell me what it was exactly that caused concern.

Thomasedoyle2 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that submission wasn't declined because it was bad, inappropriate, or otherwise unsuitable. The submission was declined because we couldn't find your rewrite.  Where did you rewrite it at?  you can link to the page by puttind two sets of brackets around it.  i.e. example yields example Tazerdadog (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am new to publishing material on Wikipedia, and frankly the brackets/slashes and all that is confusing to me. I'm pretty old school when it comes to publishing material. Would you run that by me again? I spent two hours today on that entry, and I hope I didn't lose it.

Thomasedoyle2 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We were all new once, and I was the same way when I first started. Anyway, could you tell me exactly what you did when you attempted to submit the article?  Maybe I can track it down.  Wikipedia saves EVERYTHING, so if it got saved once anywhere on wikipedia, we can track it down again.  Where did you start writing the article?  Tazerdadog (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This afternoon, I went back to my sandbox on Thomasedoyle2 and there was an empty page that had Nuclear Ethics in the title. Since the first submission was denied, and I thought it was deleted, I treated this page as if it was a brand new submission. This entry is a bit longer than the first one. It has the term "cross-disciplinary" in it instead of "interdisciplinary."

Thomasedoyle2 (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe I have recovered it. You can find it here.  Please make sure that this is in fact all of it.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it! Thanks for recovering it. What do I do now, if anything?

Thomasedoyle2 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and review it again now. Based on preliminary glances, it will likely make it to main space tonight, albeit after a thorough copy-editing.  You shouldn't need to do anything further, I'll drop you a line when I'm done.Tazerdadog (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Many thanks for your help!

Thomasedoyle2 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there someone I can hire to work through all of these constraints?
Tazerdadog,

Is there someone I can hire to work through all the constraints of properly posting posting a Wikipedia page?

The horribly frustrating thing is that I have come up with a new (first time ever) real version of business strategy mapping. I started the original page. I do a lot of public speaking on the matter.

Business Strategy Mapping - The power of knowing how it all fits together Product Innovation & Finance: Leading by knowing how it all fits together Kring Strategy Mapping Worksheet Kring Strategy Map for Target Stores (TGT)
 * Book: http://www.amazon.com/Business-Strategy-Mapping-Knowing-Together/dp/1934938203/
 * Presentation (VIEW IN HD - Makes it easier to read): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1--xuWvE4&feature=youtu.be
 * Worksheet: http://rapidshare.com/files/2458982874/KSM%20Worksheet%2011x17%2020130619.pdf
 * Example Map: http://rapidshare.com/files/4223208698/KSM%20Target%20Corp%2020130801.xlsx

And yet shortly after the initial page was published is has been reduced to a confusing, useless mess.

Help please. This is all horribly frustrating. Whose citing of the book do I need to get to prove that it is a notable book?

Please let me know. Thank you Tazerdadog.

Ken Kring kkring@gmail.com 847-461-3028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strateotu (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey! Sorry that you find wikipedia frustrating, the learning curve is ... steep sometimes.  Wikipedia has notability guidelines that all articles are required to meet.  The most applicable of these are the general notability guideline, and the notability guideline on books.  You have to show that your book meets one of these two criteria, or else it is not suitable for inclusion.  If you believe that your book does meet one of these criteria, then you need to prove it.  You do that by citing Reliable sources indepentent of the subject.  The final thing that you must do is make sure that the article is written neutrally.  The article should bescrupulously neutral to the point of being dispassionate.  If you can do all of these things, then your article should be accepted into wikipedia.


 * Another thing. I noticed that you self-identified as Ken Kring, while the article states that the book in question was written by Kenneth Kring.  This makes me think that you have a serious conflict of interest.  Going through AfC is the correct approach, but you need to be extremely careful.  Hiring someone is also probably not the best approach.  This is not my area of expertise, however.  See the applicable policy on paid editing.  I would also refer you to User:CorporateM, who might be able to give you more information.  However, fair warning, based on my experience it is highly unlikely that this book will be suitable for a wikipedia article.  Sorry.


 * I hope this helps! Tazerdadog (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Buster7 RfA
You forgot to sign your post. AutomaticStrikeout ?  21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Question from Astigitana
Hi Tazerdadog,

Thanks very much for you review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NetOwl. I'm surprised that it's considered not neutral. I though I had removed any potentially subjective language and I have backed up pretty much every sentence with independent or peer-reviewed references. Please could you help me by pointing out where the article is not neutral? Or could you suggest what words/phrases/sentences should be removed for the article to be considered neutral?

Thanks so much for your time!

Astigitana (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)astigitanaAstigitana (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey! sentences like the following were what I was looking at.

"NetOwl customers include both government and commercial organizations in the U.S. and abroad, who have mission-critical structured and unstructured data analysis requirements."

Solutions that utilize NetOwl...


 * (it's fine saying what the program does, but saying it's a "solution" is generally not OK.)

"...semantic search and discovery, geospatial analysis, intelligence analysis, content enrichment, compliance monitoring, cyber threat monitoring, risk management, and bioinformatics."

In my experience a neutral article would pick 2 or 3 of the most important of these. having 8 makes it read like a brag sheet.


 * Under the products section:

It is available in English, Arabic, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), French, Korean, Persian (Farsi and Dari), Russian, and Spanish.


 * This article should be relatively easy to clean up; it is close. Good luck.  Tazerdadog (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Tazerdadog,

Thanks so much for the detailed feedback. I have made corrections based on them. Please would you be able to review the article again and hopefully approve it? Or do I need to re-submit it?

Astigitana (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)astigitana


 * Hi! I will review it tonight or tomorrow morning if you wish.  You could also resubmit it if you so chose; there is an unwritten rule that means that a different reviewer would wind up looking at it however.  Let me know either way!  Tazerdadog (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tazerdadog, please do review it. Thanks so much! :)

Astigitana (talk) 206.112.95.181 (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Astigitana

Hi Tazerdadog, are you still able to review and hopefully approve this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NetOwl? Thanks so much!!

Astigitana (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)astigitana


 * Hey! Sorry I went incommunicado for so long, I got slightly burnt out from wikipedia.  Having thought about it more, I don't think that I should be the one to review it again.  I am a relatively inexperienced reviewer, and this one is complicated enough that I think it would be wise for me to leave it to someone else.  That unwritten rule is there for a very good reason, and I don't think I could be quite confident enough either way.  Sorry for saying I would review it and then backing out, I know that that must have been inconvenient.  Cheers!  Tazerdadog (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks very much for your help!

Astigitana (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)astigitana