User talk:Wavelength/Archive 1

JFW | T@lk  06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

PS Could you please start contributing content, instead of adding external links?

Cruise ship
Hi Wavelength,

I removed the external link you added to Cruise ship. I don't have a problem with discussing the negative impact of Cruise ships, but it should be done in an NPOV way in the article, not just an external link. -- Solipsist 07:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of environment topics
It appears that you're determined to link every article in Wikipedia to List of environment topics. Why? Josh Parris &#9993; 05:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps your life would be easier if you discovered many of these topics are collected under Category:Environment, Category:Ecology and Category:Environmentalism and as such do not need to point to a list that points to them. For more information, read category and perhaps involve yourself in WikiProject Ecology or Categorization projects (current). Perhaps also of interest is Merge some redundant lists to categories. Josh Parris &#9993; 07:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Josh Parris. If the links which I made to list of environment topics were inappropriate, I apologize. Thank you for the links to pages with information about categories. Wavelength 17:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * While I am not sure whether the links were such a great idea, there was nothing inappropriate about your actions. Some of Josh's actions, on the other hand, did seem a little inappropriate.  Don't worry about it, Be Bold in your editing, and don't let impolite comments get to you.  Guettarda 20:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is great that you have been diligent on the List of environment topics page. You have pipped me to the post on updating the article. However, I feel that you are a little too zealous in adding articles to the list. For instance I have deleted two ships that are responsible for oil spills since they are covered in the oil spill article which was also listed. With your rationale we could list every single aspect of human endevour since environmental effects are wide ranging. But as already pointed out: Be bold.Alan Liefting 08:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for what seems like a compliment. I was unfamiliar with the expression "pipped ... to the post", so I searched with Google for web pages with each page having both of the words "pipped" and "post" anywhere on the page, and, according to, it seems to mean "narrowly defeated". A choice of preposition is indicated at . I want this to be a collaboration, not a competition.
 * I have been increasing the list of topics in order to give readers a more complete view of the environment (because a holistic view of its many challenges helps us to understand its interconnectedness), and in order to encourage the writing of new articles. I possibly seemed to be impolite in ignoring a question from Josh Parris above, but answering "Why?" after an exaggerated statement seemed to imply accepting the exaggeration.
 * Why have you moved one paragraph of the introduction to the list of environment topics to the talk page? It seems to me that it was more useful where it was, guiding editors on what should be listed and what should not be listed. Wavelength 23:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether to capitalize list items
Wavelength, you are right. The section at Lists does say "Do not capitalize list items ...". I don't think you have misunderstood the policy. I have approached capitalization of list items from a typographical perspective. The See also sections of articles are a list of links to related articles, and aren't arranged as a list for linguistic reasons. Liguistically, the Lists policy is absolutely right: lists are another representation of a semi-colon seperated sentence, and as such capitalizing the first word is generally inappropriate. But in my view, See also sections aren't another layout of a sentence, but instead a typographical list of related articles - an example of which can been seen at the bottom of Lists, where the links to articles, by name (as opposed to in passing within a paragraph), is capitalized. I believe this is because the articles are being explicitly referred to. Josh Parris &#9993; 08:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editing
The editing process can be programmed to report (when a page is edited) the number of wikitext characters (including spaces) deleted and the number of wikitext characters (including spaces) added. These numbers can appear beside the edit summary, and beside N for a new page and m for a minor change.
 * As I remember, it was probably in February or March 2007 that I first noticed a feature like this on Wikipedia. (The feature shows the net increase or net decrease resulting from the deletion and/or addition of characters.)  Maybe my suggestion contributed to its implementation, and maybe not.  In either case, this is my very belated expression of gratitude for the feature.  I appreciate it very much. -- Wavelength 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Subject (difficulty) level
Each page on Wikipedia can be given a rating for difficulty of subject matter (distinct from difficulty of language, although simpler language would be less able to be used for expressing more complex subject matter). Most pages would have the simplest rating (possibly indicated by the number 1), and higher levels of difficulty might be indicated by 2, 3, 4, and so forth. This rating can appear as the last part of the page title (possibly in square brackets: [1], [2], and so forth).

Each page can begin with a row of levels for any page(s) which otherwise have the same title (apart from disambiguation differences). All levels except the current page can be shown as links. Each page indicated in such a row can be a prerequisite of any following page(s) indicated in that row. An additional wikicode can be devised in order to save editors the time used in repeatedly typing the same title in these instances.

A typical row might appear as follows: x|level 1 x|level 2 level 3 x|level 4 x|level 5

Each page can next show a list of links to any other page(s) considered to be prerequisite to understanding the page in question. If Simple English Wikipedia has a page corresponding to the current page, this fact can be highlighted here (in addition to there being a link in the language list in the left column).

If the context of the article contains any link which is considered to be such a prerequisite, it can have a notation to indicate this fact.

Likewise, each page can have a separate section (like the sections for "See also" and for "Internal links" and for "External links" and for "References") for pages on other topics to which the current page is considered to be prerequisite.

These matters of rating and prequisiteness would have some degree of analogy with book chapters and with school grade levels. Someone would decide the ratings and the prerequisitenesses.

Wavelength 02:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Some ideas similar to these have been expressed at Talk:Mathematics road map Wavelength 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I copied the text above and pasted it (20:23, 22 July 2008) at Village pump (proposals).
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been archived, with very much additional commentary,
 * at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35 (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned),
 * more specifically, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35.
 * A related discussion is at
 * (Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics and
 * (Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
 * Another related discussion is at
 * (Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and
 * (Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist folders
Some editors with very long watchlists may benefit from being able to organize their watchlist items into folders. If that is not possible now, maybe it can be made possible. Wavelength 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Environment
Hello. As someone who has contributed to articles on the environment can I recommend that you join the Wikiproject Environment? Alan Liefting 05:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation. Wavelength 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Environemntalism to be moved to Category:Environment
Hello. As a user who has an interest in the environmental articles can I suggest you gave a look at the voting at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 30. Alan Liefting 09:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Wavelength 07:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

List of environmental topics
Hello. I wanted to get back to Josh Parris' point about categories. Wikipedia has an inbuilt tool which handles these kinds of lists a lot better. If you just categorise environmental articles under, they will automatically fall into alphabetical order. This also makes management of the lists a lot easier. I hope this helps. Cnwb 10:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the information. I notice that list of environment topics already has the wikicode for that category and for another one. Also, I am aiming for alphabetical order rather than ASCIIbetical order. Wavelength 12:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the great majority of articles start with an alphabetical letter the fact that the category system is ASCIIbetical is irrellevant. Alan Liefting 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

List of environment topics:F-G
Hi, List of environment topics:F-G was deleted and the edit history lost for some time (which goes against the GFDL) until I contacted User:Xaosflux, the admin who deleted the page and it was restored into List of environment topics:F. From the restored edit history, it looks like the edits and  were instrumental in the deletion.

Instead of blanking the page and deleting, a redirect to List of environment topics:F should have been placed. Now that the edit history is restored, nothing else needs to be done. I just wanted to inform so that care is taken in future to not delete such pages. Thanks! -- Paddu 06:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the edit history; I apologize for the temporary loss of the edit history. I am still new to this particular feature of editing. Unfortunately, (if I understand correctly) the same situation applies to most of the other initial letters from A to M, so I would be grateful if someone could restore their edit histories also. Wavelength 20:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like there are at least 4 more pages which have lost edit history &mdash; List of environment topics:0-9 A-B, List_of_environment_topics:D-E, List of environment topics:H-K, List of environment topics:L-M (please check if there are no more such pages). Apart from that, whenever a page is started with content copied from another page, a link to the other page has to be provided in the edit history so that people know where the past history of the content lies. Some pages like don't seem to have followed this convention. For such pages, you could add a note to the talk page saying from which page that page was split off. For the deleted pages above, you have to contact an admin to restore edit history. Actually, pasting the past history into the talk pages of the split pages might be "enough" and that is what is done for pages which are moved from one project to another (Transwiki). But within a project restoring edit history can be looked upon as a "better" solution since we get to have a look at the past versions, but requires some effort on the part of the admin. You could add a request to WP:SPLICE to e.g. merge ":0-9 A-B" with ":0-9", ":D-E" with ":D", etc. and add a link to ":0-9" in the talk pages of ":A", ":B", a link to ":D" in the talk page of ":E", etc. -- Paddu 06:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, All the edit histories have now been restored, thanks to User:Xaosflux, User:UkPaolo and User:Sceptre. -- Paddu 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of environment topics watchlist
As this list of topics has been split on List of environment topics, how do you propose to "monitor changes to the pages by following the Related changes link"? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I'm watching, here. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added to each of the 28 subsidiary pages (counting "0-9" and the 26 letters and list of environmental topics lists). Wavelength 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your response. Unfortunately, the message about monitoring "changes to the pages by following the Related changes link" still appears at List of environment topics, and as you are aware, now appears at list of environmental topics lists.  Neither of these messages are helpful and should be removed.  A live watchlist of most if not all active articles currently appears at Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Viriditas/watchlist which is composed of the following:

. Instead of using my userspace for the watchlist, would it be possible to copy the above to List of environment topics, and also include a page self-reference header which allows people to edit the sub-pages? Let me know. This will restore the watchlist. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just ran a small test, and this seems to work. The only issue are the subheadings, which I recommend removing on all subpages.  Finally, a new message should be added to the top of List of environment topics requesting that all new articles be added to the appropriate subpage (users won't be able to add them to the page anyway).  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even better, create a template for the TOC subpages. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned several points, so I have been busy at preparing a response.

I believe that the message about monitoring "changes to the pages by following the Related changes link" at list of environment topics is helpful by informing users of changes to any of the 28 subsidiary pages. It helps me to monitor changes to the list, as when I need to re-alphabetize a redirected topic. It seems to me that someone interested in environment topics would likely be interested also in a (divided) list of them, as well as in list of environmental topics lists. Although those two pages do not now list environment topics in the same direct sense that the other 27 pages do, they do have a close relationship to environment topics; therefore, they can be considered to be "articles related to the natural environment" indirectly, and so the wording of the notice about related changes is probably adequate although not perfect. Alternatively, maybe the wording of the message can be adjusted to conform better to each of those pages.

As I remember, it was probably in early December 2005 that someone put a notice on list of environment topics recommending that it be split for the benefit of users with browser and/or connection limitations. My response to that notice can be found above at Progress report. If you would like there to be a consolidation of all the topics on the 28 pages mentioned in double braces in your comment above, I recommend that they be copied to a new (additional) page with "list of environment topics on one page" as title. I mentioned this idea at Progress report (see "Here is another idea" near the bottom of the section). A warning about page size can placed on list of environment topics. By these means, there can be a "Related changes" message about the articles for the convenience of some users, and a similar message about lists of topics for the convenience of others. If you have no objection to that additional page, I will probably start it soon.

I have been adding subheadings because I understand that Wikipedia favors them on large pages for easier reading and easier editing. You said that they are an issue, but I do not see an issue with them. Could you please explain?

I like your point that "a new message should be added to the top of List of environment topics requesting that all new articles be added to the appropriate subpage". If I had thought of that when I deleted some pages, I could have avoided deleting them. I commented on the removed links to the deleted pages at Talk:List_of_environment_topics. This was discussed at User_talk:Wavelength and I hope to have a comment ready soon for that discussion.

I do not understand your last point about creating "a template for the TOC subpages". What did you mean? Wavelength 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

List of environment topics articles.
See Talk:List of environment topics about the List of environment topics appropriateness in the Category:Environment. Alan Liefting 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Time available for editing Wikipedia
I have been too busy recently to edit Wikipedia, and I am not sure of how much I will be able to do in the next few months. Wavelength 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ... that is to say, during the next few months. Wavelength 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This sort of info is usually put on the user page or highlighted using some tables/colours at the beginning of the talk page. Right now it just looks like another talk page conversation and might get ignored by most. -- Paddu 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment topics lists:0-9,A, Environment topics lists:B, Environment topics lists:C, etc.
What is your primary purpose with these pages that you created? I ask because you should consider the guidelines at Transclusion costs and benefits. When you transclude a number of articles onto one page, there is a direct cost in terms of machine resources and the web server load.

If the sole purpose of these pages is to use Special:RelatedChangesLinked, it is more efficient, and less of a server load, to use actual internal links (e.g.  List A ) instead of tranclusion (e.g.  ). RelatedChangesLinked still works that way.

If your primary purpose is to load over a dozen or so large articles onto one page at once so you can see them all at once, what is the benefit of doing that? You must realize that it takes much longer for the MediaWiki software to generate and load the pages, putting an unnecessary burden on the web servers.

You also realize that by doing these tranclusions, the page Environment topics lists:0-9,A, for example, is also listed on all of the same categories, on all on of the same "WhatLinksHere" lists, as the articles that were transcluded. In other words, Environment topics lists:0-9,A is also listed on the categories that list of agricultural organizations is in, is also listed on the categories that list of all-time high and low temperatures by state is in, etc.

For example, when I look at Category:Lists of organizations, it lists Environment topics lists:0-9,A on there. Why? Because List of agricultural organizations, which has the actual category link, is transcluded.

I ask these questions because sooner or later, they may be put on AFD for these reasons. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, because I do not see a considerable benefit under WP:TCB at this time, I have converted all the transclusions on these pages to regular internal links. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My sole purpose was to use the "Related Changes" feature for the articles linked in the lists and not for the lists themselves. If the method which I used was inappropriate, then maybe we could use the substitution method described on the page Transclusion costs and benefits.  What your change has done is to duplicate on 16 pages what is already available on one page, list of environment topics lists.  If there is no acceptable way to achieve my purpose, then I guess we should delete the 16 pages as superfluous and also the paragraph linking to them.
 * Incidentally, many topics which could have been listed on list of environment topics (and later its 28 subpages) have been listed on the lists listed on the page list of environment topics lists. (Some are listed in both places.)  Since the 28 subpages have been recombined at list of environment topics on one page for the "Related Changes" feature, it seemed to me to be reasonable to combine, for the same purpose, the pages listed on list of environment topics lists.  Wavelength 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of fishing topics
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article List of fishing topics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:List of fishing topics. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. Probably, I will simply wait to see what happens, and then make any necessary revision(s). Wavelength 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested articles (first set)
I have requested these articles. Wavelength 13:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * flowchart of environmental problems
 * flowchart of environmental solutions
 * flowchart of societal problems
 * flowchart of societal solutions
 * I requested the first two (12:49, 29 July 2006) at Requested articles/Natural sciences.
 * I requested the next two (12:58, 29 July 2006) at Requested articles/Social sciences.
 * At Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Natural sciences, I added (14:49, 10 August 2006) the heading "Requested articles flowchart of environmental problems and flowchart of environmental solutions" and my first message, as follows.
 * My request is for more than merely a few sample problems and a few sample solutions, as might be suggested by the light-bulb illustration in the flowchart article.
 * I am requesting a flowchart which connects as many as possible of the hundreds of environmental problems currently known to humans, and which shows by arrows their causal interrelationships. As humans discover more problems and more connections, they can be added. As the flowchart grows, it would probably be helpful to divide it into separate pages, possibly by fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, geology, oceanography, meteorology, astronomy, and others, although it should be remembered and shown that problems are interrelated between those fields (and not only within them).
 * Everything in the previous paragraph about problems applies equally to solutions.
 * [At Requested articles/Natural sciences, I referred (14:56, 10 August 2006) to the talk page for explanation.]
 * At Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Natural sciences, under the same heading, I added (20:50, 10 August 2006) my second message, as follows.
 * Nothing in my comments necessitates its being original research. The information could very well be already somewhere on the World Wide Web.
 * Those messages were directed to an editor who removed (19:17, 10 August 2006) the requests for the first two articles.
 * After I requested these four articles, the light-bulb illustration in the flowchart article was removed (I do not know when or why) and now there is instead a different illustration.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [I revised the heading of this section by adding "(first set)".] -- Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page
Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not contributed to that page. Can you provide a link to such a contribution? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. Wavelength 10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You made just the one edit . BTW, my original message to potentially interested parties could have been worded better: there's no suggestion of any impropriety on their part. Nunquam Dormio 11:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was mistaken. Wavelength 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

List of environmental news sources
I have proposed this article for deletion. --Brianyoumans 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Genetic Roulette
A tag has been placed on Genetic Roulette, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ttguy 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Seeds of Deception
is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A list you created and monitor has been nominated for deletion List of environment topics
Thought you should have the courtesy of knowing that your list has been nominated for deletion. KP Botany 19:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you know it has been nominated and are discussing it. KP Botany 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is recorded at Articles for deletion/List of environment topics. -- Wavelength 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles (second set)
I have requested these articles at Requested articles/Natural sciences: -- Wavelength 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * list of toxic chemicals as precursors in the manufacture of electronic devices
 * list of toxic chemicals as components of electronic devices
 * list of toxic chemicals as waste products from the manufacture of electronic devices
 * list of toxic chemicals as waste products from the use of electronic devices

Also, I have requested them at Requested_articles/Other_categorization_schemes -- Wavelength 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have requested them at Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences. -- Wavelength 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have requested them at Requested_articles/Natural_sciences. -- Wavelength 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the names of the four articles (lists) are not fully in alphabetical order (the first two being interchanged from that order), but I decided to have them in the order that made the most sense chronologically. I still could have accommodated a fully alphabetical order by changing "precursors" to "active precursors", but I decided not to strain further anyone's tolerance for long titles. -- Wavelength 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1000-1491: Environmental events
I have put 1000-1491: Environmental events up for deletion. Alan Liefting 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this notification. -- Wavelength 03:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

List of environmental protection and restoration topics
I have placed List of environmental protection and restoration topics up for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of environmental protection and restoration topics. Alan Liefting 11:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this notification. -- Wavelength 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of biodiversity topics
I have placed List of biodiversity topics up for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of biodiversity topics. Alan Liefting 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this notification. -- Wavelength 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of environmental protection and restoration topics
It seems no one has informed you that the List of environmental protection and restoration topics that you created is up for deletion, and it looks like it's actually going to be deleted. I assume that this is a list you use personally for keeping track of articles you edit, or articles that interest you, so I've copied it to a sub-page of your User space. You will now find it at User:Wavelength/List of environmental protection and restoration topics. If you don't want to keep this page then please but put the tag   at the top of it. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 09:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this notification, and for the copying work. Alan Liefting has already notified me (please see above).  I may or may not comment on the AfD page. -- Wavelength 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of rages
I have deleted List of rages per criteria A3 and A7 at WP:CSD. Please let me know if you have concerns. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the notice of imminent deletion, and I might have improved the article satisfactorily with a little more time, but that is now in the past. I have edited rage (emotion) accordingly. -- Wavelength 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Life of Zamenhof
A template has been added to the article The Life of Zamenhof, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. -- Alan Liefting talk 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles (third set)
I have requested these articles (19:41, 11 October 2007) at Requested articles/Natural sciences. The time and date following the name of each of the four requested articles indicate when I added that topic as a red link to the list of environment topics. I started an article for drug production waste, but it was deleted. I may yet start articles for one or two or three or all of these four topics, but other editors are also welcome to do so. -- Wavelength 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * discarded drugs (06:52, 6 June 2005) (discussing unused drugs, both legal and illegal, and the effects of their disposal on the natural environment)
 * drug production waste (19:56, 16 July 2005) (discussing the chemical and other waste products from the production of legal and illegal drugs, and the effects of those waste procucts on the natural environment)
 * excreted drugs (06:52, 6 June 2005) (discussing drugs, both legal and illegal, which have passed through humans and/or other creatures, and the subsequent effects of those drugs on the natural environment)
 * human energy (02:06, 4 June 2005) (including information explaining how human energy, when used together with appropriate technology for mental work and physical work, has minimal negative effects on the natural environment; also [including and/or linking to]: numerical, historical, geographical, and/or economic information)

Edmond Privat
Do we know anything of his life after 1937? After skimming through hundreds of G hits, I come up with very little that helps. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but maybe I can find something. -- Wavelength 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a Google search for English-language pages with the phrase "Edmond Privat" and any of the terms "1940 1950 1960", and thereby I found these pages, which might be useful.
 * "PROLOGO - Wikibooks" at http://ia.wikibooks.org/wiki/PROLOGO (with only one mention of his name near the end)
 * "Weekly Worker 409 Thursday November 22 2001" at http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/409/esperanto.html
 * "Switzerland Yearly Meeting History and Biography Project A Resource Book." at http://www.swiss-quakers.ch/Documents/Let%20their%20lives%20speak.pdf (with several mentions of "Edmond and Yvonne Privat")
 * "kdpopoloj" at http://www.recim.org/kdp/2003-an.htm -- Wavelength 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are evidently not the first person to experience this challenge, as you can see from "Consolidation and Catastrophe" at www.suite101.com/article.cfm/esperanto/10156. -- Wavelength 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles (fourth set)
I have requested these articles (22:24, 16 October 2007) at Requested_articles/Natural_sciences. -- Wavelength 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * peak food
 * peak grain
 * peak mayhem
 * peak water

I added them as red links to the list of environment topics:P at 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC). -- Wavelength 04:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of environmental sustainability topics
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of environmental sustainability topics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Contributions to article talk pages
As a convenience (to me and to anyone else interested), this is a list of some (20 + 24 + 10 = 54) article talk pages which I have edited during the period from 18 May 2005 to 31 December 2007 inclusive. Some of these contributions have been archived (A). Some of my questions in these contributions are still unanswered (QU). My contribution (at 21:57, 31 August 2007) to talk:intelligent design was removed. My contribution (at 19:55, 3 November 2007) to talk:tropical cyclone was the removal of vandalism.

--- talk:1430s - talk:1470s - talk:1758 in science - talk:2007 Peru earthquake - talk:2007 South Asian floods - talk:argon - talk:Bangladesh - talk:cloud seeding (QU) - talk:Crazy English - talk:drainage system (QU) - talk:Edmond Privat - talk:endianness (A) - talk:Esperantist - talk:Fine-tuned Universe (A) - talk:formicarium (QU) - talk:global warming (A, QU) - talk:hypercorrection - talk:hyphen - talk:intelligent design - talk:list of adjectival forms of place names

--- talk:list of environment topics - talk:list of environment topics:0-9 - talk:list of environment topics:A - talk:list of environment topics:B - talk:list of environment topics:C - talk:list of environment topics:D - talk:list of environment topics:E - talk:list of environment topics:F - talk:list of environment topics:G - talk:list of environment topics:H - talk:list of environment topics:I - talk:list of environment topics:L - talk:list of environment topics:M - talk:list of environment topics:N - talk:list of environment topics:O - talk:list of environment topics:P - talk:list of environment topics:R - talk:list of environment topics:S - talk:list of environment topics:T - talk:list of environment topics:U - talk:list of environment topics:V - talk:list of environment topics:W - talk:list of environment topics:Y - talk:list of environment topics:Z

--- talk:list of environmental books (QU) - talk:list of Esperanto organizations - talk:Panama Canal expansion project - talk:rage (emotion) (A) - talk:security - talk:snow removal (QU) - talk:The Life of Zamenhof - talk:The Parable of the Solar System Model (QU) - talk:tropical cyclone - talk:xenoestrogen (QU)

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My contribution to talk:global warming can be found at talk:global warming/Archives/2007/12, section 10. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Environment articles by quality
As a convenience (to me and anyone else interested), this is a list of seven pages with information about environment articles. At this time, the first one has links to the other six. Few pages have links to any of these seven pages. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality/1
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality/2
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality/3
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality/4
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality log
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality statistics

This is list of seven more pages with information about environment articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Environment articles by importance
 * Category:Environment articles by quality
 * Category:Lists of environment topics
 * Portal:Environment
 * Portal:Sustainable development
 * WikiProject Environment
 * WikiProject Environment/Assessment

Suggestion: article-naming wizard
I have posted this suggestion (07:48, 14 January 2008) at Village pump (proposals).

Is it possible to add a wizard to Wikipedia to guide editors in following naming conventions for new articles and moved (renamed) articles, as well as articles resulting from merged articles and split articles? I have in mind a series of menus beginning with options, such as the following.
 * Is this article about:
 * a person?
 * a non-human living organism?
 * an abstract idea?
 * a human-made gadget?
 * a field of study?
 * a part of a human?
 * a part of a non-human organism?
 * an event?
 * a procedure?

Subsequent menus would fine-tune the type of article even further, and then the editor would be presented with a checklist of things to consider, such as:
 * capitalization, hyphenation, American and British English spelling differences, diacritics, numerals, and so forth. Someone can decide on what specific guidelines should be applied to specific types of articles.

At this time, we have article names such as the following. Please notice the difference in capitalization. Recently, I moved Bali Communique to Bali Communiqué, and 100,000 year problem to 100,000-year problem. (Please see list of English words with diacritics and hyphen, paragraph 5: "Hyphens are used to connect numbers and words in forming adjectival phrases". There is also Manual of Style, section 3, point 7.)
 * January 1999 tornado outbreak sequence
 * March 2006 Tornado Outbreak Sequence

This is just a preliminary plan for what such a program might do. More refinement of the plan would require more time and reflection than what I have spent on this. [end of suggestion]

To anyone reading this on my user talk page, who wishes to respond to this suggestion: Please respond at Village pump (proposals) while the section has not been archived, and on this, my user talk page, after it has been archived. -- Wavelength (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion has been archived, without additional commentary, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 16. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (See Article wizard.) -- Wavelength (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: researching correlation of article size with number of incoming links
I have posted this suggestion (21:49, 14 January 2008) at Village pump (proposals).

I have noticed what appears to be a high correlation between (a) the number of lines in a typical article and (b) the number of links listed when I click on "What links here". I do not know to what extent, if any, "a" affects "b", or "b" affects "a", or "c" (another variable) affects "a" and/or "b". Also, there may be some significance to different types of lines in the article (for example, main text, outgoing internal links, and external links) as well as different types of links listed in "What links here" (for example, article pages, article talk pages, and user talk pages). (My interest in this correlation began with my interest in adding incoming internal links to short articles in order to help in their expansion.) Do the benefits of researching this correlation outweigh the costs? Also, please consider correlations between members of other pairs of variables in Wikipedia statistics. [end of suggestion]

To anyone reading this on my user talk page, who wishes to respond to this suggestion: Please respond at Village pump (proposals) while the section has not been archived, and on this, my user talk page, after it has been archived. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I improved the wording by adding "members of" (19:06, 18 January 2008) in the last sentence of the suggestion. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: (03:04, 19 January 2008) -- Wavelength (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion has been archived, without additional commentary, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 16. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: readability test(s) for Wikipedia articles
I have posted this suggestion (05:47, 15 January 2008) at Village pump (proposals).

Is it possible to add a program to Wikipedia to perform one or more readability tests for each Wikipedia article, and to place
 * the current score(s) for each article somewhere on the article page;
 * the current score(s) and projected score(s) on the edit preview page;
 * and the score(s) for each version in the article history?

At this time, the article "readability test" lists the following tests. If it is desirable to include consideration of each word in the article as to its frequency in the English language, can that be a part of the program? (Maybe the Wikipedia community can originate a new kind of readability test.) In regard to readability tests of Wikipedia articles generally, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Also, please consider applying this suggestion to Simple English Wikipedia. [end of suggestion]
 * SMOG (Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook)
 * Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test
 * Fry Readability Formula
 * Automated Readability Index (ARI)
 * Spache Readability Formula
 * Dale-Chall Readability Formula
 * Coleman-Liau Index
 * Gunning-Fog Index
 * Raygor Estimate Graph
 * Linsear Write
 * ATOS

To anyone reading this on my user talk page, who wishes to respond to this suggestion: Please respond at Village pump (proposals) while the section has not been archived, and on this, my user talk page, after it has been archived. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion has been archived, with additional commentary, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 18. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: searching for contributions by a specified editor to a specified article
I have posted this suggestion (16:52, 15 January 2008; 16:53, 15 January 2008)  at Village pump (proposals).

(After the first posting, there was a message that the server had stopped responding, and, without looking at the page I was editing, I saved my changes again, and that is why my suggestion appears twice at Village pump (proposals).)

[beginning of suggestion]

I am interested in there being a program which would facilitate a search for contributions by a specified editor to a specified article. Many articles have long histories of contributions, and also many editors have long histories of contributions, so, at the present time, finding such information can sometimes require visually scanning many contributions on many pages.

This program could be designed with the possibility of choosing one of two methods to perform such a search. (An editor can be either a registered user or an IP address.)

With one method, a searcher first selects an article and then clicks on a button ("Editors"), which displays the number of editors and a list of all editors which have contributed to that article (and the number of contributions to that article by each editor). Clicking on that number displays a list of all contributions by that editor to that article. Clicking on each contribution displays a page showing a comparison of different versions before and after that contribution.

With the other method, a searcher first selects an editor and then clicks on a button ("Articles"), which displays the number of articles and a list of all articles which have been edited by that editor (and the number of contributions by that editor to each article). Clicking on that number displays a list of all contributions to that article by that editor. Clicking on each contribution displays a page showing a comparison of different versions before and after that contribution.

This program for a two-dimensional search might be extended to other namespaces besides the article namespace.

[end of suggestion]

To anyone reading this on my user talk page, who wishes to respond to this suggestion: Please respond at Village pump (proposals) while the section has not been archived, and on this, my user talk page, after it has been archived. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion has been archived, with additional commentary, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 16. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate ELs
Hi,

Just a note to say I removed the external links you placed in chocolate. External links, as stated in the EL guidelines, should be kept to a minimum, and should add something beyond what the page can itself achieve. I was only able to look at one of the links you added, but it was a short prose summary. This makes it nearly ideal as a source for an inline citation, but less than ideal as an external link. Given the title of the second link involves the word 'short', I'm guessing it's also an in-line citation candidate. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments, or post on Talk:Chocolate. Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist
Do you use your watchlist? Do you have Lists of environment topics on your watchlist?

Just curious. See below. :)

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I use my watchlist, and the page which you mentioned is on it, since I am now redirected there from list of environment topics. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists of environment topics
I noticed the list on the AFD category, and that was linked to the old AfD. After reading that debate, I went to the list and started converting it to the structure I've been using for other subjects that have the same support (index, TOC, portal, category, etc.). I'm totally open to suggestions and feedback, and look forward to working with you.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of meteorology topics
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of meteorology topics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of meteorology topics. Thank you. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Table of prime factors
I have a program to generate the tables with wikilinks for chosen numbers. I originally included all blue links at the time and excluded all redlinks. It's trivial to change. Should all redirecting numbers be included so there are dozens of links leading to the same page? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to start new articles for some or all of the red links (maybe after adding information to some of the blue-linked articles). (Please see Red link and table of divisors.)  I prefer to make a red link first, then launch a new article from that link (turning the red link blue), so that the article does not come into existence completely orphaned.


 * Each of the first 43 pages listed on the list of most linked-to pages (accessible from "Special pages" under "toolbox" at the left side of the screen) has over 100,000 pages linking to it. If each entry number on the table of prime factors has a (preferably blue) link, then the page looks more uniform and the table is more useful.  (Please see Build the Web.)  If you have a program which can wikify the remaining entry numbers, I wish to request that you wikify them.


 * Incidentally, I discovered the table of prime factors via the following chain of links.
 * Your first article #Things to avoid *A single sentence or only a website link
 * Avoiding common mistakes #Creating... *Redundant articles.
 * WikiProject Red Link Recovery #Related --
 * WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Most red links -- 480 --
 * Table of divisors #See also
 * Table of prime factors


 * -- Wavelength (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A former version of Table of prime factors had links on all numbers but there was a complaint at Talk:Table of prime factors (also at Talk:Table of divisors). I removed the redlinks when reformatting the factor table in November 2006. The number of redlinks is far smaller today and my program has now linked all numbers in . The diff reveals a single small error where you accidentally replaced 497 with 496 in the displayed table. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Coincidentally, my imperfection involved a mathematically perfect number!
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Toxic Sludge Is Good for You
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Toxic Sludge Is Good for You. --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this message. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this message. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter
Hi Wavelength, Generally I am one who likes to have full "See also" sections (see Anti-nuclear movement in Australia as an example), but I feel you are going way to far with some of the See also link additions you are making and unnecessary repetition and clutter is being created.

I have already tried to explain this in my recent edit summary on the Renewable Energy page: that page does not deal with energy in general, nor does it focus on the American scene, so adding Energy and American Society there is inappropriate. The link is already at home in Energy policy in the United States and many other more relevant pages.

I've also noticed that you are linking some pages that are in a very rudimentary state: pages which may eventually be turned into a redirect or be deleted altogether.

Please use more discretion when choosing links to add, and the quality of articles will be improved as a result.

Regards, Johnfos (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope to improve in this regard, although it is not always easy to anticipate what changes someone else will find appropriate. I now see that I twice added a link to Energy and American Society on the page Renewable Energy without realizing that you had removed it after the first time.  ("Myth Seven" in the book discusses renewable energy, and that is why I added that link.)
 * By linking to pages which are in a very rudimentary state, I hope to bring more attention to them, and therefore improvement and expansion. (Please see .) -- Wavelength (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I can see you are trying to do the right thing... best wishes, Johnfos (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS When you add a book like that try this format: Energy and American Society: Thirteen Myths Looks much better. Johnfos (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles (fifth set)
I have requested these articles (05:17, 22 April 2008) at Requested_articles/Natural_sciences. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * nature's services from geothermal power (nature's services from geothermal power)
 * nature's services from solar energy (nature's services from solar energy)
 * nature's services from tidal power (nature's services from tidal power)
 * nature's services from wind power (nature's services from wind power)

Requested articles (sixth set)
I have requested these articles (06:58, 22 April 2008) at Requested_articles/Natural_sciences.
 * environmental degradation from excessive extraction of geothermal power
 * (environmental degradation from excessive extraction of geothermal power)


 * environmental degradation from excessive extraction of solar energy
 * (environmental degradation from excessive extraction of solar energy)


 * environmental degradation from excessive extraction of tidal power
 * (environmental degradation from excessive extraction of tidal power)


 * environmental degradation from excessive extraction of wind power
 * (environmental degradation from excessive extraction of wind power)

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the foregoing is not clear enough to all who may read it, so I am providing additional details.


 * By requesting these articles, I have not requested articles which discuss environmental degradation caused by these methods of extraction per se (for example, bird endangerment from wind turbines), as discussed in the article on energy development. Also, I have not requested articles which deal with environmental degradation caused by human activities for which extraction is a prerequisite, such as the processing, distribution, and use of the energy.


 * Specifically, the articles requested are about environmental degradation caused by the quantity of extraction, when energy diverted from its natural course in large quantities reduces the supply available for contributing adequately to the normal operation of nature's services (for example, photosynthesis and wind pollination). The fourth article might discuss damage to the natural balance between opposing wind forces in different areas, and tell about wind energy extraction in one area causing an increase of wind energy in another area.


 * These types of energy are very abundant in nature, but let us not forget about the competition between natural supply and human desire.


 * -- Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Air Polution as a bee problem
I have moved your recent addition from the Colony Collapse Disorder page to the page on general Pollinator decline. I think it is a long-term problem for our bees and I appreciated the UV reference. I had not yet seen the study until your link.

However, there are no allegations that air pollution is at all relevant to CCD. And in fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary since 1) CCD is sudden (and air pollution unfortunately is not) and 2) CCD is primarily being reported by commercial beekeepers who keep their bees in rural areas but not being significantly reported by hobbyist beekeepers, many of whom keep their bees in urban and far more heavily polluted areas.

Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting the information in a more appropriate article. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also removed it from the monarch article, as earlier it is not relevant in that article either. In fact although most butterflies are indeed pollinators, not every article on them should have that information. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ship pollution articles
Thanks for doing the wikification. I pasted all those in (the source article is public domain), but got bored partway (most of the way? i don't remember) through the source article, so there's more that could still be included if you want to see what's missing. Mangostar (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the articles; my interest in cruise ship pollution was indicated in the first section of this talk page, . In chronological order, these are the ship pollution articles which I have wikified to a greater or lesser extent.
 * Cruise ship pollution
 * Cruise ship pollution in the United States
 * Regulation of ship pollution in the United States
 * Ballast water discharge and the environment
 * MARPOL 73/78
 * Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving user talk page
I am aware of the benefits of archiving user talk pages, and I have made a preliminary examination of the page Help:Archiving a talk page, but I am still not willing to archive any of this page. This is the 50th section and I might archive after 100 sections, or sooner. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of environmental websites
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of environmental websites, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of environmental websites. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 03:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I always appreciate being notified of a nomination for deletion of an article that I have been involved in editing, whether or not I participate in the deletion discussion. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of environmental periodicals
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of environmental periodicals, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of environmental periodicals. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 07:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I always appreciate being notified of a nomination for deletion of an article that I have been involved in editing, whether or not I participate in the deletion discussion. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Links
I have been reverting some of your edits that involve adding links: If a tenuous connection is made between between the "See also" section links and the topic of the article the "See also" sections on most article would become quite large. See WP:CONTEXT although this is for wikilinks in the article body but it is applicable to the "See also" section links. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kiwis Against Seabed Mining: removed Project AWARE - the connection is very tenuous
 * List of conservation topics‎ : removed CyberTracker - companies are not approp in such a list
 * Disaster response: removed International Medical Commission on Bhopal - the connection is very tenuous
 * Water efficiency: removed WaterSense - an article about an idea that is of global interest does not need a link to a US scheme
 * Thank you for this message. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your opinion on my edits? -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CONTEXT, "it is not always an easy call." In each of these examples, the decision seems to be moot, although I see the most support for your decision in the second example.  At the same time, I know that I was trying to find articles from which to link to other articles, some of them orphaned, whether or not they are tagged as such.  If you have ever tried to find articles from which to link to orphaned articles, then you have experienced a challenge that I have experienced.  Can you suggest more appropriate articles from which one might link to the articles to which you removed links? -- Wavelength (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "spirit" of WP:O means that orphaned articles do not loose their orphan status if linked via the "See also" links. Articles loose their orphan status if linked in the body of the article. I am unsure as to more approp link for the ones I deleted but bear in mind there is no need for any "See also" links at all althought at least a few is nice. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan, articles which are linked in "See also" are most certainly less orphaned. I see nothing about the subject in the article on WP:O, and I would personally say that your assessment of the spirit of that rule is false (regardless of WP policy). The point is that orphaned articles need to be linked to other articles so they can be found. In fact, it may be better for them to be linked in See also in some cases, as those links stand out more prominently than links in the body. As far as your above deletions, they all seem fair. Incidentally, I nominated List of environmental websites for deletion review. Although I can see the need to delete some lists, you did not provide a very valid reason for deleting the above list or the periodical lists. Please see WP:CLN; category and list overlap is not a valid reason for deleting lists. If you disagree with the policy, you can do a RfC ... ImpIn | (t - c) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of biological websites
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of biological websites, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to Wavelength (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) sage notification opt out|opt out]] of receiving this notice? NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this notification. Please tell me how the article is deficient, so that I have a starting point for improving it. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

List of envtl agreements
Hi Wavelength - I have put the various agreements in columns - hope that is OK - also I will be adding a second list - identical to the first but in order of the topics that the various agreements address - hope this is also OK. Granitethighs (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, I find both actions to be acceptable, but here are some points to consider.
 * The entry Multi-effect Protocol (at present, at the top of the second column) would be easier to understand if it were placed immediately next to the other items indented under Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (at present, at the bottom of the first column).
 * There could be two separate pages, as follows.
 * List of environmental agreements (alphabetical)
 * List of environmental agreements (topical)
 * That option has advantages and disadvantages.
 * Here is an example of a list available in two formats.
 * List of production battery electric vehicles
 * List of production battery electric vehicles (table)
 * Here is another example.
 * List of countries by population
 * List of countries by population (graphical)
 * If there are two orderings on separate pages, it would be helpful for each one to have an internal link to the other one (possibly under the heading "See also"; possibly in a note at the top of the page).
 * The two orderings could be on the same page, with each one in a separate column, as follows.

List of environmental agreements (alphabetical)

 * item
 * item
 * item

List of environmental agreements (topical)

 * item
 * item
 * item


 * If the two orderings are on one page, then one could correct the sentence
 * "Agreements are listed in both alphabetical order and in order of topic."
 * either to
 * "Agreements are listed both in alphabetical order and in order of topic."
 * or to
 * "Agreements are listed in both alphabetical order and order of topic."
 * (In both cases, "order of topic" can be changed to "topical order" instead.)
 * Another option is the following.
 * "Agreements are listed both alphabetically and topically."
 * In any of the foregoing scenarios, when new items are added, it would be helpful for someone to check that they added to both lists.
 * (The indentations in this message are less than perfect, but I do not wish to continue adjusting and testing them.)
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go to section 55 in the table of contents for this talk page, you can find the two subsection headings to be functional. That demonstrates how the sub section headings in the table of contents would be functional in the scenario with the two orderings on the same page, with each one in a separate column.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [I corrected my message of 09:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)]
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend
I have nominated List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this message. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

List of sustainability topics
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:List of sustainability topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this message. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LC
Always happy to see articles on librarians. But I dont think the classification is notable, and I highly advise you to merge the contents in the article for Brinkler. Actually, I do know about his work,and about the general problem. There's an earlier technical literature, too, of how to handle the subdivisions in LC subject headings, and the general question of to what degree they fit the needs of scholars. But of course the advent of online catalogs has made the whole issue almost totally moot. Not that old issues are unnotable, but there never was enough discussion of his theories to justify an article here. Incidentally, the death notices in PAW are not in my opinion reliable sources. DGG (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this message. Since I am not planning to linger over these two articles, I am leaving to others the possibility of merging them. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have accordingly proposed the merge, and will carry it out if I hear no objection. DGG (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Blindness
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jeepday (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia password limits
I have posted this message (02:16, 22 July 2008) at Village pump (proposals).
 * It has been archived, with additional commentary, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 31. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [beginning of message]

Wikipedia's page for creating an account or logging in has a link to the article "Password strength". I have the following questions:
 * What is the set of all characters acceptable for use in a Wikipedia password? (Does it include: punctuation marks? Greek letters? Russian letters? Armenian letters? Devanagari characters? Japanese characters? Korean characters? mathematical symbols? webdings? wingdings?)
 * What is the maximum allowable length for a Wikipedia password? (Does one Chinese character count as much as a Latin letter?)
 * Does Wikipedia truncate the password after a specific number of characters, and disregard the rest?
 * Why are the answers to these questions not visible on the page for creating an account or logging in?
 * [end of message]

I have posted it (04:09, 22 July 2008) at Help desk.
 * It has been archived, with additional commentary, at Help desk/Archives/2008 July 22. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted it (05:08, 22 July 2008) at Village pump (technical).
 * It has been archived, with additional commentary, at Village pump (technical)/Archive 42. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikifying vs. overlinking
Hi, I noticed in an article that you added several dozen Wiki links, giving as a reason "wikifying". You've been with Wiki for a long time, so perhaps you aren't aware of recent style guidelines in WP:CONTEXT? These encourage editors not to make links which are dates and common English words. Cheers! 24.130.13.180 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Which article was it?  What are some examples of my overlinking?
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
We've both been here a loong time, yet not run into each other. I wondered if your username was inspired by Van Morrison, like mine is. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bioinitiative report
Adding links or references to this report has been discussed several times on several articles, including the now deleted article "Bioinitiative report", and each time the discussion ended with consensus to remove the link for several reasons, mostly to do with it not meeting WP:RS. Thanks, Verbal   chat  08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. All the best, Verbal   chat  14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Orienteering
Hi. In the past you have contributed to Orienteering, so you might like to know the article is getting a makeover. If you would like to help, please see Talk:Orienteering. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)