User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive 4

AfD nomination of Neologism (disambiguation)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Neologism (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Neologism (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW
It's not actually necessary to individually sign every separate paragraph in a talk page message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rocket deaths
Please do not re-add "Around 2% of the orbital spaceflights of Soyuz and Shuttle have historically lead to death of their crews" or similar verbiage to Rocket without citing a reliable source. One can probably be found, but please don't re-add until one is found and cited. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Already done. I'm finding it hard to consider your edits are in good faith to be honest.- Wolfkeeper  15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that you were adding the source as I was writing. Either way, the source is there now, though I had to rewrite the passage to better match the source.  Otherwise, based on your contributions, you've been on Wikipedia for about a year longer than I have.  I have to believe that you know better than to add material without citing a reliable source.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The source is being euphemistic. The deaths per person flight is 2% rounded to the nearest percentage point (Soyuz is slightly better, Shuttle is slightly worse).- Wolfkeeper  15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can 'correct' it again, but I'll just find another source as well, anybody can divide the deaths into the number of person flights. The death rate is 2% on average per flight.- Wolfkeeper  15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flight (fiction)


The article Flight (fiction) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Electrical length
Can I ask why you have turned Electrical length into a dab page? You moved the original material to Electrical length (transmission medium) and Electrical length (antenna). In my view both articles refer to the same subject and have the same meaning, not two different meanings. It is just that one is as applied to transmission lines and the other is applied to antennae elements. It would be better to have one article on electrical length, and then go on to say that this is used to characterise 1.transmission lines and 2.antennae elements rather than two even shorter stubs. I also note that the original source of the article, Federal Standard 1037C, treats both on the same page, indicating they also group them together.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  20:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tu-160
Deleted my rant.

Sorry. My big mouth.--ospalh (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tickets available?
For a ride on ths gravy train. The was the very 1st source of information available regardarding this topic. I would keep it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.214.140 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, there's not a central topic in that article. Encyclopedia articles are always on one thing, not multiple.- Wolfkeeper  17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Really like your input on the circular Halbachs page - - did you compose that wikipedia page ? - - please tell me what is your experience with magnet arrays ?

ssarbot@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.252.107 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that much of the material, I mainly edited it. I contributed a few FEM outputs.- Wolfkeeper  03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've built some linear arrays, they're actually quite simple to build if you know a couple of tricks, otherwise they're very fiddly.- Wolfkeeper  03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Planet Killer AFD
Please explain your decision to remove Planet Killer from AFD nominations. I am aware that it was nominated by PROD previously - and in open defiance of logic it came through that process intact. Since then, I believe the quality of the article has actually gotten worse, not better. The article describes a trivial idea. A planet killer is that which kills a planet. The article has just become a stopping point for people to drop references to their favorite sci-fi stories that include one. Zaku kai (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't do the process properly. You added a previously existing AFD that had already been voted keep to the list.


 * You need to add  2nd  to the top of planet killers and follow its instructions carefully.- Wolfkeeper  16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Thanks for your comments at Articles for deletion/Jihobbyist. I've made changes to the article accordingly. Please let me know if you believe they are short of the mark.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of historic inventions
What's your opinion of the Russian patriot's additions to this list? Mdw0 (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at a couple of them earlier. They seemed broadly OK, but they seemed to need more referencing.- Wolfkeeper 05:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll say. To me, allowing additions like this diminshes the meaning of historic and swamps the well referenced items that are here. You know, I'm thinking it would be interesting to have a top 100 historic inventions. 08:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've suggested a renaming of the article back to Timeline of Inventions because our collective ability to maintain a historic list is non-existant, mostly because of varied opinions on what is historic or important, and as you know trying to base a Wikipedia article on opinion is highly problematic. There was also a suggestion to put the most significant items in bold. I'd appreciate your opinion on this. Mdw0 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-replicating machine
Please provide a third-party source. A book made by the author making the claim is not reliable, and shouldn't be used.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what exactly are you claiming is unsourced?- Wolfkeeper 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only one thing that you have added to that article. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, as I have reverted your change twice now.


 * But to be clear, your claim that Von built a universal constructor. The source you added is his own book, and that just doesn't fly with that kind of claim.  A third party source needs to exist for that claim to stand within wikipedia.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't understand my point at all, and his book would probably be considered a reliable source, it is a published work, and he would at least know what he did and didn't do. On closer examination though he didn't appear to have completed the construction, so I guess you're right, but your attitude leaves a lot to be desired though, and I flat-out disagree with your sourcing requirements.- Wolfkeeper 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What attitude? It seems you're the one that has an attitude problem, claiming I didn't understand your 'point' when you never made one in the first place; you asked me what I was claiming was unsourced, when you clearly understood given your edits to the article.  I have been polite with you, the least you could do is return the favor.  Please be civil with me, as I have been with you.  Lastly, they are not 'my requirements', they are wikipedia's.  Go have a read of WP:RS, which I'm sure you are quite well aware of given how long you've been here; it clearly states that self-published sources cannot be used for claims.  I've run into this same problem before on this exact article, with a sockpuppet.  The sock claimed that they had invented a self-replicating machine, and was trying to use that claim, through his website, and a patent, to get mentioned in the article.  You could claim that 'he knows what he invented', but the cold hard fact is that we have no way to verify that unless it is published by a third-party source.  There is a reason these policies are in place.  Being well-known doesn't mean one(Von Neumann) can just skirt around them.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You still seem to have the wrong end of the stick here. A self-published source is a source where the author pays all the costs for publication. I really, really doubt that that's what happened with this author; he would have been paid by the publisher a retainer and the publisher would have had the ability to fact check and perform editorial functions on the work.- Wolfkeeper 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thank you for explaining things specifically.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Refusal
Hi Wolfkeeper, just an FYI that I moved the horse refusal again to Refusal (horse), mostly because this is the only type of horse refusal and it makes for a simpler wikilink. Also, WPEQ is trying (sort of, we only have a couple thousand articles) to keep the parentheticals simple. Anyway, my point is that I think I also will be able to fix most of the links to avoid a double redirect, but if you want to double-check me, I'd be grateful. I also tweaked the disambig because refusals occur in other equestrian disciplines then just the jumping ones (a non-jumping example is Trail (horse show) Thanks!  Montanabw (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Refusal
Hi Wolfkeeper, just an FYI that I moved the horse refusal again to Refusal (horse), mostly because this is the only type of horse refusal and it makes for a simpler wikilink. Also, WPEQ is trying (sort of, we only have a couple thousand articles) to keep the parentheticals simple. Anyway, my point is that I think I also will be able to fix most of the links to avoid a double redirect, but if you want to double-check me, I'd be grateful. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK np, I checked the linkeds and there were 3 you hadn't changed, but I did them for you, so that now should be OK. Tx!- Wolfkeeper 05:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary
Please check out Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to help. I guess people just don't get the concept of "not a dictionary." Or else I'm missing something. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They seriously don't.- Wolfkeeper 16:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate your argument, and many of those arguing against you were specious to say the least, but the answer here is to write the article properly with respect to the title rather than deletion. Mdw0 (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at it reasonably carefully, and in this particular case it doesn't seem to be possible to do that; 'lady' is simply a word attached to certain classes of women. I guess the article needs to merge, possibly with lord. Either way there should be no article at lady, just a redirect.- Wolfkeeper 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that suggesting other people do work on a particular article is a sign of weakness, but surely there's a history of the use of the title, and surely there are enough famous people with the title to make a decent article. Obviously you'd cut out everything that was already there. Its a freebie onto the main page for expansion. Maybe I'll put something together. Mdw0 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your remarks at ANI
Regarding your remarks here, I just wanted to note that I could not agree with you more. As soon as the rescue squad template is added to an article that I either nominated for deletion (which is rare) or !voted in (whether keep or delete), I cringe knowing what will follow. This is unfortunate because I think the idea of the ARS is a good one, but in practice it just leads to glorified canvassing and enough weak 'keep' rationales to muddy the waters, generally resulting in a 'no concensus' close. I fail to understand why this is allowed to continue, but quite honestly I don't have the fortitude to fight it. I cannot imagine that anyone would endorse an "article deletion squad" that would be allowed to template articles currently at AfD in order to effect the outcome of the debate, so why is the converse considered acceptable? It's very frustrating. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, not such a bad idea, ADS. Sounds good. ;-)


 * But really these kinds of things turn into inclusionist/deletionist bandwagons too easily. We need to damp the ARS down a bit, emphasise the fact that they're not supposed to try to keep articles that don't have any substantial references behind them.- Wolfkeeper 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The intent of the project should be to improve an ARS templated article, when possible, in order to ensure it meets criteria for inclusion so that those involved in the AfD are able to better determine whether the article should be kept or deleted. Instead it's just acting as a call to arms for keep votes. I should note that I don't want to paint all members of the ARS with the same brush, it's just that the more vocal members overshadow any good the project can achieve. Anyway, thanks for letting me rant a little on your talk page. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Jclemens. talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Olympus engines
Hi Wolfkeeper,

I see you disagree with me about the efficiency of Olympus jet engines, so I'll explain my reasoning to you here. I think we disagree because we're using the word "efficiency" differently. Because it had such a high pressure ratio, you state that it's more efficient. But because the word is used in the context of fuel consumption, I would counter that fuel usage is the appropriate sense. By raw specific fuel consumption, the Snecma is clearly inefficient (1.195 lb/lbf*hr compared to 0.5 or 0.6 for transonic turbofans), but that's not fair since the airplane flies so fast. So, using the method mentioned in Thrust_specific_fuel_consumption, take SFC / Mach, and get about 0.598 for a ratio. Compare to the SR-71 J-58 engine, at 1.9 lb/lbf*hr and Mach 3.2, and get 0.594, pretty much identical efficiency, if not a little better (lower consumption being more efficient). That's why I'm saying the Olympus engines can't lay claim to being the most efficient jet engine, since the contemporary J-58 was right there with it. 68.102.7.94 (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote that bit also. Unless you have a new number from somewhere the numbers are worse for all of the other engines that I checked, including SR-71's JP-58, and the source says that Concorde's has the best efficiency. You would expect it to be the best anyway; the Concorde engineers sweated blood over this aircraft, whereas the Sr-71 engineers knocked it out relatively quickly- they weren't quite so bothered with range issues.- Wolfkeeper 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Concorde actually flew at Mach 2.05, I suspect you used Mach 2. To be strictly accurate you have to use the ground speed anyway.- Wolfkeeper 14:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that there's not a lot in it, the TU-144 wasn't far behind either.- Wolfkeeper 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New article
Wolf, I just found Internal Propulsion, an article created today by User:IntProp, a curious name. There isn't much comtent in the article. I really can't tell what it's supposed to be about. though it seems to be some kind of theoretical spacecraft propulsion concept. Could you take a look? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just about somebody misunderstanding physics.- Wolfkeeper 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's what I thought, but Physics is not my field of study. I figured you'd know. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy
This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

UK / Britain
The question of calling the UK 'Britain' is covered in the FAQ on Talk:United Kingdom. William Avery (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, then it should have been refd.- Wolfkeeper 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists (television)
proj

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC) (Using )

Jet engine, Turbofan, Turbojet, and Components of jet engines
Hi Wolfkeeper, I wanted to drop you a note about these articles because I know you keep an eye on them and I wanted your to hear your thoughts. I am of the opinion that these articles are in a pretty poor state and really should be improved. It's a big task, and one step towards improving them, I believe, is better organization within the articles. Currently a lot of material is repeated between the jet engine, turbofan, and turbojet articles. I think a lot of that material can be covered in the "root" jet engine article and the potentially more detailed "Components of jet engines" article. That would leave the turbofan and turbojet articles to discuss the particulars about those specific varieties. Any thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's tricky. I think that the root jet engine needs to be very, very general. Although it's too short, I'm liking the French Wikipedia's style. IRC the Encyclopedia Britannica is closer to where our jet engine article is. The German wiki article is featured, but it's not general.- Wolfkeeper 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if we get the jet engine right, then we can fit the other articles in around it.- Wolfkeeper 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like the following articles/subarticles:


 * jet engine
 * airbreathing (duct) jet engine (new article covers squish-bam-whoosh stuff)
 * turbojet
 * turbofan
 * ramjet
 * scramjet
 * etc.
 * components of airbreathing jet engines
 * rocket engine
 * water jet
 * Yeah, that seems to make sense. I believe the Gas turbine article with have any of the same sections as well. I really feel like the root Jet engine article should really be an overview with nearly every section having a Main article ... link in it. Additionally, it would be nice to have a few references in there... If you're interested/willing to pursue this more with me, I'll bring it up at the aero-engine task force and see if we can get broader consensus before working on things. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just decided to be bold and just do it. It seems a bit more sane. jet engine seems a bit overspecific right now though.- Wolfkeeper 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I'm getting to work cleaning up somethings there as well. I also think the new Airbreathing jet engine article needs to be narrowed... I think it should basically explain the difference between gas turbines, ram powered, and pulse powered jet engines, and then have links to the proper article. Most of the content there applies specifically to Gas turbines, and I think Gas turbine is the proper place for it. I'm going to leave a not on the WP:AETF page, and I think we should continue any discussion there so we get more eyes on it. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably, more or less, we can keep a lot of the details about gas turbines in gas turbine, bu the difference between turbojet and turbofan seems to be more important. But even so, it's not a total slamdunk, I think that roughly understanding how gas turbines work is probably fairly important to how turbofans work.- Wolfkeeper 18:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Wolf -- Will you please read my edit summaries and discuss the issue on the talk page like I asked, before deleting content from the article? Here is a link to the relevant talk page section. Thanks. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Keen
I added a talk page discussion about the Colbert Report bit. Please join in! Steven Walling 18:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Power density
Hello. Regarding the article Power density the article looked like this (diff here) before User:Kku started making changes (that did not make sense). If I remember correctly it was mostly Public Domain material from OSHA. Do you have any misgivings about restoring the article back to the way it was before User:Kku added material to the article? In any case your current stub article does cover the topic. Also you have more knowledge about this than I do, so I will defer to your decision. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think it's better to keep the power/volume and power/area in different articles, because they are logically different, even though people often call them by the same name. The material is now at Surface power density and seems very good material.- Wolfkeeper 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal
This edit is out of line. Regarding this edit, which the former appears to relate to, it depends on the interpretation of "treat". If it's used to mean "cure or help", then yes, homeopathy claims to treat conditions, but if it refers only to literal application, then yes, it literally "treats" conditions (like "treating" a third-degree burn with chocolate syrup- doesn't do a damn thing). -- King Öomie 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Treat never means cure or help, it only means you've applied something, with some kind of intention (usually to help, but sometimes to harm). If somebody claimed to treat something, unless they were lying about their intentions, then they didn't claim to treat, they did treat. This word implies a deliberate accusation of bad faith to essentially all homeopaths.- Wolfkeeper 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I (and my dictionary) have to respectfully disagree.

treat (trt)

v. treat·ed, treat·ing, treats

v.tr.  1. To act or behave in a specified manner toward.

2. To regard and handle in a certain way. Often used with as: treated the matter as a joke.

3. To deal with in writing or speech; discuss: a book that treats all aspects of health care.

4. To deal with or represent artistically in a specified manner or style: treats the subject poetically.

5.
 * a. To provide with food, entertainment, or gifts at one's own expense: treated her sister to the theater.


 * b. To give (someone or oneself) something pleasurable: treated herself to a day in the country.

6. To subject to a process, action, or change, especially to a chemical or physical process or application.

7.
 * a. To give medical aid to (someone): treated many patients in the emergency room.


 * b. To give medical aid to counteract (a disease or condition): treated malaria with quinine.

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


 * -- King Öomie 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But perhaps the argument can be avoided altogether by changing the language to "X thing claims to CURE X condition". I don't mean to disparage supporters of homeopathy, but I don't intend to allow the article to present any of it as actual medicine. If I say "Bandages treat wounds", people assume that's an accurate statement. The same language shouldn't be used for quackery, ie "Moonbeams treat headaches".  -- King Öomie  17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The word means what the word means, not what you think it 'shouldn't be used for'.- Wolfkeeper 00:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll note that the word 'cure' nor anything like it appears in the dictionary entry for that word. That's because it doesn't mean that.- Wolfkeeper 00:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Could both you and Verbal please cool it over at Homeopathy? There is plenty of talk, and it really does not matter all that much which version is up while we work out a compromise. Preferably one that uses neither formulation, as treat might be ambiguous and claims to treat is clunky, but that is just my opinion. If I recall correctly, exactly this issue has been discussed in the archives - it might be worth seeing what arguments people have made in the past. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He's acting like a total idiot, and he's trying to own the article. He's incapable of understanding English, and he's apparently trying to run the Wikipedia like an experiment in democracy. Articles are not based on simple votes about who likes what the best on the talk page. Period. They're supposed to be based on what you can reference.- Wolfkeeper 00:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

striking
Somrtiimes we say things that are a bit uncivil and best is if we go back and strike the comments as in withdraw them.. imo .. you would do well to strike this from User Verbal's talkpage ..

Frankly, 'editors' like you make me sick.

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Spaceflight
Hello. Interwiki-conflict and incorrect interwiki are in this category. Majority links lead up to Category:Space technology. I have deleted their and left correct. Der russische Patriot (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless there's better links, it's probably best to leave them; interwiki links aren't precise.- Wolfkeeper 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see pages in other language sections and try to return through english-interwiki link there. You will get page Category:Space technology, therefore it is necessary to correct. Der russische Patriot (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Slam dunk

 * "Answer the fucking question" is far from civil, and repeating it is plainly an attempt to offend. Please strike this, and please don't repeat this kind of hostility towards others. It's really not necessary and only makes editing articles more difficult. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So's being evasive and repeatedly copying phrases into talk and making wild accusations that I don't know what simple phrases mean. And he's trying to force through a wikiality under the guise of consensus. But it's a fake consensus, the guys involved have just been trolling and ganging up on me; they've been more or less wikihounding me for months.- Wolfkeeper 21:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not worth getting this wound up about, surely?! I know the separate topic rule is worthwhile (e.g. I split and removed unrelated content from Whale tail, and that was a "good article"!), but because the phrase "slam dunk" did originate from the basketball move a small mention doesn't seem that harmful to me. I'd have thought moving the discussion of it to List of sports idioms and clearly linking there from the lead (which already mentions it) was the best option. Has that been suggested? Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup. That was exactly what I suggested, in fact I even did exactly that... counted backwards... ten, nine, eight... oh it's reverted.- Wolfkeeper 03:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I don't have any problem with a mention, but a whole section isn't a mention. There's a difference between a mention and covering it.- Wolfkeeper 03:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When I first saw your edit, I thought it was a potentially great idea, that might be agreeable by all.
 * If you had merged the content, I might have immediately expressed support. However, you just deleted it, so I waited, to think about it some more, and somebody else reverted you.


 * For the record, July 28 (4 days ago) was the first time that possibility was ever raised. Prior to that, for the last 10 months, you had been deleting all the content, every single time:, , , , , (random incomplete list of examples, back to November).
 * Your early November comment in the Talk:Slam dunk thread clearly says, "You can mention it in the see also if you want, but you can't cover it here." A more recent comment (july 7) says "If it was something like Bread which has a one sentence mention of 'best thing since sliced bread', then maybe. But an entire section and including a specific reference in the intro? Nahhhhhh."


 * So, I thought about it for two days, and then made the long reply on August 1, full of examples, that is currently at the end of Talk:Slam dunk. Then later, I read the long comment at words/ideas vs. things. For the reasons expressed in those 2 threads, and for the Featured article criteria (1b) "Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and the point in WP:PERFECT about "Is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.", I do not currently believe the phrase information should be removed from the Slam dunk article. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those aren't even guidelines or polices, they're just advice for writing FA articles, and your interpretation is directly opposed by the actual guidelines and policies.- Wolfkeeper 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a problem of your values. Your values and those of encyclopedias are not well aligned. This is why you have to dig around to try to justify things so much.


 * I see this kind of thing as far worse than simply creating an article on a phrase. Articles on the meanings of phrases probably aren't desirable, but they're far more desirable than merging them into another article on a different topic.


 * If you create an encyclopedia article on each individual meaning of each and every word/phrase in a dictionary, then really, that's just a encyclopedic dictionary laid out differently.


 * No, the point of encyclopedias is to merge synonyms together because that means you can cover the commonalities, and differences in one place. That's the encyclopedic style.


 * Here you're merging a homograph, that's so very dictionary-like.- Wolfkeeper 00:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific impulse: "but I knew you'd figure it out"
I'm glad I did, I hate edit wars. :) Dave3457 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jet engine
Hey Wolf -- I was wondering if you would be willing to clean up brief rocket explaination in that section of the jet engine article. I'm more of a air breathing guy than a rocket guy. I can do it myself if you'd prefer, but I figure you might be a better bet.

And, while on the subject, I think that section could do without the math... we've got that physics principles section below it anyway. Agree/disagree? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Flight (fiction) nominated for afd
Hi Wolfkeeper, I've noticed that this stub which you created is still extant, unreferenced, and undistinguished from existing articles. There was a PROD removed from the article based on the claim that it could be referenced, but it has not been. More importantly, however, I think that it's not a suitable topic for an article. I'm not sure what content you initially removed from Flight to separate this topic, but that might shed some light on the afd discussion. Feeeshboy (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Heterogeneous
Hi, now that Heterogeneous is a disambiguation page, could you clean up the links that now point to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 10:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring against consensus on Policy pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: These 8 edits, are probably what need to be explained.
 * HTH, I'm only posting this because I think your latest unblock request is probably not what they're wanting from you (ie, something conciliatory). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a bad block. I simply haven't done 3 reverts in 24 hours, and while you can be blocked for less than that the edit I was apparently blocked on wasn't even a revert according to the 3rr policy. A revert is when you return the page to an earlier state. This wasn't such an edit, it was considerably different. It's also significant that SarekofVulcan reverted the edit, that means he used his administrative powers as well as his editing in a particular situation. He can only do one or the other. SarekofVulcan is clearly well out of order, and this is going to have to come up on ANI. People have lost their adminstrator bits for this kind of thing.- Wolfkeeper 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit warring isn't limited to 3 reverts spaced over 24 hours each, and neither is a revert strictly defined as a specific restoration of an earlier version of a page. It is also defined as an action which reverses the actions of other editors in whole or in part.  Please see WP:REVERT.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In case I wasn't clear above, 3rr isn't strictly limited by time; it's a bright line rule. Slow edit warring, like what you were doing, still violates the policy.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that, but the final edit I was apparently blocked for was different to the previous edits. And I don't buy this 'slow edit warring' theory. On that basis I would never be allowed to edit any page more than once, and even a single edit can count as 3RR. Which is ridiculous, we expect a bit of give and take. And the other really, really, really bad thing is that the person edit warring me was actually Sarek, he was the one doing most of the reverts. And then he blocked me. He's not allowed to do that. Otherwise he can pop up on any of my edits anywhere in the Wikipedia and revert me and then block me, which is actually what he did here. He can't deliberately make an edit war with me and then block me, people have lost their administrator bits for less than that before.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

<-- Wolf, you referenced an RFC. Where was that? Dloh cierekim  02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarek. Don't agree with Wolf's interpretation, I'm afraid. Dloh  cierekim  02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK, you can ban anyone you disagree with, because you're an administrator!!!! That's right isn't it? And if an administrator breaks the rules, as here, nothings happens. If a user doesn't actually break any rule, then they get banned! I wasn't actually 3RR, I had not been warned on this page, and I was edit warred and then banned by an admin. How is that not corrupt?- Wolfkeeper 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of 3RR is that it's supposed to damp out changes to pages, not that it's supposed to allow admins to chose the 'right' version. I was not rapidly editing pages, making changes to pages is the normal way consensus forms. This slow edit warring idea is a heap of shit.- Wolfkeeper 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Word articles

 * Sarek wrote "Policy pages", and never mentioned 3RR, so presumably the block was also for the editing at Consensus and What Wikipedia is not. Sorry, but there it is. (being rude to everyone for the last 3 days, in talkpages and editsummaries, probably didn't help).
 * One positive step, might be to make an honest attempt at getting back to the actual discussion topic, in a polite way. E.g. I left you a long answer at WT:NOTDIC, that I'm still interested in your thoughts on. Really!
 * The reality is that many editors agree with each other, about something to do with "notable words", and they're probably not all idiots! It takes a courageous person to stick to their beliefs, but it takes an even more courageous person to admit that perhaps their beliefs, were only opinions..
 * My gums hurt like heck (not quite at hell-scape levels). First cavity-fillings in my life, today. So take everything I write today with a grain of salt. And floss regularly. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's probably no way to define what notable means in this context. The Encyclopedia Britannica actually has very few words in it. Apart from any logical/encyclopedic reasons for it, they don't want to write the same topic multiple times in different languages, so they translate the encyclopedia from English into multiple languages. Clearly any content that doesn't translate would be a significant problem for them, so they deliberately avoid non translatable articles which rules out articles written to describe multiple meanings of words. That also means they have little lexicography, except in linguistic articles.


 * I had a look at your table, and the big problem with it is that it concentrates on knowledge and information; the difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries are largely to do with presentation and organization (depth will vary between particular reference works so it's not an inherent difference, but is nearly always deeper in encyclopedias). By arranging the information in encyclopedic form it becomes portable between languages, because concepts are far, far more general than words.


 * So saying that an article can be about a word should be totally wrong. At most it should be about a meaning of a word, otherwise taken to its logical conclusion it's just an essay-style dictionary entry (which actually many people are quite happy with for many articles, but taken to the logical conclusion everywhere in the wiki you to end up with the wikipedia being an essay style dictionary instead of an encyclopedia). I mean, if the topic is the word, then the article has to cover all aspects of that word, which will include every meaning. So if we take the meaning but even then... one article per meaning, if taken to its logical conclusion turns back into a dictionary but with an entry per definition/usage rather than an entry per word, but it comes to the same thing, you're just laying it out very slightly differently, but it's exactly the same- you end up with an encyclopedic dictionary in fact.


 * So you don't really have much choice. Articles on words, if allowed, and if taken to the logical conclusion ends up with badness; it's no longer an encyclopedia, it's either a dictionary or an encyclopedic dictionary. Or a mixture... I'll come to that in a minute.


 * And I think we have to assume that the Wikipedia, over time, is very definitely going to take everything to its absolute logical conclusion, people will just keep adding and polishing and growing until each article covers the topic, and probably then some more on top. There doesn't seem to be an end point.


 * Mixing things... that's what people are trying to do, but if you try to do a mix it doesn't work out well at all. The issues are that the content has to go somewhere, and it groups more easily conceptually than by word... but then you've got both going on so where do you draw the line between word and thing??? You just don't know. Does most of the stuff about salad go in rocket or under eruca sativa, or both, or elsewhere? You could try to come up with some arbitrary scheme and put cross references everywhere, but then it's arbitrary. In an encyclopedia you do sometimes get this problem a bit, but it's much, much easier to know where to put things. As I understand it, encyclopedias were invented to solve this exact problem in fact. By grouping things by logical conceptual type, the organisational sorting is much more stable.


 * I think that people must have tried to expand dictionaries and just failed. You end up with loads of content forks or you end up not knowing what the right place is. This is also why general-purpose encyclopedic dictionaries if you've ever read one are a bit clumsy. They're sort of better than a dictionary, but you keep getting sent off to other articles (synonyms in particular are very problematic).


 * So an Encyclopedia cum dictionary cum encyclopedic dictionary really doesn't hang together. You have to pick one but then you're a rules nazi and everyone hates you. :-)


 * But 5P is clear, it says that the wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Benoit says that encyclopedia articles are translatable, and translatable rules out word articles really pretty much, there might be the odd one that survives translation into any language, but that's going to be rare indeed.


 * And, unfortunately that's also the problem with favorite stuff, lexicography, in encyclopedia articles, as it refers to the words, so the words don't translate ;-(. Dictionaries/encyclopedic dictionaries do include lexicography though.


 * I honestly don't really see any way out. The best thing is just to keep dictionaries and encyclopedia completely separate in different wikis and link between them. I did wonder whether the wikis could be merged, with different articles for words than encyclopedia articles, but it doesn't seem to help, the policies need to be completely different and we can already link between the two (with a few minor issues with soft redirects that hopefully the system guys will sort out eventually). I also wondered whether doing stuff like sticking (word) on the end like football (word) had mileage, but again you end up with duplicating the Wiktionaries policies, and they have problems as well with their policies that are, if anything, worse than the Wikipedia's.- Wolfkeeper 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy issues are probably also why we don't have any FA quality word articles; they automagically fail a whole slew of encyclopedic policies!- Wolfkeeper 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a look at feeeeshboys stuff but he's not understood the primary points at all, it's about how things are laid out, the mapping to words is still there in encyclopedia, but the information is arranged by concept, not word. And in an encyclopedia even a thing, is really a concept. The article London is about the idea of the place called London, which hopefully has relationships to the real stuff on the ground. It's not about the word London.- Wolfkeeper 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Brief comments, more in the morning:
 * Has the Encyclopedia Britannica ever been "translated"? Pointers, please.


 * There's spanish and french language versions on their website.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the example articles listed at the main rfc, have interwiki links, and some have many: E.g. Fourth Estate, American (word), Craic, Fuck, Negro, Nigger, Secularity, Thou, Akata, Chemistry (etymology), Cunt, Grok, History of the term Vlach, Humbug, Idle, Infidel, Jew (word), Man (word), Milord, No (word), Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Yankee.
 * Negro and Niger are synonyms. Thou is a pronoun, none of the pronouns should have their own articles in a proper encyclopedia. American (word) is good example of a problematic article, there almost certainly should be an article at American (which is after all a noun) that covers the idea of things belonging to the American continent. If you do that then the American (word) article probably merges into it.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could separate and clarify your arguments (perhaps in the table), that might help clarify the disagreement. – Currently the majority of your information above, seems to hinge upon the single sentence written by Bejoint. – However you also briefly touch upon the rocket/rocket point again (here, I think you're using a very confusing example, as nobody has ever suggested that the word rocket[ship] is in any way connected to the Eruca sativa plant's common name. (Have they?) The words have different etymologies given in wiktionary: rocca vs eruca).
 * They both have the same word root I think, I think Eruca Sativa grows quickly, and there's been a long etymological association of rocket with speed. I'm pretty sure that eruca is corruption of rocca, it's very suspicious, I think they're word fossils. People think that rockets are a new thing, but they're 800 years old.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More in the morning. (Note for observers: The table Wolfkeeper is referring to is here and was mentioned by me at ANI) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)