Jump to content

User talk:Splash/Archive3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Splash

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Splash (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 31 August 2005 (→subst:vfd: ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005

Adminship

Hey, Splash. Are you an adm. If not, I'd be glad to nominate you - so long as it doesn't end up like the last one I nominated. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same myself, since it seems you're doing the same thing I am of closing Keep VfD's for fun and amusement. It's annoying too cause for some reason it's not showing me some of your closes, so I'll go and add the tags then update it and bam you'd beat me to it ten minutes ago. Carry on. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny. I was thinking this same thing quite recently. You've struck me as the sort of emininently reasonable, Func or Essjay-style user who ought to be an Admin. The Literate Engineer 07:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even funnier, I was also recently thinking the same thing. I saw your note on The Literate Engineer's talk page. I can understand why you might want to hold off for a few more weeks, but when you do decide to take the plunge, please let me know. I don't always watch RfA, and I don't want to miss a chance to add my support vote. I've been really impressed with what I've seen. Joyous (talk) 19:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would definitely vote support and write something compelling to go with it ;). Fernando Rizo T/C 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrature amplitude modulation

May I ask how the circular presentation of the signal constellation for QAM is derived? I have not seen that before and would like to learn more about it. For M-ary QAM systems, the signal constellations I've seen are usually presented in a linear manner, so I was quite pleased to see it being displayed in a more symmetrical manner. I am also thinking of starting a WikiProject on digital communication systems. Do you think you would be interested in helping out? --HappyCamper 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your thorough response! If I get around to setting up the WikiProject I will let you know. After more reading, I realized that the circular versions of QAM are optimized so that the energy is minimized. Let me do some reading and see if I'm able to find the typical basis functions for those signals. See you around! --HappyCamper 00:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got around to starting something here...take a look if you like! Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital Communication Systems]] --HappyCamper 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I also saw your note about frequency spectrum and the DTFT. I'm almost inclined to say 100% yes, but it would be very difficult to distinguish the two. So many of these technical terms are aliases for others...For me, DTFT is a very specific manner of extrating the frequency domain representation of a signal, whereas "frequency spectrum" does not necessarily involve DTFT. --HappyCamper 15:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards, TenChiJin

If you have an interest in reading...

Regarding Tony Sidawy: User_talk:Theresa_knott#Prodigal_returns...

London, Ontario

Hello Splash, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article London, Ontario. There is an anon user who keeps removing an entry under "Notable Londoners" Bill Brady. His reasoning for doing so is very weak and I have provided what I feel is adequite proof on that articles talk page to back up his notability. If you would kindly take a few minutes to intervene and perhaps leave a comment on that page? I will look here for a response so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 21:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left somewhat of an essay (or two) on the article's talk page. The 3RR may or may not need to be deployed if an edit war ensues. It's worth remembering that page-protection should not be necessary over a single bullet point, and anyway will result in protection to The Wrong Version. -Splash 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've left my comment on that page as well, but I must mention that the anon seems to have a personal axe to grind regarding Bill Brady. London is a smallish city and its possible the anon has had personal dealings of some kind with Brady. Oh BTW Brady's been in London since the '50's actually, not the 70's. The other stations mentioned in his bio are or were affiliates. He is one of the most recognizable personalities not only in London but the entire region. For contrast see Roy McDonald, basically a London hobo-poet, with really smelly clothes. Hes also included in the Notable Londoners section. I wouldn't dream of putting it up for VfD however, he's notable in that every person who ever seen him here in town knows who he is. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 01:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder why the anon is quite so determined over a minor issue. Hopefully they can be persuaded that is, in fact, minor and that they can live with it, as long as the link to London is good enough. Given your answer above, it would appear to be. Maybe the ad-hoc review I gave the article might encourage the anon to contribute to the article in other ways too, and put the bulleted list into persepective. -Splash 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again I appreciate your balanced comments. Please see Bill Brady and if you could, restore the bullet concerning him at London article. I'm not even particularly a big fan of radio talk shows, and I've barely ever read his regular news column, but I really feel that the anons constant removal of his entry goes against what this encyclopedia is about. It would bother me to capitulate, and I hesitate to restore it myself at risk of being blocked. I hate to think that I would wreck a perfect record and risk getting a bad rep for fighting what is essentially at this point (IMO) a vandal. They have offered no real explaination for his actions other than the personal opinion that Brady might be a nice person etc etc. but not notable. I feel his notabilty, in the context of the London article has been established. Thanks again for your time and consideration in this rather silly matter! Hamster Sandwich 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blind reverting despite my warning to stop is beginning to look like a case of advocacy. The changing IPs make a 3RR block difficult, and WP:AN/3 responds so slowly most of the time, that I'm not sure it could usefully deal with the issue. Might be worth a try. I'm a touch concerned at forming an effective 'revert-team' since this has been admonished against by ArbCom. But I'll put it back in at least once.
    • There are two alternative solutions
      1. Give it a week i.e. starve him; Anon response: this is impossible, see my Viet Cong comment on discussion of article
      2. Make the list into a category. -Splash 20:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like a good plan. The fact that you didn't put Bill Brady up for VfD bodes well, I suppose! Thanks again for your help and input here. Theres three or four admins that I seem to be learning the most from, and you have consistantly been one of the best. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 20:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Splash, you left a signature on that Bill Brady bullet in the article. I don't want to touch it till another few hours goes by! :-) Hamster Sandwich 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. -Splash 23:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bill Brady, I was going to fill that article with as much hyperbole as I could muster, but decided to reign it in a lil bit. Thanks for the edit there! Hamster Sandwich 23:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm certain that would survive a VfD. -Splash 23:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon: Splash here is a potential compromise which maybe you'll have some success suggesting to HS: now that Brady has a his own entry he does not need to be listed under notable people for London, and his individual entry will be allowed to stay, free from interference or deletion.

Splash I'm feeling ganged up on here, there is one user HS which is intent on keeping him there, for what I'd say are reasons other than the merits of Brady being notable. There is you, who have sided with him, and there is one other user, Adam Bishop that has repeatedly stated he doesn't care either way but keeps reverting me anyways. My point is that this more or less is one person verus another, and I don't think that the "consenus" that's developed is really based on the facts. Brady simply isn't notable, he has been part of some organizations, but has not acheivement to speak of that's notable. AND THAT MATTERS! That's why someone gets listed as notable. Being a good person is not the same as being notable. To permit his entry is to waterdown the entire category.

Hey, anon. First, I'm duty bound to encourage to get an account; it makes life easier for everyone. I will take your suggestion to the talk page of the article (rather than HS specifically), but I am not sure that it will gather too much support: if anything, having an article is a stronger reason than before for inclusion in the list. I'm not clear on why you are so determined to see Brady, and no others, removed?
In general, though, I think that list is too long to stay in the article, particularly if it is seeking featured article status. Several of the lists might have to either be pared down brutally or spun-out into seperate articles. Do you object more to the mention of Brady in London, Ontario or to any mention of him at all?
I can understand why you might feel ganged up on. But you don't help your cause by promising to revert "until you die" or viewing this as some kind of guerilla warfare. That's just not the way things are done around here, and such unwillingness to flex generally encourages corresponding unwillingness in one's opponents. The article is now protected: after something like 6 different editors reverted your changes. I think, from the talk page of the article that every other editor who has commented favours Brady's inclusion in the list: that is good enough for a consensus to include. As I already said, if the Bill Brady article were deleted, the case for mentioning him would be much diminished; but the chances of that happening are slim.

<moved from top of section>

Whoa whoa whoa, Splash given the below conversation how can you claim to be impartial? This seems conspiritorial, had I approached you with my arguements first I think you would view the matter decidely different.

The version you last reverted is now the one permanently frozen. The person below uses ad homenim attacks against me, that's below the belt! I have no personal vendetta, I don't even know who Bradly is, which by the way is part of why he doesn't deserve to be there.

I think in future you have to be cautious about wading into something like this claiming to be impartial when you are having a dialoge with one of the parties but not the other. If this is not fair please explain.

When I arrived on the talk page of the article I was impartial. I read the article and the argumentation, did a bit of looking around to check some of the claims, and came to an opinion. I do not always reach definitive opinions in such disputes, and remain neutral, but this one seemed clear to me. My opinions are not so easily influenced as for it to matter who asks me to consider a question.
The discussion over how we might proceed is not conspiracy. It is a response to your stated aim of reverting on sight indefinitely despite the talk-page discussions. If you began to take less of a hard-line I imagine the attitude of the discussions on all the talk pages would soften towards you considerably. The version now protected is, to be fair, the version that is supported by all editors on the talk page apart from you. As to the question of dialogue: well, I have talked with you on the article's talk page, so you're far from out-of-the-loop and my talk page has been available throughout. I am not able to come to you to talk as you don't have a talk page of your own: another good reason to get an account. -Splash 13:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to compromise, but in perspective this is a relatively minor issue, my only qualm is that he's listed as notable when he shouldn't be, how can that be accommodated? I have no qualms with him having his own vanity page that HS set up explicitly to make him feel good about Brady. In fact I don't mind if there are several entries detailing his non-prolific career if that makes HS happy. However on the basic point that he should be included, being the nobody that he is, it is hard to see why he should be included. Unless there is an agenda to paint London Ontario in a pathetic light where nobody's qualify as notable people. It is an insult to London.
Ok, well, an obvious compromise is to change the titling of the list to remove the assertion of notability. What would you suggest? -Splash 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, upon investigating further it turns out that everyone that has weighed in on Bill Brady aside from myself was first approached by HS. I think this is basically between two people with one having done the rounds so to speak framing the issue and getting them involved. I understand you serve in some offical capacity here, is there a higher authority to appeal to?

I don't serve in any official capacity here, no. There is nobody who does from a content point-of-view, and no final arbiter of what should or should not be in an article — that's for the community. There are higher authorities to deal with poor user behaviour, but I think you'll agree that HS hasn't exhibited that. However, a Request for Comment on an article's content can be a useful way to proceed at times — however, it is worth noting that several outside voices have already been heard and that they do not, so far, agree with you. RfC's can also be filed over poor user behvaiour — but this is a serious step to take, and would probably reflect poorly on you as a new editor. I should also gently point out that registering multiple accounts for this purpose, as would seem likely from the talk page, is not usually a good way to go. You should choose either User:Terminousbandage or User:Consensusbuilder and stick with it. Note that some user names are not preferred: I would recommend you choose User:Terminousbandage to avoid people making suppositions about you. -Splash 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash upon further reflection your suggestion that the list is too long generally is probably correct. Will you support the exclusion of Brady if it is part of a series of removals that take off the extraneous notables that are really pushing the envelope with their inclusion? As you state it will make for a stonger article that is more likely to become a featured article -consensusbuilder

Possibly. It might be better though, to spin the whole list out into a separate article. Can I just remind you to log in to your new account (which name you should change, like I said) and sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~? Thanks. -Splash 23:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash I am still getting the hang of the wiki, terminsousbandage is not me so I can't use that account. I will use this one Consensusbuilder for now, and once this Brady matter is resolved I am happy to change my name to whatever you'd prefer, in the meantime I will keep it just to keep things straight for purposes of communication if that's ok with you. Consensusbuilder

  • Terribly sorry to respond so late to your comments of the 24th, Splash. I just now noticed them there. Thanks for the advice of course, you are suggesting that I file the RfC regarding this issue? I might do that, but I've been waiting for Consensusbuilder to initiate the request for comment. I suppose at this point the London, Ontario article could be unlocked, and we can see if there is a consistant and definate effort of the editor in question to vandalize the page. Of course the other option is to pare the list down to the five or ten most notable people on the list, but who makes that determination? Me? You? Consensusbuilder? Any of the other editors? It occurs to me that we will be opening an even bigger can of worms, and not just between the editors who have been engaged in the current dispute. I still maintain that an RfC concerning this is going to offer the most equitable solution to the content dispute, is Brady's notability such that he should occupy a spot on that list. I would abide by a descision by and of the community. I have left a suggestion on the talk page there, and at the present time, there has been no response. So it remains in stasis, a highly unsuitable and undesireable state for an article that still needs some editing and expansion. I leave this with you for your consideration, and will look here for a response, if you care to make one. Such a reletively insignificant issue, occupying so much discussion has left me weary, but nonetheless resolute. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genseiryu

Hi Splash! I'm glad to see you taking an interest in this article. I have become very frustrated with the parties involved in this edit war as neither side shows any desire to compromise. I have received a lot of correspondence (mostly by email) from both sides of this argument as well as from admins at the Dutch wikipedia. I have considered attempting a rewrite of this article myself (I know nothing of karate or genseiryu). These last couple of weeks I had decided to step back, do other things, and give it another chance to resolve itself, which clearly hasn't happened. If you can find a solution I will be very pleased. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch

I'd like to ask you to re-consider your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch. I've cleaned up the page, and added another of his books. If Wikipedia lists people only on the basis of how well their books were received, it seems to me that we're crossing a rather dangerous line into reviewing rather than building an encyclopedia. -Harmil 11:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look, but I'm still not really persuaded, I'm afraid. -Splash 19:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX cinemas where there are trees near the back door

I created that, and was really disappointed to see it speedy deleted before I could even comment... :( Voyager640 19:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite funny while it lasted, though! -Splash 19:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa

Hi, I noticed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/God's Learning Channel you mentioned its Alexa traffic rank. How do you find out the Alexa traffic rank of something? Cursive 00:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stikman

Congratulations indeed. Don't forget to go and delete Stikman and it's talk page, where you closed the VfD as a delete. -Splash 00:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first VfD I closed so it took me some time while I made sure I didn't make a mistake. I was wondering whether to delete the talk page, but in the end I went through the logs and I discovered that talk pages are generally deleted. Anyway, it is good to know that I'm being watched! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category titles

Hi - Do you think it might be useful for us to talk about category titles off the "public" page a bit? I'm not suggesting I think there's a problem between us, but just want to make sure you agree (that we don't have a problem). I suspect we have a fairly fundmental disagreement (my inclination to "use what we have" vs. your "decide what we want and make it so") which I doubt we're going to be able to resolve but I don't think this means we have a problem. Anyway, if you think it might be useful to talk please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pragmatically, I'm not sure there's much difference between "x of foo", "x in foo", and even "fooish x", which I think implies we're unlikely to reach a clear consensus whether we pay attention to existing practice or not. I suspect (perhaps pessismistically) this means that the best we'll be able to do is to codify the existing de facto standards. To insist we ignore these standards (regardless of whether they reflect prior consensus or are more "organic") seems to me to eliminate a powerful tool we can use to help drive consensus. Of course, looking ahead, considering the de facto standards likely increases the chances that the people related categories will end up as "fooish x", but I think the main goal is clear, enforceable standards - not elimination of the "fooish x" category names. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You're famous!

File:ACJCameraWoman.jpg
Hold still while my secretary takes your picture

I just got back from a Las Vegas trip. I went to the Riviera and saw a show called Splash [1]. I was doing a Wikipedia search on Google (query: splash las vegas site:en.wikipedia.org), and I found your name in the Templetes for Deletion page (your name was on the Sexual Orientation template). Have you seen this show? Hbdragon88 04:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well you can't please them all, granted I liked Splash :) , but i'm weird too. I wasn't sure how you would take that pic, but figured you could always have me blocked for 5 mins ;-p if it was offensive. ∞Who?¿? 05:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of civility addition

Does it matter what number of Vfd's a nominator has to deal with if it infringes on Wikipedia:Civility. What is wrong with taking into account that not everyone has their created articles watchlisted and may not be informed...then it's possibly gone without ever having the chance to make a vote or defend the article. A quick notice by the nominator to the original creator isn't asking very much. This, of course, needn't apply to speedy delete qualified items.--MONGO 07:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your speedy response. I fully understand that it is just too cumbersome for every nominated article to also get a red flag warning sent to original or primary editors due to the reasons you cited. I wonder if in cases such as the recent nomination of WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency for deletion that since it was a project, and a very unusual nomination due to the project status, that some form of enforcement of WP:civ isn't required. I'll take your advice and toss it into the village pump, although I am sure you're right that it will get squashed. Thanks again for the clarification...have a good one.--MONGO 07:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

LaTeX tables

Can anyone help me with this? I'm trying to create a table in latex that will look like this 

    Input   Output   Formula
    -------------------------
      A        1      x = f(y)
      B        2
      C        3
    / D        4
   <| E        5
    \ F        6

(though with different stuff in the table). In particular, the main difficulty is getting a curly brace on the outside of the last three values, and also getting the inside to align well with the titles. I've tried all kinds of table nesting, but I can't work out how to do it.

Any help REALLY appreciate, thanks! Mary K 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting to create this in ordinary LaTeX or in a mixture of Wikimarkup and LaTeX? If you want it in ordinary LaTeX, then this gets close enough, as long as you have remebered to \usepackage{} as appropriate:

\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|c|c}
Input & Output & Formula\\
\hline
A & 1 & $x=f_1(y)$\\
B & 2 & $x=f_2(y)$\\
$\left\{\begin{matrix} \mathrm{C} \\ \mathrm{D} \\ \mathrm{E} \end{matrix} \right.$ & 3 & $x=f_3(y)$ \\
F & 4 & $x=f_4(y)$
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

If you don't want the vertical lines, just take them out of the curly braces on the line starting \begin{tabular}.

This won't work in the restricted version of LaTeX available in MediaWiki (doesn't LaTeX tables for a start), so if that's what you're after give me a prod on my talk page. -Splash 19:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Splash, thank you very much for your reply.
When I try using that code and running pdflatex, I get the following error:
! Missing } inserted.
<inserted text>
}
l.173 $\left\{\begin{matrix} \mathrm
{C} \\ \mathrm{D} \\ \mathrm{E} \end...
Hitting Enter has it try to add in an extra \cr, and then it seems to loop, taking it out and putting it back in again.
Has this got something to do with your comment about \usepacket{}? What packet should I use?
Thanks for your help, Mary K 10:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Category titles

I've just put together a Proposed poll question? since discussion dried up a bit. I hope that's not too presumptuous and that I covered all the points. Steve block talk 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd Electricity

To an extent, yes. However, wherever an electrical current flows there will be both an electric field and a magnetic field, so you can't have electricity without electromagnetism. Technical, irrelevant point, I know. -Splash 06:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Yea I have no problem referring it to the project, actually prefer it.
Btw, old EET, CET & CIS major (have 2 bachelors), spent plenty of years in military doing it too, but my brain is shot, so I do get things mixed, forgot, or worded induction wrong or incompletely I should say. As for Maxwell's equations, I always took them to be referring to two seperate properties, electricity & magnetism seperately, as one can happen w/o the other, but they interact as one under most conditions. But then again, I dont remember everything I should either, one of the reasons I'm 100% disabled :( Enough of that sob story though. ∞Who?¿? 01:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, don't appologize, I never made it public about what all of my expertise and experience was in, and it's definately not your fault that I have a disability. I didn't take it as patronizing, you were politely correcting my mistake, as I said, I'm not up to par due to disabilities, so, I make quite a few memory related mistakes now. Hopefully I didn't come off as rude, I was just letting you know I had a good deal of history with electricity related things :) I call some colleges and other Universities, depends on the school and what it offers, although I have been to plenty, never stayed at one fore more than 2 years, and been to plenty when I was moving around a lot, ugh.. not happy memories transferring credits. ∞Who?¿? 01:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PSK

Hi Splash! Sure, I'll take a look at PSK. Let's try and get it featured on the front page! --HappyCamper 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again! I know I'm making a significant number of changes to the article you started. If I seem a bit overbearing with my changes, please let me know and I'll tone it down or stop. Admittingly, I'm a bit enthusiastic the there's such a good article to start building on at the moment. --HappyCamper 01:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that sounds good :-) I think I'm done with the article today. I'll take another look at it tomorrow when I get a chance. I'd like to see it become a FAC too! --HappyCamper 03:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Brady

Wanna good laugh? Talk:Bill Brady. Hamster Sandwich 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol — the anon will have a head explosion! Though, interestingly, the edit they made to the article was reasonable. Mainly, anyway. -Splash 00:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my RFA

Thanks for your comments on my RFA. I'm not going to bore you with an attempt to proof my knowledge of WP policy. But I would like to address some of the other points you raised: The reason I mentioned the VfD was not a "debate which didn't go the 'right' way "; at the time, I was upset that the article was deleted despite the fact that the debate had gone the 'right' way. – Your point about appearing pro-active is well taken. I don't like to make specific promises I may not be able to keep, my area of interest in WP has changed quite a few times. Are there other criteria you use for determining whether someone is pro-active? Rl 09:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. -Splash 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for your detailed explanation. To answer your question: I used to do RC patrol early on and switched to NP patrol later. At the time, I was also very active on VfD pages. For a while, I was the major contributor to WP:CP (on some days roughly half the entries were by me); I also tried to mitigate the copyvio problem with a proposed change (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#More_visible_warning.3F, MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning#Proposed_change). I've been involved with quite a few discussions on MoS pages. I also spend quite a bit of time talking to people who make newbie mistakes (cut'n'paste page moves and UTF-8 breakage, for instance). Unfortunately, with close to 4000 pages on my watch list, vandals and link spammers keep me busy most of the time (you can easily verify that by checking my contributions). My watchlist has become the subset of pages that I'm doing RC patrol for, and following the trails of vandals and spammers makes the list grow further. Rl 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User:txgeekgirl regarding God's Learning Channel listing on Wikipedia

This listing has had a (vfd) for Vanity or Ad type status and placed on comment for delete by you. I am the webmaster for this television station, and have today modified the listing to be in line with similar listings for Christian TV such as Day Star and TBN. Just to note, what was listed before I made the changes today was NOT what was submitted by our chief engineer. Thank you. (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll take a look a little later. -Splash 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENT

You said, "Delete per precedent (and observe we should collect our CfD precdents up somewhere....like Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions). -Splash 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)" - excellent idea. Want to help me plod through the CFD logs and see what salvageable precedents there are? Radiant_>|< 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • How about this. I'll take april and june, you take may and july (from [[2]]). Try to find 1) similar discussions (not necessarily close to one another), such as any "American thing" vs "United States thing" (except that we already know of that one). For any such groups, a precedent may be desirable to prevent repeated debates. And 2) tendency or partial consensus of the discussions in such a group, if any, and good arguments to either side, if any. And while we're in there anyway, it may be worth spotting 3) categories that were deleted and exist anyway. Radiant_>|< 11:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, that was faster than I thought. From June, I got the following list:
    • Naming issues:
    "Film" is preferable over "Movie" or "Cinema"
    "September 9, 2001 attacks" is preferable over "9/11"
    "Comics" is preferable over "Comic" or "Comic book"
    "North Korean" or "South Korean" is preferable over "Korean"
    "Student society" is preferable over "Fraternity" or "Sorority"
    TBD: "People from <city>" vs. "<city>ans" (and should that exist in the first place?)
    TBD: Mainland China issues
    • Categorizations that should not exist:
    "<year> news" (upmerge)
    "<year> by month" (upmerge)
    "<cause> deaths" or "<method> suicides" (trivial)
    "Democrats" (CSB)
    "Dead people" (confusing)
    "Free <thing> software" (ambiguous, trivial)
    "Grammar schools in <place>" (upmerge)
    "Localities with numerals in their names" (trivial)
    TBD "Members of the <city> council" (listify)
    "Liberal/Conservative/... parties of <country>" and "Pro-/contra- marriage/family/1st amendment/... (parties)" (POV/overcat)
    "<label> artists" (listify)
    "<thing> by title" (overcat)
    "<year> <xFC> Pro Bowl players" (listify)
  • Comments welcome. Radiant_>|< 12:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I found the following in July, some of which reaffirm the above:
    • Categorizations that should not exist:
    "Opinions of Justice <X>" (listify)
    No categories for individual peerages (don't have any, too many thousand of them, too narrow)
    "Members of <authority> for <period>" (listify)
    But "Members of <authority>" is obviously ok
    Don't put 'Notable' etc in cat titles (as usual)
    "Fooian terrorists", "Terrorism in/of Foo" (POV, subjective)
    "<Type of politicians>" eg. conservative, liberal, but only tested for US. (POV, vague)
    • Naming issues
    "Canadian First Nations <foo>" preferred over "First Nations <foo>" (per discussion elsewhere)
    "Solar System" preferred over "Sol System" (common usage)
    Symphonies by <full name> preferred over "<surname> symphonies" (not many reasons, but avoids ambiguity)
    "<Full Name> films" preferred over "<surname> films" (consistency)
    "Film" preferred to "Cinema"
    "computer and video games" preferred over "Computer games" (generality)
    "DJ" NOT expanded to disc jockey (common usage)
    "Murdered <people>" renamed TO "Murdered <more general type>" eg. presidents, prime ministers TO politicians
    TBD: "Geography of" vs "Geography in"
    "Student societies" kept over splitting back to fraternities/sororities (generality, and CSB)

-Splash 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adequacy

Probably either to one of the internet trolling articles, or the adequacy.org article. Trollderella 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genseiryu & WGKF

Hi Splash! I requested the unprotection of this article. The previous month-long protection did nothing to difuse this edit war. I therefore think that it is better to block users who blindly revert or engage in abusive behaviour, and try to foster discussion on the relevant talk pages. JeremyA (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view?

I don't mean to solicit your support but would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Coug It? View Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coug it first. Thanks, Redwolf24 05:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's mail

That's nice. Maybe that should be put somewhere on a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles? Unless he'd prefer not to, of course. Radiant_>|< 13:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!

Thanks, I undertand completely. So far Consensusbuilder has been merely an irritation, so no need for an RfC concerning his conduct. As far as the content dispute, well he'll have to file on his own behalf. I feel my opinion has been expressed fully, and has support of every editor who weighed in the issue, with the exception of Terminousbandage, and quite frankly, an editor who creates an account with a singular agenda of supporting (or critisizing) an issue, and who has made no other edits, smells of socks, or various meats, as the case may be. Onto a new issue...it seems as though someone is going around vandalizing pages with the name Hamster Sandwich. and please notice the period at the end of the name. Its not me and I've cleaned up a couple of other users accounts this morning as his work pops up on my watched pages screen. Any advice how to deal with this? Hamster Sandwich 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD Bot & VFD/Old

VFD Bot is now automatically scheduled to update WP:VFD/Old --AllyUnion (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OQPSK

Something definitely fishy is going on...I don't really trust those waveforms depicted in that paper yet. Have you noticed that in figure 2, each dibit boundary is entirely filled with a pure sinusoid? Same with the other example. This should not be. Neither of the in-phase or quadrature phases should be zero (unless they're using some other basis functions that we aren't using) - For these reasons, I think you're right.

I have to think more about it...right now, sleep is a priority, but I still think you're right :-) --HappyCamper 05:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's because the signal constellation they are using is not the one on the page...it looks like the points are actually on the axis so the 4 of them looks like a diamond. --HappyCamper 11:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know! :-) Splash, what a way to make a Wikipedian smile! Awesome OQPSK diagram. Now what to do? I really don't know. Would you be able to make another diagram? I don't know if it would be useful though. Maybe worth mentioning this somewhere on the page. Let me try some editing and see what you think? --HappyCamper 23:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me pull up my file and change the bit stream and see what happens...that paragraph I typed just doesn't sound right I know. --HappyCamper 00:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me contact an active researcher in this field. I'm sure she'll help us out with this subtelty. Isn't this interesting?? --HappyCamper 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing of the sort! Was doing some RC patrolling and just saw it coming up. Just couldn't resist! BTW, I've sent that e-mail off. Hope to hear from her soon.--HappyCamper 03:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit stream is it? I couldn't figure it out... :) --HappyCamper 03:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing...what should I put for the encoder? I know I need it. Right now, it assumes that NRZ polar signaling is used...put this as the very first block? I've never actually took into account the encoder explicitly before, so this is a first for me. --HappyCamper 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, been a bit busy lately. Haven't had a chance to work on the transmitter. I will also draw up a receiver. I actually don't have the latest version of Haykin's book, so I didn't know that he inserted an encoder in front. --HappyCamper 00:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I'm not that enthusiastic about the refactoring. I would like to see it become a featured article, but refactoring and simplifying so that it is accessible to the general population is somewhat difficult to do. Courses on communication systems are usually taught in upper year university courses after all... --HappyCamper 00:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genseiryu--Any suggestions?

Hi Splash! My patience is wearing thin and I am close to re-protecting the Genseiryu and WGKF articles. However, I am unwilling to just let them sit for a month only for the edit war to restart when someone unprotects them. Although I think both sides in this war are reluctant to compromise it seems to me that one side is being particularly arrogant and stubborn and has gone beyond the point where reasoning or mediation will get through to him.

So, my question is do you have any suggestions for what to do next? I'm tempted to file either article-based or user-based RfCs (or perhaps both), but I'm not sure that either would do any good. Is it time to take the article/users to arbitration?

I've tried everything else that I can think of here (moving through: friendly informal mediation, offering formal mediation, suggesting RfCs, blocking of those that try to prolong the war), so I'd welcome some suggestions as to what to do next.

Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've protected the pages (see the latest outbursts from the anon IPs). I agree with you that we should try the RfC route before going for arbitration (and no, I'm not sure whether third parties are even allowed to request arbitration). Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. it was very difficult to resist the temptation to add the {{vprotected}} rather than the regular {{protected}}. But I managed to resist. JeremyA (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently at work (shhh) and so I can't do too much just now--I would have no objection to you starting the RfC process, and me adding my point of view later when I get home. I will go through my saved emails, I am a little reluctant to reveal the content of private discussions, but most of the messages that I have are simple reiterations of stuff that con be found on the various talk pages here. The archives of my own talk page have a lot of messages relating to these articles too. JeremyA (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than trying to understand the Dutch wikipedia (I tried that once with limited success) maybe I can get some of the admins from there to come and contribute to the RfC. In the past I have been in email contact with User:Effeietsanders and I think another admin whose email escapes me at the moment. JeremyA (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other admin you are thinking of could be Waerth... Anyway, he is active on both the Dutch and English Wikipedia and he knows about the situation too! Hope I am helping out here... -- MarioR 23:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump

Very strange indeed! I have no clue to what the user is referring about "religion". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-25 20:33

RfC

Hi Splash! I've never filed an RfC before, but I'm back from work now and willing to help. JeremyA (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great work on the RfC... you have been very thorough. Unfortunately my email at home is broken so I have to use a webmail client which it appears hasn't saved copies of my out going mail. So I have no record of my emails regarding this issue, just the replies. I have however, added some more evidence to the RfC and I will continue to go through the history to add more. Thanks again, JeremyA (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether email exchanges can be included in an RfC. However, my most recent communications with Mario have given me cause to believe that he is now interested in working towards articles that are acceptable to all (I hope that he doesn't mind me relaying some of the details of these private conversations).

For example I wrote:

Ideally, I would like for the Genseiryu article to fully explain the history that has led to this situation, but from the point of view of a neutral third party. Maybe there is someone from the Karate community who is not directly involved in Genseiryu who could do this? I think that at no point wikipedia should state that the GKIF is not doing Genseiryu, but we should say that it is the opinion of people outside the GKIF that they are not. Likewise, we should state that it is the opinion of those inside the GKIF that they are the only ones doing Genseiryu, but that others disagree on this. I think that with careful writing it would be possible to write an article that, whilst it may not be exactly what members of either the WGKF or the GKIF would like, is not unacceptable to either side

To which he replied:

I totally agree with what you wrote in the last email!! However, this third party "outside" Genseiryu will be a difficult job. Only people inside Genseiryu know Genseiryu. People outside this style usually haven't even heard of the style, even when they are doing another karate style. I will do my best however...

As Peter is no longer logging in to his account I will also inform him of the RfC by email. I am also going to inform the people from the Dutch wikipedia that I have talked to, hopefully they will add some useful comments to the RfC. JeremyA (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The GKIF article, although initially involved in the edit war, has never needed protection. I think that early on a Dutch wikipedian (who edits at en.wikipedia under the user name User:Londenp) gave Mario advice on writing a NPOV article. Following this advice Mario decided to create seperate articles for the WGKF and GKIF so that each could express their own point of view in their own respective article (this was the reason for the hidden messages). I have explained to Mario that it is my opinion that this is not NPOV in action and that there is no ownership of articles by any individual or organisation. However, the plus side is that, for the most part Mario has not edited the GKIF article (he thinks of it as their article) so there has not been much of a dispute at this page.

BTW, in terms of evidence did you include this diff at the RfC (I don't see it, but there are a lot of diffs). Here Peter Lee lays into a totally innocent RC patroller whose only crime was to revert one of his edits. JeremyA (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Filings

I've seen you around enough to know that you wouldn't do anything to out of bad faith. Based on the evidence you and Jeremy have presented, I know that it is a serious case. I don't have enough experience with RfC to whether it is okay to file against one case against two separate people. Per WP:IAR, it's fine. The reason I posted that comment was because on Rainbowwarrior1977's RfC, RW1977 viewed that same sentence and "dismissed" the RfC as it involved multiple disputes, instead of one, which it is supposed to be about. Those who filed the RfC granted him his wish and upgraded to arbitration. If Peter Lee and Mario Roering are refusing mediation and intervention, arbitration might be a good idea for this case as well. Acetic Acid 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, everything seems to be in order now. Good luck with the rest of case. Acetic Acid 19:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for your strong support. IT goes without saying that if you have any qualm about my actions, irregardless of whether I become an administrator, please let me know. All the best. --Scimitar parley 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi! I have received an email relating to the RfC that I would like to forward to you. Please email me (using the 'Email this user' link on my userpage) so that I can send it to you. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bailey vfd

Hi, regarding the above article, there's also a poet by the name, although if he's any more notable I don't know, but have a look and change your vote if you so wish. Steve block talk 21:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote. Thanks. -Splash 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I agree it is a weak keep, but I just like to fight vanity with reality rather than deletion, you know. Steve block talk 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD template

Just saw you're note. But I don't really know how to fix it. I've unprotected it for the time being so you can edit it. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to not reprotect it and keep it quiet and see if we get any more vandalism or anyone else protecting it anyway. (Ohno! WP:BEANS!). I really don't like the unconcious habit some seem to have with protecting big targets like that, because as long as they're big targets, they're also important places that good faith editors could need urgent access to at any time. Anyway, you know, if you were an admin... you wouldn't have to ask permission. I know you've been asked before and said you were too young, but maybe that's changed? I think you are about the same age now as Flcelloguy was when he was promoted. Even though you are a little new, you are one of the most prolific and level-headed editors around. And I like your help at VfD and doing closings. You could do a lot more with that little delete button at the top of the page. What do you say? May I nominate you? Dmcdevit·t 04:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the magic 3 months is September 2nd, right? That's Friday? I'll nominate you then! By the way, I've made three noms before now, and (counting Beland) I'm 3-for-3 (Spangineer and Uncle G too). I think you're a shoo-in too. You're probably right that you'll get a few opposes for relative newness, but I feel just as strongly about editcountitis as I do agecountitis. Only in the extreme low cases are they telling. Oh and about the vfd template, it's too bad. I guess it's not horrible, and I'm not going to argue with anyone about it, it's just that I hate to see good faith editors (like you in this case) not able to help out the 'pedia because only the cabal members are able to touch it :) Seems to be a violation of AGF and a prevention of BB. But it's really easy to forget if you've got that little "protect" button. So go prepare the answers to your questions now I guess. :) Dmcdevit·t 19:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

VFD confusion

See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I believe I've fixed the matter by moving today's VFD page to PFD (of course leaving a redir). Please let me know if it helps. Radiant_>|< 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Response in wrong place?

Hello Splash! Now I have read the page again, I think I kind of misunderstood the part of "response". I probably took the term "response by Mario Roering" literally and thought I was allowed to write my opinion here. Wasn't I supposed to??? Could you please move it to the proper position, which would probably be just above the lines of "Response by..." and below the header of "Response"... I could do it myself too of course, but I am afraid that I might move it to the wrong place (again)... Thanks! -- MarioR 19:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— Actually, I think I figured it out myself now. Please just check it for me. Thanks again! Regards, MarioR 19:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category titles

Hi - I don't mean for my latest proposal to be a step backwards but rather a giant step forward. Various folks seem to be chomping at the bit to skip ahead to the finish line (Steve posted something and deleted it, Radiant seems to be kind of impatient with the whole thing, etc.). My guess is that coming up with a consensus proposal for the community at large that settles all the names will take at least as long as we've spent on this already and I really think we don't have the collective patience for it. As far as I can tell, the only thing we've agreed on is to not rename the "man-made objects in foo" categories (and I'm not sure everyone agrees to renaming the sports venues that I found lately). Rather than painfully and slowly proceed to a subgroup consensus that the community at large may overrule, this is my atempt at a compromise that skips us to the finish line. I'll post some more thoughts on this on the Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles page, but thought I'd try to explain directly to you as well. I'm sorry if this seems like a step backward that ignores the work to date - that's not my intent. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cafés in (British) Cambridge

Clowns is horrible! Their coffee! They take cold stale coffee, and infuse it with hot water and charge you a pound. Is there wifi in Clowns now, though? Well!

Admittedly, as an American used to nice filtered coffee I am biased -- only Starbucks serves it in Cambridge (and they even stop serving it after 7 pm!) My favourite cafes in Cambridge were definitely Indigo's, which is wonderful, and CB2, which has a higher weirdo quotient, but makes up for it with the books. Sdedeo 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol

Hi- not really about Wikipedia. Ok, not at all about Wikipedia- but I was just following links and I somehow ended up on your page, and I saw you go to Bristol. I'm applying for the 2006 admissions to study Maths and/or Philosophy and I haven't actually ever spoken to anyone who goes there (other than reading the glowing comments from the people in the prospectus ;)). I was really just curious as if you are enjoying yourself, no need for a long answer but if you are hating every minute of it then let me know ;) Also- what are you studying? - sars 14:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the speedy reply- I think you’ve told me more real things than all the guest speakers have in the past year. I went to see Bristol on the second of the open days, I remember the many grassy areas you mentioned- which were one of the things that stick out in my mind (of course for studying, sunbathing never crossed my mind... ;)). Unfortunately as we went after term time there were few, if any, students there- hence why I’m asking you these questions!
You mentioned that a particular hall of residence is the most sought after- forgive my ignorance but as this whole thing is pretty new to me (no siblings went to Uni) why are those particular halls in demand?
I see what you mean about Oxbridge- indeed they are just universities but I’m still in my mind counting Oxford as a only slight possibility! It’s not so much the grades as the sheer competition that I don’t think I could beat. You were right in that I have been told what College I apply to doesn’t matter- so thanks for letting me know, again I was pretty ignorant in what they all have to offer but having looked on Wikipedia today (where else?!) they all seem to have their own quirks and characteristics.
Interesting that Cambridge don’t allow you to get a job- but I am guessing that if I am having trouble finding time at the moment I’m going to find it even more difficult to find time for a degree and a job!
Again, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. - sars 21:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Broadbandreports Edits

Thank you for your comments from the RfC request, and for also reverting the comments folks have made in the talk page. --Paul Laudanski 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -Splash 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skepsis

Greetings! I've restored it. I looked at it when it was new and hesitated (especially since it was created by a registered user), and was looking for a "move to Wiktionary" template when I saw the request for a speedy and deleted it, as perhaps I shouldn't have. I was looking for the creating user's talk page to ask them about it when I got your message. Since the speedy criterion seemed iffy to me in the first place (as you say), I have no qualms about reviving it. Fire Star 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't suppose the Merriam-Webster people want to provide us too much free copy on a good day! ;-) Sorry for the mixup. Fire Star 01:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nero (band)

With regard to your query about the VfD, I counted three keeps against six deletes. That's right on the edge, so considering the fact that the article had been improved, some users had reservations about deleting it and one of the people who voted delete is relatively new, I decided that there was no consensus to delete. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't either unless it's a really significant rewrite; however, that was only one of many factors that I took into consideration. JYolkowski // talk 01:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"All about Networking"

Good catch on All about Networking! It certainly read like a copyvio, but I didn't know the source. I figured it was worth speedying just based on the inappropriate contents. Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

people who hate extraterrestrials

your right it should be VFD not FPC, I undeleted all the edit revisions so that it can go to vfd. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

the userpage phonebomb

I have to get to work, so may not be on VfD for awhile. I give you, however, the ultimate weapon of mass annoyance, to be deployed only in severe cases (such as articles on submerged rocks): Public Payphones (New York City, 58th St. and Third Avenue). Sdedeo 04:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TFD - Template:Ludwig van Beethoven

I am looking at resolving this particular item on TFD (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Ludwig_van_Beethoven). Rather than render non-admin summary jugement and interpret the commentary as it stands, I was wondering whether you would like to revise your input or leave it as it stands considering the comments made by User:EldKatt which appear to have been convincing for a couple of other people providing input and were made after you had provided your own input. Thanks for revisiting the TFD entry and considering the finality of your decision. Courtland 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel war?

Probably. There's some revert warring on the VFD templates. I've got them watchlisted, please notify me or Uncle G or both whenever something else is messing up. Radiant_>|< 10:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Unreverting a revert on a policy page

Ohkay, sooo, I reverted a contested and undiscussed policy change on WP:NOT, and you unreverted it back to the contested version. Um, you realize that that actually does break several suggested guidelines, including the very template you quoted, as well as for instance WP:HEC ? (Both are guidelines btw). You have to be very careful in applying guidelines, in that you don't actually break them yourself. It's a very fine line sometimes ^^;;

In the mean time, I've fixed the template so that people are more likely to get things right, and less likely to get themselves into trouble again.

Finally: I won't undo your change: I'll leave that to someone else now. Do consider fixing it yourself! :)

Kim Bruning 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of follow-up discussion?

Hello Splash! I haven't had much of a chance for correspondance lately, getting ready for the start of the new semester and all that, but I've been wondering what your ideas are concerning the London, Ontario page? I'm going to write notes to all the principals so far in the Brady discussion, get a concensus, and post the results at the talk page there. Or perhaps you feel the RfC is more appropriate. I look to the other editors for guidance. As a sidebar, you have been and I am sure will continue to be, a voice of reason and moderation at WP:Votes for deletion. Hamster Sandwich 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I reply here? Well, I'm not sure that we have particularly settled our differences with the anon (or whichever name s/he edits under), but the discussion has at least broadened out into the Bill Brady article, as it ought to have done. I do not believe that the "UNBIASED READER" is any such thing, however. Nevertheless, the feelings of all-but-one of those active on the talk-page are quite clear: The Brady Bullet stays, and so does the Brady article. I'm hopeful that User:Consensusbuilder has reconciled themselves to that fact and, having had the article protection force discussion, s/he can at least see that they are unlikely to make much headway; reverting is too easily undone. It's a pity that just as they began to branch out into other articles, they stopped editing. I think therefore that we should ask the protecting admin, Adam Bishop, to release the protection and see how we do. People have wanted to work on the article and been unable to do so. Filing article-based RfCs is often a bit of a dead-end but, if the disagreement does re-erupt, we could take that route then: for now, the opinions of those involved in the article should be sufficient. Do you have in interest in taking London toward FAC? -Splash 21:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And re VfD, thanks, but you're much better at making VfD a more reasonable place than I am! -Splash 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Yup, should have wikilinked to modulation. I couldn't help but insert that word there! :-) (Check above for some other note I added about the PSK transmitter...) --HappyCamper 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

subst:vfd

Can I just remind you to subst: the VfD tag? It's especially important at the moment as the templates are being changed fairly often and not-substing means the links break when the template is changes. Thanks. -Splash 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few of your nominations with redlinks in the VfD tags. I've cleaned them all up. subst: is always good for VfD, but especially at the moment.-Splash 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree, for the long version look at Talk:VfD back when the subst:ing was introduced, for the short version see the talk item three sections up from your comment on my talk page. Still, thanks for clearing up the VfD/AfD mess. --fvw* 13:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Everybody subst:s the vfd tag! Even the instruction on WP:VFD ask for it to be subst:'d. It reduces server load and, at the moment, circumvents any revert wars on the templates. I'm not sure I quite understand. Not subst:ing must have produced nearly 10 broken VfD tags yesterday. My comment was not a comment on the current rename question, just a reminder that we are asked to subst: the VfD templates, so I'm not sure of why the section 3 up from here is related. -Splash 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A little further down in the rant, I meant this bit:
      • Not that much really. VfDed articles get very little traffic on the grand scale of things, if you want to talk major load savings, try substing stuff like {{current}} and the main page templates. We could subst in lots of templates, and yes it would save CPU cycles, however in the long run the software is working for us and not the other way around. Transcluded templates are the right thing to do design-wise. If using this feature causes load problems (which it doesn't, the load problems were caused by people editing meta-templates that were included on huge numbers of pages like the meta-stub template) we need to either fix the servers/software or decide that for stuff like tags transclusion isn't technologically feasible (which would be bollocks, but at least we'd be consistant in our bollocks).
--fvw* 13:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok. You evidently don't like subst: for some reason. But lately redlinks in VfD tags have resulted in split VfD debates and confusion among newbies over why they are looking at either a redirect for editing or a blank page. Since the templates seem to have stabilised, I suppose the problem has largely gone away. Although I suppose you must have been subst:ing vfd2 and vfd3 (or not using them) since otherwise the VfDs wouldn't have been editable by non-admins. -Splash 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with subst, but only for stuff where it's necessary and labour-saving, not for all tags. This wouldn't have caused any trouble with the namechange if people hadn't been so overeager to change the name and thought it out first. (The correct order of doing this was 1) bot-move all discussions from VfD to AfD leaving the redirects 2) change the template 3) optionally remove the redirects if nothing links to them. That way no links would have been broken and that nasty edit war on template:vfd presumably wouldn't have occurred). As for vfd2 and vfd3, you're right, I don't use them, I find it's less typing to just type and copy+paste the header myself. If I did use them I'd have no problem with substing them though, because as you point out, there's a technical reason why it's necessary. Hope that clears things up. --fvw* 13:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. And you're right about how the VfD namechange should have been done. Some people are a little to...err...bold. -Splash 13:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Splash/Archive3&oldid=22250988"