User talk:74.192.84.101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

AV-8B[edit]

This is likely to be much harder than either of us thought!

It's great to have an extra non-aviation-specialist looking over the article, as that's exactly one of the deficiencies identified in it at the last FAC (which is worth reading).

A problem though, is that the lead is the one part that's been repeatedly refined by prose experts. So I've resisted changing the parts that were deemed good before. That's not to say they can't change, it just means some careful thought might be needed.

Some thoughts on your thoughts:

  • Why "NATO" rather than Anglo-American? I can see the logic (four different NATO countries had some workshare, IIRC, rather than just the UK and USA) but, what do the sources describe it as?
  • Beware lengthening prose that's written to be minimalist. ("Prose needs tightening" is a phrase sometimes used.) Just as an example, does adding "itself" really make the text clearer for the reader? Or is it just an extra word?
  • The lead is a summary. It's currently about the right length (one large paragraph in the lead per major section in the article body). Not everything in the body can be mentioned in the lead. There might be an argument for a very brief mention of the key points of how the 8B evolved in the lead, ... but I've already had Phil add details in the "Development" section that summarise some of what's in the "Design" section, so we don't want to go too far. Likewise with other additions.
  • The horsepower of the various engines is definitely worth mentioning if it can be sourced. But probably not in the lead. Is it already mentioned elsewhere?

Probably more when I have more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew the lead would have been carefully combed, I picked the hardest part so you could show me where the unwritten boundaries were. And I know NATO is not quite totally correct... and some of my other changes, were also likely to be only partly constructive, hence my self-revert. But to take the portions that jumped out at you in order:
  1. I don't much care about whether *NATO* is specifically mentioned, but there *is* a specific reason for the AV-8B to exist: it was a *very* expensive project, cancelled in the 1970s over money, but kept alive, and then went into production right around 1981. Seem to recall, wasn't there some old guy that became President, trying to spend money like it was going out of style? Cold War? Pounding a shoe on a podium? Aircraft carriers? Hmmmm. The lead is very tight prose: it skips all the context that the everyday reader wants, namely, who paid for it, why, and the usual tell-us-a-story stuff. Right now, it is a dry story about the engineering of a fighter aircraft. But *why* was VTOL needed? *Why* was it intended for ground support? Vietnam? There's tight prose, and then there's excluding relevant historical-political context.
  2. Minimalist I would agree with. The use of "itself" to refer to the USMC/Spanish/Italian flavor, and "variant" to refer to the RoyalNavy flavor... are they identical? Or did the UK variant have some differences? Manufactured in the UK, by BAE factories, rather than in the USA by Boeing? There are actually a *bunch* of different aircraft involved. Original harrier AV-8A... cancelled-super-Pegasus in 1975 ... second-gen-USMC in 1981 ... british variant on second-gen in 19xx ... radar variant of second-gen in YYYY ... some other variant (mentioned near radar). These latter five flavors are all "the same" jet, and the subject of the article. But apparently they are different enough that the British variant was considered distinct from the USMC original, whereas the Spanish aircraft was just a rebadged USMC, right? So, you tell me: do we need "itself" in that sentence? Or was the UK variant referred to as the AV-8B, and manufactured by Boeing, like the very first sentence says?
  3. Agree the lead is a summary. But perhaps, if you'll glance over my talkpage, you'll notice that I'm not the person you want in charge of terseness? I'm the person in charge of VERBOSITY.  :-)   So please, let our strengths be complementary. I'll add 100 words, and you take away 95, and we'll have a super-duper paragraph.
  4. Don't know if the horsepower figures exist, since that might be top secret data, but I'm mostly objecting to vague-weasel-peacock-wording. Don't tell me the 1975 engine was dramatic; just give me the facts, what was the horsepower (or whatever facts we know) differential? We don't have to use horsepower/kilojoules/lb-ft ... but we should specify the difference with some precision, like saying "23% more powerful engine than the AV-8A was cancelled... later, the redesign work used the same airframe but still managed to fit a 17% more powerful engine..." *That* is useful info that explains to me the difference between the 1975 failed-variant, and the 1981 original-success. If the UK variant fiddled with the engine specs, we can say 2% more powerful, or 3% thicker armor-plating around the cockpit, or whatever. But there's a lot of stuff right now about "greatly/dramatically/significantly/superlatively/uberwhateverly" ... and if we *have* no data, and we can cite some sources using those words, that's cool. But I like numbers.  :-)
Anyways, I'm real easy, I'll make suggestions, and won't be offended whether you take one out of ten, or nine out of ten. (If you take zero out of ten, well, you get challenged to a WikiJoust. :-)   I'll go through the article, and fiddle with this or that, paragraph by paragraph, until I hit the bottom. You follow along, and cut out the fat, plus correct my mistakes (not really a NATO project? Well, then, maybe that's worth saying... *why* was it not a NATO project? Was the VTOL stuff purposely kept from the French slash Airbus folks? Hmmmmm. Hope this helps start your wheels turning. Do you have a sandbox we can put the article in, so that my flailing doesn't mess up mainspace? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Replies[edit]

Letting you know you have replies at my talk page and at Thomas.W's - well, that one is more of a sticking my nose in. Since I am aware you have no watchlist. Not that I scintillated in any of those replies, but ... Yngvadottir (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehehe... catch you later, scintillater. Don't tell spouse-of-Drmies. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for stalking![edit]

The suggestions you've left for editors on my talk page are mega-helpful. Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully and comprehensively - particularly as regards the Walt Odets article. Stalk my page anytime! Julie JSFarman (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Julie, appreciate your appreciation, gracias. If you see something that needs my particular nutty brand of commentary, please ping me here.
    p.s. Actually, I'm trying to put together a fun-quick-teaming scheme, where small groups of beginning editors can try their hand at something reasonably easy and fun, and the AfC queue seems like a great place to send in wiki-swat-teams to wreak havoc. Nothing even vaguely good-faith-helpful gets reverted in the AfC queue, there is plenty of low-hanging-fruit that obviously needs help, and there is a three-week-backlog that needs reducing, right? Does this sound like: A) great idea, B) maybe productive if they have an experienced team-mommy, C) whatta you outta yer gourd?  :-)     74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You're totally outta your gourd but I'm completely in - great idea - fill me in - let's do it! That backlog is scary. JSFarman (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Also! So many submissions I'm perplexed by. A lot of times I end up doing some clean-up and leaving the submissions for someone else to review; don't want to decline anything that's good faith, borderline, and represents a lot of work. Would LOVE to get your help/feedback. JSFarman (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Your perception of my status vis-a-vis the gourd is insightful-yet-painfully clear! Congratulations on your high intelligence.  :-)     Most folks take at least ten conversations before they can definitively say I'm out of my gourd. <grin> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anyways, yes, if you are perplexed by any submissions, or just see something needing help you don't have time to give, feel free to ping me with a link, and I'll try and see what is up with them. Once I get some sort of fun-quick-teaming system in place, maybe there will be a central place for submitting such AfI requests. (Articles For Improvement.) When you send me an AfC submission that needs wikiLove, please include:

  1. URL of course ... could be Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Les_Pendleton but better to use [13] if that is easy-enough, since changes might happen between the time you make your request, and I get around to looking over the page in question
  2. minimum level of wiki-expertise reqd (in terms of wiki-markup and WP:PG -- just use expert/medium/beginner for starters I guess -- but instead of specifying expertise-level-of-the-editor we can say hard/medium/easy as a way to specify the expertise-level-demanded-by-the-fix-in-question), and
  3. priority-ordered keywords for what the article needs most (cites / tone / copyEdit / expand / clarify / etc). Feel free to write sentences instead, or to just list 'top 3 problems' or whatever works best for you.

For example, if you have an article that is ready for mainspace, but needs some additional citations in a highly technical portion of the topic, you might ask for

  1. URLz: cleanup on aisle four aka Lenticular
  2. GeneralSkillz: needs medium wiki-expertise to create mainspace-grade refs
  3. SpecificProbz: math-expertise-reqd + clarify the concepts

But you don't have to type all that out, instead just use some sort of shorthand, maybe like this:

AfI; Lenticular#Math; med/cites; math expert, clarify.

Along the same lines, example #2, if you have an article in the AfC queue which is just a mess, but already has good refs as bare-URLs, you might ping this subsection of my talkpage with something like this:

AfI; [14]; easy/all med/cites; copy edit, tone, clarify, cite-cleanup, expand.

Anyways, please feel free to suggest better shorthand, or an alternative approach/system, or whatever. After you and I get the basic language-of-AfI-communication hammered out, we'll try and get Mabdul or one of the other javascript wizards to upgrade the AfC gadget, so that you can submit an AfI request automagically right from your AfC-helper-wiki-tool. That way, instead of you manually sending me a talkpage message, you can just hit some key-combo or click some checkboxes, and the AfI request will be put into the wiki-hero-mission-kiosk app (which does not exist yet but will be used for the fun-quick-teaming thing I mentioned earlier). Maybe instead of using template-tagging at the top of articles, or using the category-system, we can figure out a way to use WikiData for the AfI-communication-language? Hmmmm.

p.s. Guess I should ask this first. Do you actually use the Wikipedia:AFCH for your work, at the moment? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)



AfI[edit]

  1. AfI for AfC-rescue; Pendleton; easy/all med/cites; double-check WP:N, complete rewrite, tone, cite-cleanup. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Capture the WP:NOTEWORTHY sentences,[15] and put them in the existing articles (famous resident of new NC hometown in article on hometown + reviews of book about female Lewis in her BLP article + article about MarioBrosMovie in article about that movie + maybe reviews of ghost-written book for judge into their BLP article if any of the judge-related-sources were WP:RS). Author has a new six-book series in 2013/2014, if that does well, and gives them more press, may revisit the decline in spring 2014. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. AfI for AfD-rescue; TrackIT; easy/all; cite-verify,[16] tone, special request,[17][18] expand, copy edit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. AfI for AfD-rescue; PrincessK; med/all; cite-verify,[19] tone, train creator[20]. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done, partially -- check back again mid-January.
  4. AfI for AfC-rescue; Parivaar; easy/all; cite-verify, write prose, optionally help find other puppets. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. AfI for AfD-rescue; SORCER; hard; verify peer-reviewed Notability, de-jargonize prose, help various experts learn the ropes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. AfI for POV-rescue; Huff; med; modify prose to reflect weight as found in the sources, swim through hundreds of sources, deal with outing-policy correctly. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. AfI for PROD-rescue; Chakraborty; easy; heavily advertorial BLP, find likely-COI editors and train in WP:TONE, where is TRPoD when you need them? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]


















...and speaking of aortae[edit]

Have you ever heard the lyrics to Mason Williams' You Dun Stomped on My Heart? The chorus has one of my favorite rhymes in all of comic music. David in DC (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"...And you mashed that sucker flat / You just sorta stomped on my aorta..." Hooo boy. What happens when you spin the turntable counterclockwise? I like the Smothers Bros. (especially the yo-yo), and wikipedia alleges that Mason 'Jar' Williams was in their band, but I have never heard this particular tune he wrote. Wonder if there was ever a combination-remix from all John's greatest hits. "You fill up my senses / like a stomped-on aorta...." — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
When I saw them in Vegas, he led their back-up band. They took a break mid-show for Williams and the band to play Classical Gas, with the Bros. explaining who he was and why they were doing it, first. Grrrreat show. David in DC (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh heh heh... I know that song but I also, just like the article says, have always thought it was Clapton. Huh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DUROMAC article[edit]

hey, thanks for helping me to improve my DUROMAC article. as you mentioned, you would like to hear anything about DUROMAC from newspaper, government article. I would like to tell you, yes, you can find it! firstly, here is a link of DUROMAC has been certified by Directorate General Technical Airworthiness, which is Malaysian government. "AMO Certification of DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD". Secondly, there is a article called " good and thorough job" from the local newspaper,"The Star", published in 11 January, 2013. I saved my DUROMAC page in my sandbox, please go thought it and tell me what I still need to change it. Because I really want to make an appropriate content in order to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Our first steps are to find some more newspaper-articles and similar things. I found one from 2008, but there are probably others, we should search for more. Our second step is to write brand-new sentences (never copying from www.duromac.com , never copying from www.theStar.com.my , never copying from non-wikipedia sentences in general) because of the laws about sentences and authors. See my longer explanation below. After we have written up the facts, and listed the sources for those facts, we will submit the article to the AfC reviewers, and they will help you get everything looking nice and professional. I expect it will take a little bit of time, but if we can find enough in-depth coverages, Duromac should be an article in wikipedia by the end of the year. Sorry everything seems complicated, but wikipedia is an important website, so there are good reasons for the strange traditions we have here. Welcome to the tribe, we are glad to have you, and thanks for helping improve wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

copyright versus cut-and-paste[edit]

Wikipedia servers are in Florida in the United States, and they have very strong laws in the United States about authors. To make the Duromac article properly, we need to write it ourselves. We cannot copy what we write for wikipedia from www.TheStar.com.my -- we have to write our own sentences, from scratch, and then put our wikipedia-sentences under the wikipedia license, for everybody to own.

This also means we cannot copy sentences from www.duromac.com -- because wikipedia does not own that website.

Instead of copying sentences, we must write new sentences, of our own, that use the facts from the Duromac website, and the facts from TheStar newspaper. Does this make sense? It is very important, because wikipedia can get in big legal trouble, if editors like you and me cut-and-paste sentences (or pictures or videos or music) from some website that is outside wikipedia. You did not know this, of course, so it is fine if you did that already, fixing such things is easy -- but you and I need to always write original sentences, never copy sentences, from now on, okay? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

mentions of Duromac, or the Duromac founders/managers/products, in reliable sources[edit]

Do you have a URL for the "good and thorough job" article in TheStar in 2013? It sounds like a great source, but somebody needs to verify the contents; I looked at www.TheStar.com.my but had trouble finding the article itself. I also manually found two older articles:

Mention of duromac opening a branch-office in Kuala Lumpur in 2008, attended by Samy Vellu, in google-cache.[21]

The first 2008 article in TheStar is mostly about politics and Samy Vellu, who was the Works Minister from 1995 through 2008. This is WP:NOTEWORTHY.

Couple paragraphs about Duromac, including photo-op of the sweeper-equipment, and quote from Vellu.[22]

This is significant coverage, good enough for WP:N, if we can find others. South_Klang_Valley_Expressway was the larger project covered in the first half of the article; but the press conference about the expressway was held immediately after Vellu attended the opening ceremonies for the Bandar Kinrara branch-office of Duromac, so the second half of the article is all about Duromac's role.

However, I had some trouble, when I search for "duromac" in the archives[23] there is a bug in the software (it says "Sorry no record found" even though there are articles in 2008 and 2013 at least). Are you able to search from your location? Maybe I get the error because I am not in Malaysia.... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


I also had trouble looking up the Duromac certificate from the Malasian Air Force, it seems they changed their website around.[24] I was able to find some evidence in this blog, Duromac is #17 in the list.[25] However, wikipedia does not allow blogs as sources, because they do not have a professional editorial staff (like TheStar newspaper). That means we cannot use MalaysiaFlyingHerald at wordpress -- we need something better. It is okay for wikipedia editors like us to *verify* the former content of websites from cached copies. In this case, I was able to find the DGTA announcement in the google.com cache (see also[26]), which is a reliable source.

There is only a paragraph, but it covers a real-world event, making this our second WP:N reliable source: the conditional award of the maintenance contract in January 2012 for RMAF runway-sweepers, successful RMAF DGTA audit completed in June, full certification approved in July, and the official certificate-handover-ceremony in September, held at the Bandar Kinrara branch-office, with RMAF Brigadier General Teoh Siang Chang[27][28][29] personally delivering the paperwork to Managing Director Arul Das (accepting on behalf of Duromac). Do you have any other government website or printed-publications that mention Duromac? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in Financial Express of India.[30][31]


WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in the New Straits Times.[32] Reliable dupe?[33][34] Reliable dupe? [35] Dupe?[36] Dupe?[37]


Maybe useful if translated? [38][39][40] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Maybe useful per bi-directional WP:ABOUTSELF? [41][42][43] Confirmation of ACMAT connection, not sure if this is a reliable source or not.[44] European supplier chamber-of-commerce listings.[45][46][47] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Exhibitions and shows.[48][49][50]

Thanks from Clover[edit]

Hello, thanks a lot for helping me to find all the reliable sources, I really really really appreciate it. Meanwhile, I would like to show you two more references I found of DUROMAC. Firstly, as you already know, DUROMAC has been involved in Malaysia-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry. There is a magazine called " MGCC PERSPECTIVIES", in page 34, there is a article about DUROMAC, called" DUROMAC AWAEDED AMO CERTIFICATE". I think this is published by government. I am sorry, there is no link for this article online, I only could show you this [51] BTW, if you think the original picture of 'AMO CERTIFICATION' is important, I can scan and update to Wikipedia( since there is no original picture of this certification online before, I think it is useful?) do you think is it necessary to do it?

Secondly, here is a link [52] called "first woman driver of 16-tone road sweeper". I am sorry this is in Malay. There is a English version in newspaper , but I can't find it online.

Since the sources you gave to me and also the references I found by myself, I am confused right now, how can I use all the relevant information to approve all the content I wrote for DUROMAC? Could you please give me some suggestion?

All in all, I am really appreciate what you did for DUROMAC, you are the person with the warmest-heart ever!--Clover1991 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello clover, thanks for your kind words. No, there is no need to scan the AMO certificate; I verified the facts from a cached copy of the site, and that is good enough for wikipedia. I will split my other replies into subsections, thanks for your efforts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

worthwhile step -- make sure to mention any relationship with Duromac Sdn Bhd that you may personally have[edit]

Because of concerns about the reliability of articles, many wikipedia editors are worried about bias. There is nothing wrong with being biased; everybody is. It is perfectly normal and natural. But it is a special problem for wikipedia, if editors work directly on articles in mainspace where they are inherently biased. Editors should not directly edit articles about their employer, their customers, their family, or even their local politicians or their local city, especially if they have strong feelings about the topic. For example, editors should not directly make changes to an article about their own grandmother: because they love their grandmother, the article would become biased, instead of maintaining a fair, neutral, just-the-facts tone.

  In your case, it sounds like you care about Duromac, so you should probably do two things. First, instead of editing Duromac directly, yourself, you should try to suggest changes and additions and sources, so that other editors (who are not in any way involved with Duromac and will therefore have an easier time being neutral) can actually perform the edits, and make the changes. Does this make sense?

  Second, you might consider helping other editors out. Perhaps they are working on an article, and they are too close to the topic to stay neutral -- maybe you can help them, like I am helping you. See my list above, if this is appealing to you. Maybe you can make some edits to the article on Les Pendleton, or on TrackIt. Or maybe those are boring to you, and you would rather help somewhere else? Just ask, there are plenty of people that need help. Or you can try answering some of the questions over at WP:TEAHOUSE.

  Of course, you do not have to. You are required to be WP:NICE to other editors, but you are not WP:REQUIRED to do any editing-work that you do not feel like doing. But it helps you to learn how wikipedia works, if you help other folks out. Plus it is fun meeting new and interesting people.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

next step -- how we can turn the relevant sourced information into a Duromac article in mainspace[edit]

I believe we are ready for you to kick off the phase where our Duromac article will begin to go through the AfC process. This takes a couple of weeks, usually -- there are 2300 articles waiting to be approved. However, the Duromac article needs to be looked over by someone with experience, who has no relationship with the company, and AfC is the best way to do that.

  We are going to rewrite the Duromac article, as part of the AfC process. There are two reasons for this. First, some editors are worried that the content you wrote for Duromac in your sandbox, has some sentences which are too close to being copied from the www.duromac.com website, and are worried about wikipedia getting into legal trouble from Duromac Sbn lawyers. To be safe, the best way is to write brand new sentences.

  The second reason to write the article again from the beginning, is that we have a lot more sources now!  :-)   Wikipedia should reflect the sources, neutrally and without bias. Because you are proud of Duromac, it is hard for you to be neutral, just like it would be hard for me to write about an important company in my country. The best approach is to let uninvolved editors check over our work. So here is what I suggest:

  1. Let us agree on a good sentence or two, just as a rough draft (we can always improve and expand it later).
  2. I suggest this: Duromac (formally known as "DUROMAC (M) SDN. BHD") is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996 which supplies road-sweeping equipment and services for city streets in Kuala Lumpur and the surrounding area. Recently[when?], they have also been awarded equipment-maintenance contracts for military runways and military 6x6 vehicles. Do you like these, to begin with?
  3. If you think that is a good beginning, then we should put those two sentences -- and only those two sentences -- into the WP:AfC wizard.
  4. Because of the worries about copying sentences without permission, you should not copy your sandbox content into the AfC submission.
  5. We have a lot of sources, but our *key* important sources, where Duromac has in-depth coverage, are the following.
  6. Reliable Source #1 to prove Notability, Duromac certified by RMAF for equipment-maintenance contract involving runway-sweepers.[53] Dead link at present, but User:74.192.84.101 verified the former contents in google-cache. One paragraph, but covers a real-world event.
  7. Reliable Source #2 to prove Notability, Duromac branch office opening attended by the government's Works Minister, including speech and photo-op.[54] Couple of paragraphs and photo; covers a real-world event. Second mention, this one only in passing.[55]
  8. Potential Reliable Source #3 to prove Notability, "Good and Thorough Job" in TheStar newspaper 2013-01-11. Did you find a URL for this one, so I can verify how many paragraphs are about Duromac?
  9. Those are the key important sources we know about so far, and of course we also have several WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions-in-passing, plus plenty of WP:ABOUTSELF material that is usable.

Does this approach make sense? We should first concentrate on sources that have *paragraphs* of coverage, specifically about Duromac. Then, we can add in more information. But to start with, we should start with a blank article in the AfC queue, with a couple sentences, and a couple key sources. Then somebody like FiddleFaddle or Acroterion or some other uninvolved editor -- with more experience than me -- can come along and make sure we're starting out properly. Once our first couple sentences, and our first couple of sources, look good... then we can add another paragraph. We will grow the article slowly, like a tree grows from a seed. Sound like a plan? Let me know if you like this idea, thanks. Then I will explain AfC further. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

MGCC article is probably WP:ABOUTSELF because money changed hands, they are not 'independent' enough[edit]

The MGCC Perspectives magazine is probably not useful as an independent reliable publication, because Duromac has to pay membership fees to the MGCC, and the articles in MGCC Perspectives are not written by journalists and fact-checked by an editorial board. Does this make sense?

  If somebody from Duromac wrote the article, and paid to have it published, it counts as information that *might* be okay to go into the article (see the WP:ABOUTSELF information), but it does not qualify as WP:RS because it is partially self-published, or at least, paid-publication. Wikipedia does not cite press releases except for WP:ABOUTSELF, which cannot contain anything laudatory. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bharian article is WP:NOTEWORTHY but not quite WP:N[edit]

Never a problem that the material is not in English; my apologies for not being multi-lingual, and my thanks for bringing the facts here to enWiki. There are some tools on the internet that permit machine translation from most languages. Open this link[56] and then select "auto-detect into English", then finally paste in this URL of the story[57] and you will have the badly-mauled-pseudo-english-version. Here are the facts from the story:

  1. Salmiah Mat Saad, age 50, grandmother, wins an award for her job-performance as the driver of a road-sweeper in Kuala Lumpur, where she is responsible for a 70km stretch
  2. the award is from Buchaer-Scholing (( aka Bucher-Schoeling aka Bucher-Schörling -- see Ventspils w/ photo of one of their buildings )) , Switzerland-based supplier of the type of machinery she drives at her job
  3. the text on the award was "first female driver in the world of 16-tonne road-sweeper" (question: is this only the first female driver in the world for Buchaer-Scholing 16-tonne road-sweepers, or for all models and all vendors of 16-tonne-and-up road-sweepers everywhere?)
  4. there was a real-life appreciation ceremony for Salmiah (question: was it held in 2010?)
  5. the ceremony was held at the Wisma office-location of DRB-HICOM corporation. (question: is this sentence correct?)
  6. the award was presented to Salmiah by Arul Das, director-general of Duromac
  7. noteworthy attendees included Ahmad Nadzarudin Abd Razak, head of Corporate Services Division at DRB-HICOM
  8. noteworthy attendees included Mohd Zain Hassan, CEO at Alam Flora Sdn , which is the DRB-HICOM subsidiary in charge of sanitation & street-sweeping
  9. there was a press-conference following the ceremony; Salmiah was quoted , saying she appreciated the outside recognition , as a welcome change from past attitudes
  10. the CEO is quoted saying that the Malaysian government has plans to increase the number of female road-sweepers, who are especially good at being patient with the large machinery
  11. the CEO is quoted saying one of the purposes of the appreciation-ceremony was to entice other women to apply for employment in these future road-sweeper-positions
  12. one of her daughters(?) was also quoted; (named Perak or maybe named Selama?);
  13. this person worked for Alam Flora Sdn as a hand-sweeper(?) for 5 years, mini-sweeper-driver for 3 years, then tractor-trailer driver, and is now also a road-sweeper-driver
  14. the daughter(?) said at first it took them three months to get the trust of their male co-workers, but since that point, the same folks are the first people to support them

So from this list of facts, we see that most of the article is about Alam Flora Sdn (or employees thereof). Buchaer-Scholing is mentioned as WP:NOTEWORTHY. Duromac is also mentioned as WP:NOTEWORTHY. Furthermore, there was a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of Arul Das, who played a key role in the award-ceremony, as the representative of the machinery-suppliers. But it was only one sentence, so although it helps support the case for Duromac, it does not quite qualify as "significant in-depth coverage". Does this make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

DUROMAC new article[edit]

Hey, thanks again for your help! I have a URL of " good and Through job".But the problem is,in this link you cant find any where mention about" DUROMAC" and even there is no single pictures. However, this article in newspaper "The Star" do have pictures of DUROMAC's road-sweeper. Now I am confused that maybe this is not enough to approve DUROMAC's notability. Don't you think so?

I can't find " AFC" you mentioned, could you please forward me a link?

Since I can't find " AFC" right now, then I decide to write it here and first let you know to check how is it. Is it ok?

Hello Clover, certainly you can start writing new sentences here. Your draft below looks good. Here is the link to create the new Duromac article -- WP:Article_wizard. Paste in your sentences below, and your sources below, and then send me the link to the AfC submission that the software creates, and we will go to the next step. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Start with article[edit]

DUROMAC (formally known as " DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD)is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996, which supplies road-sweeping equipment and services for industrial in Puchong and the surrounding area. In 2008, DUROMAC's new building opening attended by Samy Vellu, who is government's Works Minister.[58] In 5 September 2012, they have also been awarded equipment-maintenance contracts for military runways by RMAF. [59]

So this is like basically what we can find all the relevant sources to approve DUROMAC. What else I can still write down for DUROMAC?--Clover1991 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is just the start. These are our *best* sources so far. To have a dedicated article called Duromac, we need in-depth coverage. We have two good sources for that. It might be enough, but three sources with in-depth coverage is better. We should keep looking for more press-reports. Do you know somebody who works at Duromac, that we can ask? Maybe they will know of other newspaper articles, or television coverage, where Duromac or the managers are mentioned.
  Once the article is in the AfC queue, we can start adding other sentences. For example, we can write a new sentence about the award to Salmiah, which was presented by Arul Das. That is WP:NOTEWORTHY and belongs in wikipedia. However, it was only a brief mention of Duromac, so by itself that particular source does not prove WP:NOTE. Do you understand the difference here? In-depth coverage justifies creation of a new article about the topic. Brief-mention justifies adding another sentence to such an article. Let me know if this makes sense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DUROMAC (formally known as "DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD") is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996,[1] which supplies road-sweeping equipment and services for industrial and government clients in Puchong and the surrounding area. In 2008, DUROMAC opened a new building; Samy Vellu, the government's Works Minister at that time, attended the ceremony and spoke[2] at the press conference afterwards. In January 2012, DUROMAC was awarded[3] an equipment-maintenance contract related to military runways by the RMAF.

hey, I tried to copy and paste the article we made it for DUROMAC into " article-wizard", but it said invalid content. Is it something wrong?--Clover1991 (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Try starting very very simply. Just put this: DUROMAC is a Malaysian corporation founded in 1996. We can edit the page, and expand it with our full paragraph-so-far, once the AfC submission is created. If you get the error again, tell me the URL and the step you were on please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation[edit]

Hey, I made a draft version in Articles for creation, here is a link [60]. please check it. We can still edit and once we done everything, we can send it for review, right?

btw, I know the CEO of DUROMAC, actually, all references I founded is offered by him. So I think these two sources are most useful. hmmm, then what we are going to do the next step? --Clover1991 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Hey, please check my articles for creation, I made the final version of DUROMAC. Please help me to check it and tell me what I still need to improve.... thankssssss!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. JianhuiMobile talk 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

PK[edit]

If you can succeed with the massive influx of help you have my complete support. It was important to get her attention. Now we have it. Now, if she is willing, we can work. Or, probably,m you can, since I doubt she will accept help from me despite my offer being genuine. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. However, I will quibble: if she refuses your help, and holds a grudge, then she is not worthy to be a wikipedian, because she would not yet truly grok pillar four. Being WP:NICE does not mean secretly plotting revenge whilst being polite to your frenemies in public... it means letting bygones be bygones, and every single day, really really assuming good faith. Your actions have at all times (well -- that I've seen -- maybe you too were once a beginner... :-) have clearly been a shining credit to all wikipedians, and I expect PrincessK to live up to the same high standards. Pillar four or hit the door, is my motto. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I appreciate the points you make, and the trouble you have taken, 74. I am experiencing some off-wiki real life stress at the moment, but I will be addressing the points on the relevant page very soon. I would appreciate it, if you can hold the fort there for a little bit till I contribute further. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, no problemo. I'll see if I can find somebody to watchlist this one. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I am already watching the page and have added Syrian navy, too. But all of my 27 various intelligence handlers, except the woman from Uzbekistan, think I should just stick to gnoming for a bit, so I will be doing a watchiong brief :) Seriously, a few real life issues have cropped up, so my temper and judgement may be temporarily affected on stressy subjects. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You lucky.[61] Me not.[62] Sigh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I had him. Hard work. Does he still try to slap you? Luckily, he must be slowing up slapping-wise. There is some good RfA admin board chats on, so going there to chill out a bit. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are an IP user who has participated in one or more of these discussions and have expressed interest in the topic. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver and labs[edit]

Here's the main Signpost report. There has been vacillation back and forth since then on funding and staffing - for example - but Toolserver has been dying (it goes down frequently, lags develop, etc.), and labs is still not ready, much though it seems to attract tool programmers for technical reasons. Here's the relevant page on the meta discussion wiki, last edited 11 November. Complicating factors: Toolserver still has the policy that if someone doesn't edit there for 6 months, their tools all lapse. TParis in particular have taken over orphaned tools (such as the edit counter) as this happens, but that adds to their workload in migrating tools to labs, where they have to be written differently, and it means the taken over tools get moved over there immediately, so they stop working as they did - because labs still doesn't replicate toolserver in functionality. (And appears to have been subject to delay after delay as WMF takes its own sweet time developing it and as the usual missed deadlines in a programming project pile up.) Increasingly obvious examples are the edit counter lacking deleted edits and the hinky replacement for "show contributions in all projects". I don't know what happened to the two sysadmins in Amsterdam who were minding the Toolserver machines; I hope they found other good jobs. I feel bad for Wikimedia Deutschland. I appreciate the hard work programming stuff on labs. But it is a big old mess caused by WMF insisting (procedurally and by withdrawing financing) on substituting their own space with its own newer! better! programming environment for something that had been set up independently and worked well ... and then letting the community down by not having it fully ready by any of their own deadlines (as most had predicted would be the case). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC) ... P.S.: I know I owe you a long reply. But I keep getting diverted by stuff, not to mention moping over things. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: Honda D15B8[edit]

hi. not sure how to message people or "ping" you so I'm doing it this way. you asked about the D15B8 ECU. I answered on my page. where/how do we discuss your needs? thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.28.106 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply, appreciate it. (Leaving me a note like you did is usually called "messaging" so you got it just right. There is also a way to "ping" people, which you can see somebody did in the section right below this one where Purplewowies sent me a little template-thingamabob. I can show you how to do it, if you care, but they are just a frill, so I never use them personally.)
  I saw there was some trouble about getting the ECU code into the article, which seems a shame, so I tried to look it up. Honda publishes almost no information online, as you prolly know. I have some Haynes manuals, and I think the library prolly has Chilton, but not specifically for the CX. Here is what I was able to unearth, but it contradicts what some places say, so now I'm just flat confused.  :-) Some sources say P05 and some say P06, but these guys have them all.[63][64][65][66]
  • D15B8 can accept OEM#
    • for 1992-1993 models
      • 37820-P05-A00/L00/A01/L01,
      • 37820-P06-A51
      • 37820-P06-A50/L00/L01/L50/L51,
      • 37820-P06-A00/A01,
      • 37820-P09-A00/L00
    • for 1994-1995 models
      • 37820-P05-A02/L02 sans-MT,
      • 37820-P06-A52 sans-MT,
      • ((missing?))
      • 37820-P06-A02 with-M.T.-emissions (CA?),
      • 37820-P07-L02RM with-M.T.-emissions (CA?)
Other places would talk about P05 and P06, but this place used the fullsize part-numbers. Does any of this look right to you? Does your vehicle have the A**/L** suffix stuff? Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


1. Thank you for being WAY super cool. (why aren't people like you in power instead of Drmies?)

2. I will thank you more and talk about your wonderfully funny points when I have time. (got stuff to do today)

3. Glad I said I'm not an ECU specialist because I had no idea there would be so many ECUs for a puny 8-valve!

4. Before answering your question... Need to clarify that there were two different CXs. You seem to understand that you are focusing on the CX models with the D15B8 engine, made from 1992-1995. Just pointing out that the 1996-2000 generation Civic line also featured a CX, but the engine was the noticeably more powerful D16Y7. (I owned one of those cars too and although significantly faster than the 92-95 series CX, you paid for it, in higher fuel consumption). You're talking 92-95 only, right? Just checking.

5. Answering your question... I don't know. I like to say "I don't know" when I can't be absolutely sure. I have two CX engines w ECUs and two VX engines w ECUs. (I also have a D15B7 - the DX engine). Since this topic is only about the CX then here's what I can disclose: I have a "92" and a 95. The '92 is in quotes because I'm not the original owner. I bought the engine and ECU from a guy off CL. He said it was a 1992. I saw the car the engine was from so that was enough [citation needed] for me. I seem to remember the car did not have a passenger airbag so it's either a '92 or '93 at the latest. The seller also plugged the ECU into another hatchback, started the engine, and saw it work perfectly. So there's my "proof".

6. Label from that aforementioned '92 CX I acquired:

 37820-P05-A00
   730-508063
        =IPT=

and to the right of the above code was the double-sized APT.

7. Details... It was a manual transmission, probably not from California. The date was stamped (in ink) "MAR 1 1 '92". And molded into the alloy chassis is a "1" over a "91" in a circle that looks like a little sun dial. I took photos of this ECU. If you would like me to upload them (to appease stubborn skeptics like Mr.choppers) I'd be happy to. (just tell me how).

8. the other D15B8 ECU is a 1995 and still in the original CX car. I'm reluctant to spend the time pulling the carpet off (and who knows what other parts) to gain access to it. I'll photo that one too but only if you really want me to. I don't like doing time-consuming things for free.

Sorry for the lengthy answer :/ The behavior of the two listed below has me feeling compelled to list every detail, right down to the last baryon, gluon, and meson.

-the D15B8 guy who's tiny additions keep getting undo'd by the undudes Mr.choppers and Drmies. 24.136.28.106 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right now I'm just working on the D15B8 for the 1992-1995 CX. I'm no specialist either, and you have the part-in-hand knowledge that was crucial. We can expand from there, later, once we get the rhythm going. Rather than call you the D15B8 guy, how about I call you 24, after the first part of your computer-number? Think of it like a football jersey; you can call me 74. Length is no problemo for me, I suffer the same disease.  :-)
  As for the proof that you supplied, gracias, the numbers from the 1992 ECU were the thing that clinched it for us. No need to upload the photo of the '92, everybody trusts you can read "p05-a00". But the reason I wanted you to check, was to see whether it showed the same numbers as the www.autopart.com folks were claiming. They have the best data available online, and they are an official ECU-remanufacturer for Honda. That's called a "primary source" in the wikipedia jargon -- Honda is also a primary source, whereas Chilton's and Haynes are secondary sources. If some mechanical-engineering-professor wrote a paper summarizing all the Chilton/Haynes/Car&Driver datasets, that would be a tertiary-source.
  As for the 1995 ECU, no need to pull up the carpet, let alone upload a photo. We can pretty well trust now that autopart.com has their info close enough, and get the ECU codes put into the D15B8 section of the page. Of course, first I'll need to talk this over with Drmies, and get the page unprotected (or maybe they will put the stuff in for us -- if they're still nervous about Honda folks adding information all wild-n-crazy-like). Wikipedia is kinda like the IRS, unfortunately... all that matters is the paperwork. That's not all that matters to me, so I wanted to make sure autopart was likely *true* as well as paperwork-compliant.
  Now, my next question is, before we talk about rev-limit and teeth-counting and such: do you have a service manual for your Honda, or at least, an owner's manual? Cause that sort of paperwork will be extremely helpful to us in our quest. And no, you don't gotta become a librarian for this. We'll get somebody else to do that part. :-)   But I don't have the manuals, and I want somebody to be able to double-check our librarian's work.
  p.s. We're still gonna have to work on your WP:NICE pillar-four-stuff a bit. WP:BATTLEGROUND is worth a skim, but basically what it says is that wikipedia is not supposed to be about fighting. This ain't about winning, or who is in charge. Everybody here is in charge. Wikipedia is for the readers! Drmies is an admin, but they don't run things; admins are No Big Deal, as the founder will tell you, straight up. Admins have been around the block, and have a good clear understanding of how wikipedia is supposed to work... which means it should be straightforward to get this ECU stuff worked out with Drmies.
  And again, I can swear, MrChoppers is trying to help; they got in a fight with you, because they spend a ton of time doing the thankless cleanup-task of keeping the Honda article (and the Toyota articles and a ton of other stuff) from getting junior-high folks that change the numbers to say a-million-horsepower, and other stupid horseplay. They should not have fought with you, of course... but they stayed within the rules. They're prickly, because they are a wikiCop, and that is a tough job. Anyways, you and I need to focus on the content + facts + sources; after that, the rest is easy-peasy.
  Hang onto the photo-files... we don't need them for proof now, but if you don't mind adding them to wikipedia for other folks to have the freedom to use, they prolly belong over in the ECU article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

sending private thank-you-messsages[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks.
Message added 07:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Purplewowies (talk)

Mike's requests[edit]

I don't know what the deal is with Mike's requests - maybe he uses a device that makes it hard for him to format references correctly? I've helped him a few times, and so have a number of others. It seems harmless, but I don't share his love for the aristocracy articles :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the formatting of the wiki-markup looks like it could be accessibility-related. Actually, one might suspect editing from a tablet/smartphone, where punctuation is sometimes incredibly painful to get to. Anyways, glancing at their edits didn't cause my red-alert-whiskers to twitch any, and clearly they are here in good faith. Did a bit of looking, and as of 2012 baronets are no longer, for the moment at least, under threat of insta-ban-hammer.[67] Still, always best to watch your step in those areas. Mike's interest seems to be more related to ancestry and genealogical stuff, than The Resurgence Of The British Empire To Once Again Rule The High Seas (And Recapture The Thirteen Colonies While We're At It). Still, since you've worked with them before, maybe you could leave them a friendly note that will make them aware to stay careful, keep cool, and avoid at all costs getting involved in any edit-warring, even by accident. Safer to edit the baronet-articles of the 1600s than to edit the Israel-articles of the 1960s, for sure.
  Anyhoo, I wish Mike well, they seem savvy. Isn't there a wikiProject for British Royalty, or something like that? ((Update, there is one, WT:WikiProject_British_Royalty#Inquiries, and they explicitly welcome "todo requests" on their WikiProject talkpage. See especially WP:BARONET subset within WP:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage, as well as [68][69][70][71][72].)) There's nothing wrong with leaving notes on pages of folks they know, but methinks Mike might just be picking somebody at random from the edit-history of the article in question, and often as not, prolly ask for help from some vandal-fighter who habitually ignores any sinebot-assisted messages from anons. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied[edit]

Hi. I replied on my talkpage on Meta-Wiki. BTW m:Special:AbuseFilter/history/71/diff/536/601 works now, the bug was fixed pretty quickly after I filed it. πr2 (tc) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Any comments? πr2 (tc) 16:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship proposal[edit]

This grant proposal seems like it may match with some of your ideas. Of course, you may already know of it, but I only learned of it from Ocaasi's obituary for Jackson Peebles, who died last month :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about Jackson, although I did not know of them; any wikipedian lost, is a loss to this world. In some ways you are correct about the match. But there are some crucial points where the proposal diverges from what methinks is absolutely required. Key errors: begging for USD$18k. Before starting any work. Begging for help from WMF, at all. See also, the people who threw millions into VisualEditor. Most crucially, just like the caste-system wikiCulture insists they do, just like all the *existing* failed-to-improve-retention programs, this is yet another scheme where the experienced-important-editcountitis REAL wikipedian, charitably and magnanimously gives their precious time and attention to some basically worthless, totally stupid, clueless groveling moron mentee. The last factor is the real problem. It means the system cannot be fun. Only some fun-quick-teaming will increase wp:retention, and this proposal is not it.
  Rather than join their effort, which will go into the black hole of the WMF, never to return, why don't we instead just steal the best people, steal the best ideas, and build something on a shoestring that will attract enough other developers to finish the work entirely with volunteers, without any of it beholden to WMF politicians and lawyers?  :-)   p.s. I've never heard of this project, because I don't think the WMF grant-begging boards are anything but a dead-end. That said, anything you run across like this, please let me know, I will be most grateful. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yah, that's why I pinged you about the proposal - I reckoned you had no more heard about it than I had. Afraid I can't lend any assistance with assessing people's possible interest: I try to avoid building profiles of editors in my head for two reasons above all: it's a volunteer project, so people's level of interest, attitudes, and priorities will change even more than otherwise likely; and I believe fervently in the right to on-line anonymity (one of many things on which I disagree with the WMF) so I try hard not to put 2 and 2 together. You may have the best success asking people. However, the WMF aspect is touchy - they regard us as working for them and some folks have no problem with that, while others reasonably enough think some variant of "Right, then! Let's take some of that money they're waving around". (Just as some newbies like mentorship, whereas I just futzed around and asked some silly questions at a help board that seems to no longer exist. Takes all kinds :-)) There are a (to me) surprising number of technically adept Wikipedians who might be happy to help program stuff - the disaffected Kumioko, for one. By the way - I assume you know about Flow, which is hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles? It will likely muck up everything involving collaboration except for unorchestrated joint editing in mainspace, so it will impact both planning and implementation of the two-person edit blitzes you envision. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Taking the last bit first, I *was* envisioning 2-person buddy-system blitzkrieg. No longer; it proved to be too difficult to explain, in several different ways.
Although your point about editor-profiling is well taken, but I'm actually engaged in pure uid-profiling, which is a slight but crucial distinction. I do not assume that User:Stephen is actually named that in real-life, for instance, tho prolly they are. And truth be told, I could care less who they are in real-life, I only care about what they'll do in the wikiverse. Harsh of me.  ;-)   And yes, I can ask them, but I'll ask them one by one, to not-join the not-a-cabal, as it were. Like wikipedia, it is a temporary anonymous catch-as-catch-can system.
  Some of them will say no, which means yes, in this system of semantics. :-)   The really clever ones will say !yes which means not-yes, but in the not-a-cabal not-yes means not-not-yes which means yes. Hence the reason for my question about whether you'd heard of them before... their boolean answers alone, will not tell me whether or not they are interested/interesting. Your mention of the mentorship-thing is directly related. If they are involved in mentorship, that's a good sign, it means they care about retention, and are trying to fix it. But if they *believe* asymmetric mentorship is going to work Some Day, if they fervently *wish* that the WMF would just supply more and more and More Funds, along with more and more and more bureaucratic strings... then they are not going to be on the same page as me, are not going to appreciate the not-a-cabal, and so on.
Anyways, what this boils down to is that, #1) we must start doubling editor-counts, and therefore #2) we must focus on what works in practice, but #3) without jettisoning any of the pillars along the way. Because the WMF has proven incapable of implementing a centralized top-down solution that will reverse the trend, despite spending a ton of money *talking* about such things, we can add #4) the solution must be decentralized and bottom-up. And that is about it, I think. The way to improve friendlyism around here is to double and double and double and keep on doubling the number of active editors, until we are over a million people making 5+edits/month. There will be plenty of helping hands to go around... as long as we make *sure* that the growth is mostly composed of people that live by the five pillars! Tough balancing act. Along the same lines, the vandalism-burden and the spam-burden and the promotionalism-burden, and the corresponding risks, will all evaporate in the face of a vast increase in the number of Good Egg editors. Ditto for the AfC backlog, the NPP shorthandedness, and the dearth of RfA successes.
  Retention of 900k Good Egg editors is definitely a silver bullet, for the majority of problems in the wikiverse. Course, any dramatic change like that brings New&Improved problems... wikipedia will be under more pressure than ever to bureacratize, when we go from 30k up to 900k active editors! But if we succumb to that pressure, we'll see the trendline flatten and then start to fall again, with the folks staying around the ones who *enjoy* paperwork... bad! Whereas, if we keep the rules minimal, and editor-liberty maximal, the trendline will still gradually flatten... but will stay monotonically upward-bound. Besides, the problems of having Too Many Good Eggs are vastly preferable to the problem we are soon to face, which is Not Enough Good Eggs To Keep Wikipedia Alive Without Selling Out To SearchEngines/PR/Syndicates/Politicians/Hypercorps.
  p.s. I'm not worried about Flow, it will not even be a factor, methinks; almost all of the programming I'm planning on doing will have to be 'external' wiki-tools rather than 'official' parts of wikipedia, in the short-to-medium-run. If anything, Flow-stuff will *help* the not-a-cabal, by drawing away folks that don't belong in the not-a-cabal. As with the "reimagining mentorship" proposal my goal is to poach away their "best" people (by the not-a-cabal standards outlined above), once I can figure out which ones are matches. As with everything, it will take longer than I wish, but methinks there is a good chance that some portions of the not-a-cabal scheme will be up and running and live next month... whereas I expect that flow and reimagining and whatnot will still be trying to squabble over funds. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi 74. Nice designing of your talk page. Anyway, you should log in to Wikipedia and become an admin; you would be a really good admin. Best wishes, 50.12.24.16 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind words; insert shermanesque statement here, however. I replied over at your talkpage, feel free to respond either which way.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Add witty-yet-appropriate headline here, as mine went missing[edit]

Gladly, I did find an appropriate yet witty barnstar for you. Then a bear ate it. :(

Just wanted to leave you some random wiki-appreciation/wiki-love. Been seeing you a fair bit on some talkpages I stalk, even if I think we've yet to interact. Good job on not letting yourself be scared away by the anti-IP-bias, your willingness to ask questions that ought to be asked, your wise words, such as, but not limited to, those you left on Kudpung's talk page a few days ago and of course your somewhat unique but much appreciated brand of humor. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

trademark policy[edit]

Hey 74.192!

Just wanted to let you know I left a bit of a response on the cake question in the lovely translation thread. Thanks again for the smiles and I hope to see you on meta ;) Jalexander--WMF 20:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at 50.12.24.16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tb[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at King of Hearts's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Study[edit]

Do you happen to conduct, or are capable of conducting, studies? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems vague. If you're asking whether I can do some test-pilot work, you know, study of flight characteristics, study of strafing-run accuracy patterns, that sort of thing, on the harrier you just purchased on the black market... the answer is definitely yes.  :-)   But presumably you mean some sort of editor-survey thing, or some sort of programmatically-parsing-wikipedia-metadata thing. I know something about the latter, and User:Liz knows something about the former methinks. What are you thinking of getting done, specifically? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. Please see Tumbleman and Philosophyfellow if you think this isn't serious.

Thanks for the warning, anonymous person. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah.[78] Good to know somebody cares, I guess. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation (DUROMAC)[edit]

Hey, I made a draft version in Articles for creation, here is a link [79]. please check it. We can still edit and once we done everything, we can send it for review, right?

btw, I know the CEO of DUROMAC, actually, all references I founded is offered by him. So I think these two sources are most useful. hmmm, then what we are going to do the next step?


Hey, please check my articles for creation, I made the final version of DUROMAC. Please help me to check it and tell me what I still need to improve.... thankssssss--Clover1991 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, are you busy these days?? Haven't heard anything from you a while!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

hey, hello. I don't know why you didn't reply me for a while :(, but I submit my article to AFC already, waiting for review. If you still want to help me, please take a look at here[80].still, thanks a lot!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Clover, I'm actually in the middle of a reply to you, in another browser tab, but have not clicked save yet.  :-)   It's the holidays here, and I've also been busy with work, plus there are some other articles that need help, and some other editors that need help.
  You should not be sad. I still like you. I still want to help you. In fact, part of the reason you are getting less help from me, is that you are on the right pathway already. You do not need as much help from me, because you are starting to figure out how to do it on your own.  :-)   That is good. But in general, you should expect that wikipedia will be a place where people will help you, and then disappear.
  There is a thing called WP:REQUIRED, which says everybody is here to pursue their own interests. That includes you! It includes me too, of course. Everybody else, as well. For instance, you asked for help over on AGK's page, but never got a reply from them. That is perfectly 100% totally fine. They are busy. They are helping wikipedia. They are, quite frankly, juggling chainsaws balanced on a tightrope. Wikipedia is lucky to have them. And besides, somebody else noticed your message, and helped you. So the system works out, in practice.
  But in general, my goal here is not to help you, every step of the way. My goal here is to point you in the right direction, and then let you choose how best to accomplish you goals, and how best to improve wikipedia. Does this make sense? You are always free to drop in and see if I have time to help, of course. You are also free to drop in and see how I am doing, or see if I need help with anything.
  As a matter of fact, I am trying to work with somebody right now who speaks Tamil, and if you would like to assist me with that, while we wait for your article to get through the AfC queue, that might be fun for you. But this is not WP:REQUIRED, it is totally up to you. I won't be offended if you are busy, or if you would rather do something else, or anything like that. It would be nice of you to say so, of course, just a quick 'sorry I am busy elsewhere' is more than enough... but even that is never required.
  Perhaps the key point is this. Wikipedia is for the ages: there is no WP:DEADLINE, partly because it is such a gigantic project (we don't want to rush the job and botch everything), and partly to keep stress levels low (we don't want people to burn out). Now, the downside here, is that obviously wikipedia sometimes seems slow, as slow as molasses in the coldest winter. You are not the only one who wishes things would happen quicker! There are a lot of projects where I get frustrated, because I want instant gratification, but I don't usually get it, because Wikipedia takes time. The good thing, is that wikipedia is well-suited to letting me work on something else, while I wait for the thing I wish was going faster.  :-)   So the bad news is, I have not made time for further work on Duromac yet, but the good news is, there is still plenty of time. Even better, you are starting to understand how things work around here, and soon, you will be an expert, so even if I never find time, Duromac will be a success, and wikipedia will be better for it.
  I'll try and pay Duromac a visit in the near future, if I can, but if I cannot, somebody else will appear to help -- perhaps David or Julie or Anne or one of the other AfC reviewers -- or perhaps Tim or Acro or someone who helped you in the past -- or perhaps an entirely new person. As always, thanks for improving wikipedia, and thanks especially for your friendly attitude, it is much appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

DUROMAC HAS BEEN DELETED AGAIN![edit]

hey, I'd really want to help you with another article, but I am really sad right now, coz my article has been deleted again in AFC. they said the product section seems like advertising. I really have no idea what I need to improve. Maybe I delete the whole product section? Or you have better suggestion?? Please, help me. see the link here [81]--Clover1991 (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic!  :-)   Duromac is not deleted, the "decline" just means not yet because there is still work to be done. This is a learning process. Take heart, Clover. Declined with a constructive comment is good. We just fix the problem, and then resubmit. Sooner or later, we will get to the heart of the matter, I promise. There is an old saying, Rome wasn't built in a day.  :-)   Take a deep breath. Relax.



Now. What is the thing that they said? "Reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." And they are correct, it is more like an advertisement, than a wikipedia entry yet. Too much of the article is not neutral, not sourced. In particular, TKK said to look at the list of products. Well... look at them. What do you see? No sources! No citations! Is that neutral? Does the product-line satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY? Maybe not.
  So maybe we should minimize it, or just take the list out. But then... but then... how will the readers know about all the great things that Duromac does? That is an improper question. Wikipedia is not the place to talk about all the great things Duromac does -- the duromac.com homepage does that job, quite well. Wikipedia has to be just the facts, has to stay neutral.
  This is hard for you, to write in a neutral tone. Why? Easy! Because you are proud of Duromac. It is hard for *you* personally to write in a neutral tone. But wikipedia must be neutral -- that is pillar number two. So what to do? Well, you need to ask for help. Somebody else, to write up the article, and stay neutral. Somebody who finds it *easy* to stay neutral.
  Maybe I can help you, but I'm still busy at the moment, there is an ArbCom case and an ArbCom election right now. So why don't we ask Tikuko? I will put a message on their talkpage. Many of the AfC reviewers like Tikuko are busy, but they also like helping people, otherwise they would pick another job. If not them, we will find someone. Slow and steady, wins the race. Persistence. Grace. Steady as she goes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I got your point. I also leave a message on TTK's page, hopefully he has time to help me. I also leave message on Wikipedia article of creation help desk. I hope some one can help me. I really appreciate you help me a lot! since I am a new here, I am really lost in Wikipedia. Thank you!!--Clover1991 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your message to TTK, it was good. My main message to *you* is, that you can probably learn to help yourself, if you can train yourself to write neutrally, just the facts, stick to the strongly to the sources. Over on the left, there is a community-portal link. In this case, you are looking for help with fixing up your AfC submission. You can post a question at WP:TEAHOUSE every couple of days, to see if folks have time to help you with specific questions. But probably the best thing you can do, is look at *successful* articles about companies, that were just approved from the AfC queue.
  Here is the list -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/recent -- you can see DigSin and Middlesex Water Company in the list. You can also click on the 'view history' link at the top, and look back to previous articles. That will give you a rough idea of what is acceptable, but more importantly, what you do not see there, is probably stuff that was usually unacceptable. Learn by example. Of course, there are many companies in wikipedia now, that might be useful to look at, such as Toronto_Works_and_Emergency_Services and maybe even Zoomlion, but these are actually *less* useful of a guide, because they may not have been as-recently checked over.
  I will drop in when I can spare a bit of time. You can reply to TTK's comment in the AfC queue, and you should explain there that because you know the CEO, you are having trouble with keeping a neutral tone. You can also list our other sources there, the ones we have not put into the article, so people trying to help you will have a quick way to get going. Thanks for improving wikipedia, keep striving, let me know if you get stuck. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Hello, I reply you on my talk page, please check it, thanks :))))--Clover1991 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

hey, You have a talk back on my talk page, please check it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover1991 (talkcontribs) 06:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

hey, You have a talk back on my talk page, please check it!--Clover1991 (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well not exactly for you, but I thought you might like a new challenge! Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That is either very inviting, or very forboding.  :-)   Guess I better find out which. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally[edit]

I have an infobox on my user page, with one of your great ideas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now that is hilarious.[82] I don't really mind so much when one person gets topic-banned, and at least theoretically I can see how infoboxen could be disruptive. People have strong feelings about how stuff *looks* here on wikipedia, which to me is pointless, what matters is whether it is *correct* info, and the laid-out-optimally-for-informing-readers stuff is always going to be subjective and fuzzy, because different readers find different kinds of layout optimal.
  The worrisome part is the "editing-by-telepathic-proxy ban" upon all *other* editors. If they visit some music-related article, and think to themselves, hey, there should be an infoboxen for this... BAN-HAMMER FALLS. (Which is totally nuts.) Anyhoo, apparently there is a problem with telepathy-like phenomena elsewhere, so I gotta go. Take it easy Gerda, and keep your infoboxen in their quiver. p.s. Since I may one day wish to add an infoboxen to some page, perhaps even my very own userpage, if it were editable, I will be shortly be deleting this evidence that we ever spoke.  :-)   Siggggghhhhhh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Just today I discovered that there were some similar editing-by-telepathic-proxy bans related to metrication, and rumor has it similar things happened with cold fusion, back in the day. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I like to be hilarious, and - as pointed out many times before - having written on Kafka (did you try the link in the box?) helped to take some absurdities. I entered a battleground and knew it, but does it make me a warrior? I never requested that all articles have an infobox, only that all would be more informative with one. I never added one where I thought it would not be wanted, sometimes I noticed that I was wrong. Did you see the Planyavsky case, with a diff making it to the support for a ban? I asked all arb candidates what they saw there. (Click on "vote" in the box.) Some didn't (dare to?) look. One said what you see if you don't look deeper. ALL the others got it right! There's hope for the next group. The case (shortened only a bit):
I add an infobox to "my" article.
It's reverted.
I improve it and return it.
It's reverted.
A friend restores it.
It's collapsed at the end of the article.
Andy uncollapses it and puts it in the normal position.
Who needs to be banned? Andy, of course. So said one arb in his vote to ban ("concerns me deeply"), and none of the colleagues questioned it. - Andy wrote a new article, and someone who dares to give a journalist an infobox is needed, - that's not proxy, that's improving Wikipedia, I started on the talk. - And to finish the case story: the uncollapsing ended the dispute. See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"I entered a battleground and knew it, but does it make me a warrior" This is the key question. Recently, I entered a battleground, and did not know it. But I found out within a couple days! And stayed to fix the problem: there should not be battlegrounds on wikipedia. Now, as you can see below, it seems most likely that either I will become a notorious wikiCriminal like you, or someone else will (we have two such folks already in the mix).
  Fundamentally, what ought to happen in the case I am entangled in, is that ArbCom should ban nobody. If they will clarify that WP:NPOV does not equal WP:SPOV, that wikipedians must reflect the WP:RS rather than rewrite/elide them, and that deleting something Reliably Sourced just because it is Not True is actually the wrong way to help the readership... well then, that should be enough. Our battleground is entirely hinging on whether individual editors can pick and choose amongst the sources, not just for WP:MEDRS claims, but for *any* claim in *any* field of inquiry, including bare demographical facts. There may be some folks who are unwilling to accept that, but ArbCom should not have to pre-emptively ban them.
  The alternative, is that ArbCom should explicitly rule that WP:NPOV in fact *does* equal WP:SPOV, and furthermore, that WP:FRINGE applies to *every* field of inquiry, not just scientific claims, and that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS *should* be identical. This will result in a rewrite-slash-delete of most religious articles from the atheist POV, and a rewrite-slash-delete of all the articles on questionable science, and a gutting of the history of philosophy, history of science, and history of culture. Giant piles of pop-culture, pokemon and teevee especially, would fall to the deletionists as "not serious enough and not scientific enough to be WP:MAINSTREAM". Magic The Gathering, and also AD&D, would likely be kept, interestingly enough.
  Tons of people would leave wikipedia, if it were to become truth-o-pedia. But truth be told, I personally would probably not. It would be *strange* to give special privilege ("the only WP:RS are the opinions of these people") to mainstream-research-scientists working in traditional academic careers at mainstream-research-universities. But that is what JPS would like to have happen, methinks, not just in science-topics, but in *all* topics. The articles on religion, politics, and so on... would slowly and gradually (but in the end drastically) be changed. Wikipedia would arguably be *much* closer to being a good guide to the truth. I would stay, and help; I have often wished this were truth-o-pedia. But the trouble is, I'm not sure the readership would stay, because besides loving the pokemon and the teevee crap, they also believe wikipedia is fair. Truth-o-pedia would be relentlessly unfair ("the truth hurts" as the saying goes), and there would be a constant battle to lock it down, censor non-mainstream-science views, ban the "fairness warriors", and so on... just like on the Sheldrake page, today, which is the worst battleground I've seen, but probably not the Worst.Battleground.Evah.
  Anyhoo, coming back to your infoboxen thing, I see *two* possibilities in your list. First possibility, the one your arbcom poll supports, is the possibility that Andy was acting in good faith, and that the editing was a collaboration-in-mainspace, with different viewpoints constructively ironing out their differences, to end up with a final product that everybody was happy with. THAT IS *EXACTLY* HOW WIKIPEDIA *OUGHT* TO WORK. (dammit I say!) Rrrrrr. Where is bishzilla, to destroy Tokyo, when I need it?  :-)     But the other interpretation, of the exact same list of edits, goes like this.
  The notorious wikiCriminal Gerda, jealous of the good citizens of ArticleTown, decides to take over. First she attacks from the left flank. Reverted! War is on! Insidiously, she doubles back, then attacks from the *right* flank. Reverted again, yay, the valiant wikiCitizens say huzzah! But now Gerda is angry. Very angry indeed. She calls on her wikiGang, sending secret emails across the land. Frontal blitzkrieg! Her so-called "friend" strikes, using the powers of evil to revert the righteous reverts of the good wikiCitizens. They are not warriors, they are just simple wikiFauna defending their homes, they cannot face the brutal wikiGang. But perhaps they can contain it -- they put the evil infestation into wikiJail, and demote it to the worst ghetto in ArticleTown. Oh woe! Backstabber! The notorious wikiCriminal Gerda was ready for them. Bribing the wikiCops, she has infiltrated the wikiJail, and sent her chief provocateur Andy The Terrible to shoot good the wikiFauna in the back. He crushes all in his path, desecrates their artwork, and forces The Will Of Gerda on the exhausted cowering wikiCitizens. Where shall they seek wikiJustice? Who shalt dare ban Andy The Terrible? Will the wikiCriminal Gerda never be stopped???
  We have the exact same problem on the Sheldrake page. Currently, in fact, there is a battle to rewrite the rules of what it means to edit-war. Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Definition_of_.22Revert.22_and_.22Undo.22. Anyways, I think you are the most cuddly friendly wikiCriminal, and hope to one day see you free to place infoboxen as you see fit. That said, there *is* a problem with tag-team editing, and with POV. Your POV, that readers often benefit from infoboxen, is relatively harmless. That some people get so *angry* about it, well, that is not your fault. Look over at the talkpage for the manual of style. They tear each other to shreds over emdash comma endash distended-partial-semicolon-whatevers. Does that improve wikipedia? Maybe. I guess. But it seems borderline. But there are some topics, which are controversial in the Real Universe, and not just controversial in the wikiverse. Infoboxen and MOS battles are small potatoe (as Dan Quayle might say). Serious battles are being fought in the pages related to nationlism, medicine, political BLPs, economics, and protoscience-aka-pseudoscience. They are not usually more vicious than the infoboxen wars... but they are longer-lasting. It is a discouraging thing. Still, your good attitude cheers me. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talkcontribs) 19:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm notifying everyone to whom this Arb's request applies. Please consider responding.
Best,
David in DC (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

engine data: where is the fuzzy wikipedia/wikiversity/fansite line[edit]

What data belongs in wikipedia? What data belongs in wikiversity, in the automotive engineering textbook for designers, and in the automotive repair manuals for mechanics? What data will always be fansite stuff? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

automotive specs: what does WP:RS mean, if the industry only *sells* the detailed info?[edit]

What data can we gather from WP:CALC? What data can we gather under fair use? What data can we gather under the Feist decision? What data can we gather without violating WP:OR? Can we sometimes use online stores as a backup-justification? Don't libraries have Haynes and Chilton manuals? Isn't there at least *one* wikipedian who works at a dealership, and thus has access to the official published manuals? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This[edit]

... may appeal to your sense of the absurd. Or the sense of surd (as it was defined in my schooldays, at least). Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree[edit]

I have assumed he was around but didn't want to be seen casting accusations without evidence. The problem is that there are so many "little me" minions around that whether real or sock does not make much difference. In the end, the atmosphere is as poison as ever.

I think you and I probably agree in principle. There is faith-based thinking at all levels, but we still must encourage thinking. In my field, there are people who believe without objective reason, which dilutes the good efforts of others to determine if these phenomena are more than imagination. The task is to support exploration of new ideas without unduly assigning veracity. To me, the entire pseudoscience and skeptic vs. "believer" polarity in Wikipedia simply suppresses free thought and pisses off a lot of people who would rather be supporting Wikipedia.

Keep trying. Tom Butler (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing is, prolly you and I would *not* agree in principle!  :-)   But feel free to give me a try, if you wish. I do disagree that faith-based-thinking is, linguistically speaking, truthiness. The very meaning of "faith-based" requires that one shut *off* thinking, about whatever claim/idea/phenomenon it is that one is taking on faith. Now, obviously, there are times when humans for pragmatic reasons have to act, getting the right answers, even when going on too little data. If the bad guys are chasing me, and I can either turn left down the dark alley, with the end concealed in shadows, or turn right down the major street, with a lively noontime circus visible at the end, I'll go with my gut and head for the circus. Now, at least theoretically, there could be a police station deep in the shadows, and the circus-folks could be brain-eating-zombies. But I don't have time for deep analysis, and empirical experiments, the bad guys are right behind me. Wikipedia is not much like that hypothetical scenario, needless to say, at least in my mind. Wikipedia is long-term.
  As for the other thing, well, I'd never heard of Josh, the Sheldrake BLP is my first fringe article, and until this year I've always stuck to mainspace, never policy-pages. I've editing "minority view" stuff before, if you count Occupy Wall Street versus Stormfront versus American Socialists versus Objectivist Party versus Justice Party versus Boston T.E.A. Party ... *none* of which are WP:FRINGE, since that *only* applies to science, never to politics. There are plenty of politicians that make wacky claims about science-kinda-sorta, from Al Gore inventing the internet to John McCain inventing the Blackberry PDA. But nobody tries to blackball their BLP-pages for *that* stuff ... they just try to blackball them for their religion, or for their stance on affirmative action, or for their vote in the bailouts, or for their alleged adultery, or for sapping the Purity of Our Essences, or whatever political football is handy.
  Maybe it will come to pass that ArbCom will 'break the back of the dispute' by banning everybody that disagrees with ScienceApologist's old WP:SPOV, or vice versa. But neither one would help, the cause of the battleground would still remain. The only thing that will help, from what I can grok, is if ArbCom explicitly rules that WP:RS applies everywhere except WP:MEDRS medical claims, and that WP:FRINGE applies nowhere except in terms of biology/chemistry/physics/cosmology claims (and that editors cannot be the final judges of generally-considered-pseudoscience-versus-questionable-science but must let *sources* be their guide), plus most importantly that WP:NPOV is *not* WP:SPOV/WP:MAINSTREAM/WP:SkePOV, ever... even when WP:MEDRS applies, even when WP:FRINGE_OBVIOUS_PSEUDOSCIENCE applies. I'm currently trying to get up the gumption to explain to some WP:FTN person why they cannot exclude all sources in arabic as "not *really* reliable-aka-true" and therefore somehow 'prove' that Islam is a bullshit religion.
  But not today. Instead, I have a large collection of tinfoil to eat. Mhhmmmm, yummy!  :-)   Anyhoo, apologies again for my TLDR part in making you unhappy with wikipedia. As you can see, I've learned, but not learned enough!   :-/     I hope someday you return, for more than just AhrbCohm Drahmahz. Take it easy, Tom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

IP tales
Thank you for quality imaginative contributions to articles and discussions, with insight, background knowledge, a vision and the gift to tell tales, and with edit summaries adding to the reading pleasure, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

2013-12-01 RFAR, statement by 74, concerning Rupert Sheldrake[edit]

Placeholder, to be filled in with answers for Carcharoth and the other ArbCom folks ASAP, and within 48 hours at the outside. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Whittled to 995, abandoned grammar to hit 500. Sorry.

Tons of issues here. Most nonArbCom. Bullying? AE. Removal of RSed-materials? 2010. Pillar four violations? Find admin, try DRN, take cold shower! Content disputes? Tons, despite Barney's assertion. Ninja-reversion the norm, or just-short-of-war gradually reversion of meaning. Not ArbCom's place.

  One fundamental reason, underlies *repeated* anti-pillar-four flareups (couple instances only of borderline-bullying — most just grudges after *repeated* problems and *ongoing* situation-frustration). Frustration caused by misunderstanding of meaning of NPOV. Subtle, but causes all other Sheldrake-difficulties.

  Long-running dispute, jps-aka-QTxV-fka-ScienceApologist and Iantresman oh-so-politely warring since ~2004. Break the back best accomplished by *very* brief ArbCom ruling on meaning of first sentence, and on whether WP:MAINSTREAM/WP:SPOV/WP:SkePOV are indistinguishable from NPOV. No such thing as a SkePOV, says Vzaak, TRPoD, Barney, jps, JzG, plus prolly also Mangoe etc; core dispute is meaning of NPOV.

  To wit, equating SPOV===NPOV, permits RSes ... or *portions* of specific RSes ... elided from mainspace, with supported-sentences. Only currently true: Medicinal Claims, added by jps.[83] Controversial then; necessary evil, nowadays. But MEDRS ought never apply outside strict limits of clinical claims, FRINGE ought never apply outside strict limits of scientific theories.

  Sheldrake phytomorphology? Alternative-or-questionable. Sheldrake telepathy-like subquantum fields, as a physics (not spiritual) theory? Generally-considered-pseudoscience... maaaaybe protoscience. Sheldrake a 'biologist'? Other sources say pseudoscientist! Describe the conflict, never decide it. Cf celeb birthyear. We follow RS, never our own logic. Sheldrake philosophy-of-science? politics-of-science? spirituality, consciousness-not-cogsci, non-science-related-musings? No FRINGE, no MEDRS.

  If that's not the meaning of UNDUE and NPOV, then I will be delighted to start writing articles for truth-o-pedia, banning illogical/irrational. I'll join the crusade, save poor readers from themselves, right alongside Josh et al. But... I don't believe that's what NPOV says.

Some say CHERRYPICKING and EDITORIALIZING in the name of Holy Mainstream Science, even driving away some who disagree, is peachy. Following spirit of pillar five to the hilt, ignore rules that prevent improving wikipedia. But they're fundamentally mistaken: extreme scepticism is a "side" in the policy-sense. Militant scepticism *is* disruptive, in the essay-sense. So long as folks believe WP:SPOV isn't a failed essay, but rather is identical to non-negotiable pillar two... battlegrounds will recur.

  I ask ArbCom to accept RFAR. 2013/2010/2007 decisions, often same exact editors, always involving same generally-problematic topics, won't end until it's firmly settled: whether NPOV===SPOV, or not. Even just ArbCom commenting...

  1. FRINGE only applies to hard-science-claims, not to philosophy-claims, nor other fields of inquiry
  2. MEDRS only applies to medical-efficacy-claims, never to job-credentials, etc
  3. WP:MAINSTREAM does not equate to, and cannot trump, NPOV

...that alone could break the back, even 'non-binding'. HTH; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  p.s. Although I am a named party in the dispute, due to my pariah status as a low-caste anon, I cannot post my statement here,[84] as the ArbCom page is protected against my kind. Define irony; so is Rupert Sheldrake.

extraneous commentary, outside 'official' statement[edit]

p.p.s. ((And yes... I realize that the large number of declines, with advice to wait a few more weeks or months, makes it likely that ArbCom will not be taking my advice, and considering the case. I do not insist that the matter remain open for the 48 hours I will need; I can make my statement here either way. Still, given that the problem has been ongoing since at least August, which is four months of battleground behavior, and the accusations of bias in this specific BLP article have made WP:RS news at least three times during November... additional months are a bad idea.))

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Prathamprakash29's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is actually at the school talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Clover1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Clover1991 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Clover1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Clover1991 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you4711!!!!Me, the eighth user in the category???Surprise! Hafspajen (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

4711! Please, get yourself an username! See, what happens otherwise! (You can always ask an admin to transfer your userpage to the new address! - if you don't want to lose your old friends... ) Hafspajen (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

.[edit]

  • Now, just look what this crazy bot is doing.... I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarong may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. (this is actually a a vandalism edit) see that message the last one down, it looks like the bot agrees with this edit. I like it a lot Thanks, BracketBot... Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Now the interesting thing is, the very same IP-address was vandal-fighting the last time the were here, back in May.[85] Some cox-cable-modem address in the great plains of north america. Not sure why they like sarongs.  :-)   Nor why they seem to change personalities; big sibling and little sibling, maybe? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic comment prompted by the word "sarong". I'd like to meet the idiot who thought we needed a TV remake of "The Sound of Music" featuring, I kid you not, Carrie Underwood as Maria.
Ten non-reedeemable, non-transferrable points to you if you can figure out how my twisted mind got from "Sarong" to "The Sound of Music." David in DC (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
[86] + [87] = 10pts? Assuming that the Smothers Brothers aren't involved this time around.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sarong, farewell, auf veidersehn, adeiu. You got it. David in DC (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

TLDR statement[edit]

Here is the kiloword version of the official statement shown above.

Association of Youth Organizations Nepal[edit]

Thanks for your note to me.

1. If I remember correctly, I only fixed one link in that big table under "Member organisations". [Personally, I hate dead links, especially on a site such as Wiki, which should be current. :-]

2. I completely agree with the person who removed all of the links--"we are not the yellow pages - do we not have articles for ANY of these". An item in that big table should first link to a Wiki article; the Wiki article, in turn, can contain a link to the external site.

3. Regarding your offer

There is an outside place called http://DMOZ.org which is sometimes used to store URLs like that. I explain how it works below...
Talk:Association_of_Youth_Organizations_Nepal#directory_of_website_links
I'm happy to help you get it all done, if you like.

I was just passing through the article "Association of Youth Organizations Nepal" and fixed one link along the way. :-) Somebody who is more intimately associated with AYON or even Nepal can handle reinstating the deleted links on DMOZ.

Personally, I think the correct approach is . . . slowly start to link items in the big table to any existing Wiki articles or, if viable, start new articles for items in the big table.

Nice chatting with you. Bye —94.113.34.74 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

On Imagine[edit]

Thanks. You got it precisely right. How did you do that when either nobody else could or was willing to admit it? I thought it was pretty straightforward what had happened, especially when I said so, but apparently the fact that human beings make human mistakes is not a fact widely accepted. Also thanks for the essay - Wikipedia is full of surprising little gems like that. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You shower gems upon me. In recognition of your thoughtful advice, I have arranged for a tree to be planted in your name number in a remote communal farming village on the Tibetan high steppe. Your day to water it is Tuesday. --Pete (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Jetpack. Sweden's own 4711. No problemo.  :-)   p.s. Philosophically, IBAN seemed like a stupid thing, when I first heard about it. I'm not so sure anymore, though; the basic premise of wikipedia is that this should be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? And any person in the world, no matter how perfect, is gonna rub at least *one* somebody-else wrong. Not to mention, nobody is perfect. So I have come to see them as a necessary evil. However, I think having admins impose them is wrong... they should just be unilateral and/or mutually-agreed-upon individual choices by individual editors. Be that as it may, good luck with your editing, thanks for improving wikipedia, and stick to pillar four like a rock. See you around. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we cannot get the dozen-or-so arbs to look at this, maybe we can get some uninvolved editors involved, if we can find folks that are ready and willing.

2013q2 Nutshell: scientist famous for writing half-a-dozen books about animals / parapsychology / telepathy / cognition. (Basically correct; could use more depth, and a broader context.)

2013q4 Nutshell: pop-culture parapsychologist, once was a 'researcher' back in the 1960s and 1970s, now says termites are telepathic && all science is bull, his stench offends all true scientists but he still somehow suckers the ignorant public. (*Also* basically correct... albeit now slanted heavily towards WP:SPOV at the expense of all else... BBC included... again, wider context is *still* needed, and although depth has been achieved, it was achieved by jettisoning NPOV and is borderline to violating BLP, plus of course regularly violates BLPTALK. Furthermore, WP:BATTLEGROUND has settled in for the long haul, and arbcom refusing the case more or less guarantees long-term grudges. Maybe they will be minimized if we act quickly to bring in a couple dozen uninvolved editors, but I'm not too hopeful anymore.)

By my tally, from October 31st to November 31st, exactly one thing was fixed in the mainspace lede (albeit partially and ever so slightly -- *any* move in the direction of neutrality is a win nowadays), and two new things were broken. The additions are not untrue, nor are they unsourced; they belong in the article, though perhaps not in the cherrypicked and wikipedian-driven-editorializing phrasing we see here, which is not neutral by a good stretch. But in the lead? Sheesh. Some of *the* most important things about Sheldrake, are that he has a new book where he plays the philosophical-skeptic, to the anger of scientists-skeptical-about-pseudoscience everywhere? And that he is friends with Chopra, another arch-enemy of those same woo-fighters, in a different context? Sigh. This article is a basket-case, and the talkpage is an even bigger basket case.

  There is a real-life battleground, the TEDx talks of early 2013, which led most of the folks here... and now, *this* wp:battleground BLP page has itself become a Notable real-life phenomenon, with in-depth coverage in multiple Reliable Sources, hurting wikipedia's credibility in the BBC, and in the New Republic, and so on. We already have enough real-life bad press about declining number of admins and declining number of active editors. These phenomena are not unrelated; tendentious battlegrounds are one of the things that drive people away! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

True words, all those above. I am particularly amused/disheartened by the unwillingness to call Conservation of Energy anything but a "fact", when the whole world calls it a "principle" or "law". The difference between "facts" and "principles or laws" is pretty important. But then, I'm no scientist, or even a former scientist.
BTW, I don't know how to access the BBC or New Republic things, both of which I'd like to look at. And feel free to delete all this if it gets in the way. Lou Sander (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Lou, pleasure to see you again, but remember, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" should NOT be taken literally, it is just a metaphor nowadays, what are you, some kinda old-school? Coyne is here -- http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra -- and he gives a pointer to the online copy of the BBC-world-svc-radio-interview with Sheldrake including timestamps which was on-air Nov 5th and archived here -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kb0bg -- Coyne says minutes 8 thru 13 are the Sheldrake interview by BBC interviewer Dan Damon.
  WHICH AS EVERYONE KNOWS, apparantly, is really just a Sheldrake-fanboi in BBC-clothing, because as Coyne goes to some pain to point out, over in Damon's personal blog on typepad, he self-identifies as a "keen churchgoer" at some point. Keen. Church. Goer. Kid you not! THE BBC IS KILLING SCIENCE and this known churchgoer was actual *permitted* to interview Sheldrake himself, the mad scientist devil, On. The. Radio. Where. Gullible. Stupid. Citizens. Might. Listen. WITHOUT CLUBBING HIM! Offended, I tell you, I am mortally offended that this travesty of justice should occur, that Coyne, a REAL scientist is relegated to the New Republic peer-reviewed top-decile-impact-indicator journal of phytomorphology, but nnnooooooooo, SHELDRAKE is the one the BBC calls, why why WHYYYYY! p.s. Use of the word 'scientist' in describing Sheldrake previously was *entirely* accidental, he is a *former* biologist with a *former* PhD, who was never even a Fellow of the Royal Society that was a damn RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP and it is over, over and done with I tell you, live in the now, live in the now! The editors of New Republic sincerely regret the error.
  The whole article reads like that. Coyne is apparently a U.Chicago prof, and just like Maddox, he totally loses his cool. In public, in a Reliable Source, no less. Exactly as Sheldrake would have hoped... and I suspect, exactly as Sheldrake planned from the beginning, though perhaps he did not predict Coyne specifically. Sigh; wikipedia is being played. I don't believe that vzaak and barney and the others are engaged in a conspiracy to blast Sheldrake, they just came here because of the TEDx fallout, like many of the "Sheldrake-fanbois" who seem to be incredibly numerous and include David_in_DC and myself and Liz and of course *you* Lou, naughty naughty.
Ignore my moaning and groaning, enjoy reading-n-listening to the Grand Real World Dramahz: Sheldrake The Philosophical Sceptic Versus Coyne The ReallyScientific™ SkepticDotCom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Clover1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Clover1991 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

skip![edit]

analysis of Ahnoneemoos versus Mercy11 and CaribbeanHQ[edit]

Here is an example of A collaboratively editing, ironically enough, provided by C themselves. This is back in August, before the "short not-at-all-punitive block" by ArbCom-member SilkTork. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Retaking AnonPedia this weekend?[edit]

lol dude, your analysis are fucking HILARIOUS. I'm just cracking up.

You are getting much much better about keeping it short and simple. Good job! Fuck what other people tell you man, never create a fucking account. Anonymity forevah.

Anyway, I'm free this Sunday and on Monday. This week should be light too so we can continue talking about AnonPedia or whatever else you want.

Let's use tinychat so that you can remain anonymous. I'm on EST time. Let me know what's more convenient for you.

Happy holidays!

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you again, as well, and hope you are enjoying December.  :-)   Okay, cool -- Sunday & Monday. I'll have to look up this tinychat thing. Is it an IRC thing? Wikipedia has a bunch of freenode-somethings, they are usually pretty quiet, we can pick an empty channel, or we can go hang out where the nice people hang out, and see if they want to gab with us... or at least, won't mind listening to us.
p.s. Hey, you're lucky I happened to think of you, I just went by your homepage to see how you were doing, and wondered what your noticeboard message was about. Anons cannot receive 'you-were-mentioned-over-on-$page' because we do not get echo-messages. Binksternet is tough but fair; they seem to think you were too aggressive somewheres, and that you should promise to be more controlled, but I wasn't sure where. Anyhoo, recommend you focus on making Binksternet happy, because if they're happy, not many other admins could *be* unhappy. p.p.s. Fortunately or unfortunately, my past month has been an exercise in trying to control WP:WALLOFTEXT with an iron fist. Say, speaking of tha....3###%&(($(&###^^^^^NOCARRIER. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Ahnoneemoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • sTaLKeR. 74, Are you still being terrifyingly useful and clued and an asset to this increasingly threadbare setup? Tut. IPs must be disruptive. Tis written. No, wait...Irondome (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Irondome, nice to see you... and believe me, I know, I know! My swedish controller -- no relation to the Swedish Chef -- is telling me to use 4711, which is not only what Audrey Hepburn wore, it is also what the Das Boot commandos were issued by the nazi high command. Chilling combination! Anyhoo, I *would* like to get back to vandalizing pages, and spamming about my significant other's internet band, and trolling, and all that good stuff, but until the active-editor-count gets above 100k, what's the point? There's no sport in those visigoth activities anymore, too many wikipedians have been driven away. At some point, there will be enough wikipedians to make such things challenging once again, and I'll go back to my IP roots, but until then, I've been forced to develop WP:CLUE against my will, against my very nature! It's persecution, I swear.  ;-)   p.s. I look in on the dolphin-sub stuff from time to time, but it seems to have lost steam just when I noticed it. Have you seen stuff crop up in other articles about that? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that scary edit notice is gone. Maybe it is safe to post here.[edit]

I am cooling my heels waiting to be summoned to the vet's, so I should not do anything too demanding. I am also still depressed. You posted to AN/I recently; did you see this recently closed thread? Stalking Exercising judicious and entirely non-intrusive interest in your contributions led me to Evan Spiegel, where I happily expanded the refs and used them to put some meat on the bones. (I suspect the notability tag can now be removed.) I rather enjoy rescuing articles at AfD, although it seems I won't be able to do with any more what I did recently with Gregory Hodge or Denville Hall unless they are Norwegian, thanks to an inscrutable decision by Google; the Kvasir search engine still lets me make a (limited and painful) news archive search, but for English-language news sources - no longer possible. So what I wanted to say was, consider linking me to PRODded articles or imperiled AfC submissions if you think I might be able to polish them up. I care about both articles and editors, and despite the big gaps in my knowledge I might be able to help. ... and in between Microshit forced reboots, I lurk on IRC, as Rihan. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So what's wrong with you, exactly? Heartworms? Fleas? Too.Much.Information!  :-)   What scary notice? No, had not seen Kafziel, but was much cheered by it. It simultaneously proves that a scheme to revive WP:IAR just -- Could -- Work!... whilst also proving that we are understaffed, and forced to make poor decisions due to time-constraints, which end up killing WP:RETENTION. True, there was not hard evidence presented that Kafziel's snap deletion-decisions were *actually* driving away a *significant* number of good future beginning editors. But everybody knows it. Anyways, I like the AfC folks quite a bit, Anne Delong did herself proud in that thread as usual (though her old-to-her-yet-new-to-me proposal for halting all AfC submissions for several months was nuts!), and I strongly say the AfC regulars are working in the right direction.
  But in this case, Kafziel did very well for the most part, and they will be added to my not-a-cabal invite-list, if only I can convince them that The Editors -- meaning the silent ones that took article-deletion as a slap in the face and left forevermore -- are part of the meaning of the term "Wikipedia" also and in addition to the wiki-markup. The technological fix to Kafziel's major complaint is to simply update robots.txt to prevent google from crawling the AfC submission queue. Methinks that is a one-line change that any global sysop can make, and I actually am friendly with one of them. Good idea? Bad idea? p.s. Hope everything goes well for you and yours at the vet.
  p.p.s. Thanks for fixing up Spiegel, appreciate it, wikistalkers are always helpful... and since you are a sucker helpful nudge nudge wink wink say no more editor, please see the rough draft of the AfI queue. My list of pointers exists already, in other words, here -- User_talk:74.192.84.101#AfI. Feel free to add your own, and complete the existing ones, although only you and myself will be futzing with it at the moment, that is double what it was yesterday.  :-)   The Duromac one is possibly non-notable, according to a couple of uninvolved editors, Acroterion and Hasromic(sp). However, can you please give the Duromac sources a look, and see if they are being overly-judicious? The company is a government contractor in Malaysia, and seems borderline in my eyes. Certainly I've seen academic and computer articles with less Notability in mainspace, but of course, WP:OTHERSTUFF is no argument. The Les Pendleton thing is prolly not notable by wikipedia standards, but for my edification, again I would like it if you once-overed my effort there. I have to leave in 25 mins, and get ready in 5 mins, so I don't have time for IRC at present. What channel, the usual en-wiki click-here-for-help one? Perhaps later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Those and your lapidary notes are a bit too challenging for my current state of mind, and hasn't one of em been deleted? I'll look again when I next have it more together, but do recall that I am a sci/tech incompetent. The hairy ersatz cat gave us all a bad scare and we still await lab results, but after another emergency recheck with X-rays this am, we finally got him to eat and drink again. Probably TMI. I got rebooted again last night but have crawled back onto IRC - I hang out in #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en-help (where the Teahouse and AfC templates send folks for help) and when I remember, #wikipedia-en-helpers, but more importantly, if you're on Freenode you can message Rihan without being in the same chan. However, although I edit Wikipedia from work on breaks when I have time, I only do IRC from my desktop, on which my hours are eccentric. I should be logging off now but obviously am not. Anyway, it's potentially a way to communicate with me more rapidly. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The article about the film was deleted (properly methinks), but there were some WP:NOTEWORTHY sources that should be stuck in ancillary articles, e.g. Ed Asner. The main point of the listing was to train the author, which I did, but perhaps too late. As for the freenode-message-feature, I knew some IRC systems supported that, but thought it was turned off on freenode. Shows what I know.  :-)   Yes, talkpages are not horrible, but they are hardly any good for rapid communicado. p.s. Lapidary! Wow, gracias. But I think I'm more like Ishi, or maybe, Ishi's younger sibling. p.p.s. When your brain is fully functional, and your cat is purring happily, you might drop in on the discussion of SORCER and make sure my take on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and also WP:ACADEMIC#Citation_metrics are correct... the field in question is software engineering, but don't let that scare you off. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you like another lamb?[edit]

The most difficult lambs to foster are academics, and I have an academic for you who could do with your particular brand of lunacyadvice and guidance. I wonder, have I pointed you to WP:ACADEME yet? This user is trying very hard to make SORCER an article here. The item may or may not be notable, and I honestly don't care. All I care about is that it is notable in a Wikipedia sense, and that the notability is demonstrated. The major editor is, regrettably, defending the article with rhetoric, not with demonstration of WP:RS (etc, etc, etc), and exhibits signs of frustration. I hope you may help with that. Inevitably I doubt that my own further help will be useful.

In other news, you have a reply on my talk page :) Fiddle Faddle 11:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, thank you very much....     I like the taste of mutton, and of course, the sounds of Silence. <ohnohz> <flee>   :-)   I'll be over in a jiff. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Where are my certifying gloves? Now Mike will not participate (0.9 probability). He is a true academic and his academic toys left his academic perambulator. I wonder why they spoil for a fight instead of realising that this things is bigger than any of us are. The others seem to be arguing on a point of academic principle, and may be susceptible to logical argument. So far they are entrenched. That ought to change. I wish they realised that I don't dive a tuppeny damn about WIZARD, nor about fighting with them, but that I do give a damn about those who drive vans to take processed meat to a dog show. which is what this article and the various surround articles they created amount to.. Fiddle Faddle 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sources seem to exist. Have not reviewed the details yet.
  1. http://www.depts.ttu.edu/cs/department/docs/newsletter/fall_2002.pdf
  2. http://www.albany.edu/iasymposium/proceedings/2008/8-KerrEdit.pdf
  3. http://www.actapress.com/Abstract.aspx?paperId=15329
  4. http://iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/TELKOMNIKA/article/download/2551/pdf
  5. http://www.academypublisher.com/ijrte/vol01/no01/ijrte0101512517.htm
Plus various papers. We can use them *with care*. Especially if the PhD thesis projects were *about* SORCER rather than just mentioned it as a tool they used (i.e. in the colophon).
  1. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-2326-3_1
  2. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?doi=10.1.1.111.4037
  3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5645422
Danke por improv da pedia. p.s. Mike and Pawel realize that wikipedia is bigger than all of us; that is *why* they want to get this project into mainspace, to prove that they and their work deserve a footnote in history. Wikipedia *is* the history-books, now, that is how important it is. This is why I say we need a million active editors... so that everybody can have a list of ten articles on their watchlists, and once a week, review the nine they *don't* have COI problems with for neutrality. Balance of power, cheques and lobbyists, errr, checks and balances, all that stuff. NPOV is *hard*. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The challenge is that your first batch are all Primary and Sobol, except one that appears to accept SORCER as The Fat Toad Standard. I think these have already been removed from the article as too much primary stuff.
Batch 2, first 2 are Sobol stuff. number 3 is again one that uses S and its tadpoles, but does not discuss it.
And that gets us back to problem number 1, Wikipedia's take on Notability. Fiddle Faddle 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I see a wholly valid use for Sobol's papers. They can be used not as references, but as notes. One gives the ref tag a group name and uses a separate reflist for them with the group name. They form a set if what one might term "useful footnotes" rather than RS references. I have used this technique before, it works, and is valid. It places a set of material that makes up a relevant bibliography at the very points the biblio is relevant, and lists them neatly at the article foot. It is not even much work to achieve. But the vital thing is to determine notability, otherwise all such work has no value. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
You may need to adopt Beavercreekful as well. For my taste they are engaged in deckchair rearrangement astern of Little Leo and Kate Winslet, because Notability is not established, but they are persevering with chair movement. Fiddle Faddle 01:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have not read 99% of the stuff yet, but it seems clear Professor Sobolewski is interesting and important; they have 89 papers in peer-review journals, including several related to SORCER. For instance, this paper is very likely *not* a primary source in the usual WP:ABOUTSELF sense ... R.M.Kolonay & M.Sobolewski, SORCER for Large Scale, Distributed, Dynamic Fidelity Aeroelastic Analysis & Optimization, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, IFASD2011, 26-30 June, Paris, France. Of course, I'll have to check who the peer-reviewers were, to make sure they were not all TTU and AFRL employees with a conflict of interest, but I'd be quite shocked if that were the case. There were also a dozen PhD thesis projects, supervised by the SORCER people... I'd be pretty shocked, again, if they had COI-only committees, or if *none* of those thesis-projects were SORCER itself. Anyhoo, I left some huge notes on the talkpage about the main probs, and will go try and mend the fences with the professor ... they lived through the AI Winter, not to mention the fall of the communist empire, so they're tough and resourceful. Would be an asset to wikipedia methinks. p.s. You dare insult Titanic? <throws down gauntlet> WikiJoust it is! <grin>   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The longer and louder a team of people protests "Look, MY [insert items here] are notable!" the more I wonder whether they are, indeed, of note. Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It's borderline, but methinks it might be there. Part of the reason they protest is language-barrier, and jargon-barrier. They are firmly convinced, that if employee#1 of AFRL invtnes a tool, and then employee #2 of AFRL uses that tool to write a paper published by AFRL, that is a "secondary source". Try and gently explain that 'independent' actually means, not paid by the same people. The 2011 IEEE proceedings paper that Pawel mentioned seems conceivably independent... I'm just not sure if it is peer-reviewed, or at least, fact-checked. The proceedings of the conference were published, though, so likely it will count. The paper was about noise-mapping, not about SORCER specifically, but if there is a chapter in there about SORCER, it lends some credence to the claim. Mainly, they are having trouble because almost all of aerospace is military and thus secretive. Anyways, we'll see if Pawel can justify the refs. In the meantime, enjoy the fireworks, and ignore the slurs on our inability to grok the ineffable mogramming exertion stuff as *crucial* to the encyclopedia. POV, yes... but hey, maybe they are correct on the merits. We'll find out. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out[edit]

I appreciate help whenever and wherever I can get it. I probably (not probably, did is more like it) go overboard with some of my responses to the edit war I got into and lost miserably. I don't like some of the material that is up on that page, but there's not much I can do about it. Any effort to change anything on the page will probably result in another 72-hour ban or even longer. I'm not sure what I can do about it, but if you have any suggestions, I am open to them. --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm full of advice. Some of it is even good advice!  :-)  
  TLDR: first, stay out of mainspace, for articles which are politics-related-in-any-way-shape-or-form, at least until you learn my Bright-Line™ Jimbo-Approved[citation needed] approach to careful editing while inherently-apparently-conflicted. There are some exceptions to the Bright-Line-Rule, but they are very rare. Second spend some time learning about the main rules nowadays. They are the same as the old rules, really, but folks are more antsy about enforcement. The speed limit was always there, but now the wikiCops are trying to fill their quotas of writing tickets every month. Third ditch the battleground mentality, it is counterproductive. Sure, some folks hate Bob Huff's guts for political reasons, and target his wikipedia page -- unlike the less-high-profile wikipedia pages of his state senate colleagues -- with some sort of agenda in mind. But your best bet is WP:ROPE in this case.
  Nutshell: stick to the high moral ground, stick to the five pillars, and be religious about sourcing. Make sense? Questions? Once you and I are on the same page, we can start making a list of article-talkpage suggestions, about material you "do not like" ... I can tell you whether it is a policy-violation, such as non-neutral overly-negative, or if it is out-of-context-undue, or if you and Bob Huff will have to live with it. That at least should help take some of the uncertainty away, and lower your wikiStress. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia, you are appreciated, even if it may not feel like it sometimes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I have so much to learn. Was not aware of the problems you mentioned but I also find it quite believable. Could not understand why my admission as being in the employ of the State Senate in Senator Huff's office was such a terrible thing. It had not had that kind of an effect on editors years ago. And yes, the calmer I became over time the better I got along with some folks. My direct boss has urged me to continue with this approach, which I intend to do. I will have a little more time next week to really delve into this and flesh it out. For now, I will leave it to this one question. You've left an entry on my Talk page regarding Common Core and his opposition to a testing measure. Is this something you want me to post up on the Senator's talk page in hopes of getting it changed to what it should be? Because you are correct. The reference to "Hough" is clearly a typo. Thing is, if I start cutting and pasting, it's going to look like my Wikipedia knowledge suddenly jumped exponentially. In other words, it will be fairly obvious that I'm getting some help. NOT THAT I DON'T MIND, MIND YOU. I've been waiting for you. Thanks for the hand.--Billbird2111 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
((You are sure welcome -- I appreciate you making wikipedia better so it's the least I could do.)) So much to learn? Nah, you've already learned it. Always always assume good faith, per WP:NICE. Anything you upload, you nor the Senator can own (but I bet you remember *that* lesson from back in 2011 when you were asking for a password to lock down the page!). Stick to a neutral tone that religiously follows the Reliable Sources, no more, no less. Remember this is an encyclopedia, made for the ages. The end. Part of that neutral tone thing, is that because you depend on Huff for your paycheck, you are inherently unable to be perceived as writing neutrally. So, go the extra mile, and be as WP:NICE as you can, by following the Bright-Line-Rule and never editing mainspace where you have even the potential *appearance* of being promotional/spindoctoring/etc. Also, if your gramma has a wikipedia page, don't go writing that she's the best cook in the world, for the same reasons, right? Right.
  Anyways, don't worry about wikiPolitics. They are made of 100% horse-puckey, unlike in the real-o-verse which is only 90% or so. <grin> We have a special thing here, the fifth pillar: if any rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Now obviously, it would be dangerous for just anybody (by which I mean you :-)   to take that rule literally. But it *is* meant to be quite literal. In your case, let's say you notice somebody has just edited Bob Huff, and put something about the sexual orientation of their junior high basketball coach. What rules do you follow? What about bright line? What about blocking for COI? What about.... pffft. Reverting obvious graffiti is always improving the encyclopedia -- that means you can follow pillar five, and click undo, with an edit summary that says, "hey excuse me but Senator Huff does not teach b-ball at your junior high thanks Bill from the Huff staff" or something equally polite. (The visigoth kiddos just *hate* it when you pretend like you really and truly thought they were SRSLY trying to add actual knowledge to wikipedia.)
  Similarly, if you see a bloody-obvious factual bug, or a blatant typo, like his birthday is listed as 1853 instead of 1953, or his name is spelled Hough instead of Huff, then fix it, again leaving a polite edit-summary, with your COI right in there. Everybody will be glad. Now of course, if somebody adds a quote which says "politician from the other side of the aisle such-n-such claims that Huff is a so-n-so" and cites a newspaper... don't remove it. Complain on the talkpage? Well, maybe... but better to get other Reliable Sources, which cover the same topic, so that you can suggest *those* also belong in the article. Find as many, and as respectable, sources as you can. The weight of all those respected voices saying "such-and-such is wrong about so-n-so" is the best counter-argument, see WP:DUE.
  Now, sometimes you'll get reverted. Passing wikiCop will notice you changing the date from 1853 to 1953, and change it back, saying rvv or G13 or WP:CONSENSUS or some other cryptic thing. Don't get mad, there aren't enough active editors nowadays (*my* main goal is fixing that problem), so all the wikiCops are busy-busy, too busy to check carefully, too busy to lend a hand usually, they just shoot from the hip and run off to fight the next fire. Anyhoo, if you get reverted, just complain on the talkpage. "Huff is not actually turning age 161 next september, folks... can somebody *please* fix the date from 1853 to 1953, it got reverted when I fixed it, thanks, Bill from the Huff staff." If nobody fixes it, ping my talkpage, I might help if I have time. If nobody is around, try WP:TEAHOUSE, explain you work on Huff's staff, and give a pointer to the section on the talkpage where you made your request, and explain that his Senate colleagues are starting to tease him about being Yoda... somebody will come help.
  What about more difficult subjects, like the school-testing-thing? Well, you need a buddy-system for that, at the moment. Once you get practiced up, you'll only need a buddy at the very end, but in the meanwhile, you and I will write the rough-draft-revisions here on your user-talkpage and my user-talkpage, and when we're satisfied, post the suggestion on the main article-talkpage, to see if anybody objects. Wait a few days, nobody complains, I put it in the article, *then* maybe somebody complains, we go back to the talkpage. Keep looping until all editors are satisfied. See WP:BRD. Is everything clear as mud so far? You got anything bugging you? Also, I'll leave a note over on your talkpage about how to ask for help, and how *not* to ask for help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Good advice here. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Danke NeilN. p.s. reverted one comment per WP:DOX, cf bbb23 talkpage conversation, trying to ask whether 2111 cares about addr (think firewall-security risk-mitigation); I know about whois. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I would have preferred for you not to do that but I'm not going to revert you. It's important that the editor see exactly what info is revealed by clicking one link on Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 14:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I really am sorry, I would have asked for self-revert, but your talkpage is still locked down, and I don't think NeilN-style echo-or-whatevers cause the orange bar of doom, is that right? And although I know you've got a ton of experience under your belt, in this case I just re-read the outing stuff for the fifth time in five days, and in fact, Bill and two somebodys I know just had four noticeboard-threads related to outing, which is how I ran across Bill in the first place.   :-/    Somebody from wikipedia contacted Bill's boss in real life, off-wiki, which could easily have inadvertently resulted in Bad Things happening. So, while I agree with you wanting to show Bill what is available, you simply ought not slash cannot slash must not post on-wiki the data you did, methinks. Even *linking* to such data is considered "WP:HA" nowadays, which was news to me. Instead, leave them a note which says, hey bill, take your own IP address X.Y.Z.þ number-stuff, and paste it into these URLs (replacing the 8.8.8.8 number which belongs to google), to see what is revealed about you. Does this violate the no-linking rule? Sigh.  :-)   Who can tell, when there are five bazillion rules, right? It's one step removed, at least, and doesn't leave personal info in the talkpage history.

  1. http://www.infosniper.net/index.php?ip_address=8.8.8.8
  2. http://wolfsbane.toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=8.8.8.8
  3. http://www.robtex.com/ip/8.8.8.8.html
  4. http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=8.8.8.8

That way, as long as Bill does the cut-n-paste work, your very-important advice would still be put firmly across, without any hint of possible dox-difficulty. You and I know about these tools, but almost certainly Bill does not... and more importantly, almost certainly most of the 500M readers wikipedia gets every month do not know such things. Anyways, again, the reason I flat-out reverted you was because of the already-very-touchy-circumstances. I'd given Bill wrong advice earlier (didn't realize the oversighters messed with IP revdel since I don't use logins myself), plus they already had a very bad off-wiki experience. Hope this makes sense, and I greatly appreciate your rationale and polite response above, I wasn't sure that was what would happen.  :-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia, as I always say, and I mean it to the hilt. You didn't do anything really wrong, in my book... but I still think the indirect approach, of providing the URLs and letting them plug in their own IP, is highly preferable. Plus of course, it works when advising folks who have *not* goofed, and forgotten to login; even if they don't know their own IP off the top of their heads, we can always point them at Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people#External_links... weird, isn't there some Special:IP page which shows you what your IP address is today?

In fact, somebody (like us maybe) should write a page, where folks can visit, which shows them their IP, their user-agent-string, plus the iframe'd output of the four sites above. I searched pretty hard, and found none of that. Maybe it is WP:BEANS at work here, which keeps such an essay from being written, so that the average entrepreneurial visigoth does not have a simple point-n-click way to verify their cloaking is effective? Are you interested in helping get such a page past consensus? Or I guess I should first ask, do *you* think such a page is a good idea? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Couple things. First, yes, registered editors get a notification whenever they're mentioned. Second, I was being literal when I said that info was available with one click on Wikipedia. Go to your contributions page, scroll to the very bottom, and you'll see a list of links to tools that reveal IP info. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about...[edit]

Tag teams of single purpose accounts, who may or may not be sockpuppets and may or may not be meat puppets, who push and push for a thing to be what they want it to be whatever it may or may not be? They feel to me to be not unlike the Lewis Carroll caterpillar defining words, but as a team. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I know how you feel.  :-)   You should try editing articles on politics, or articles on telepathy, *then* you will really see cliques. Anyways, I believe the wizards are acting in good faith. Keep your chin up, we'll get them roped into editing wisely and serenely, rather than tooting the horns of wikidebate. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I cut my editing teeth here in a firezone. Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Search for me in Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 1. I had no interest in that topic, either. But I wanted to se if it was possible to bring order to chaos, and stop people fighting. Determination (such as you are showing) won the day. Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, *now* I'm laughing out loud. Yes, telepathy is a walk in the park compared to 9/11. You have my gratitude, I remember thinking a few years ago, hmmm, it looks like they need help there....
  1. Brave Sir Robin ran away.
  2. Bravely ran away, away!
  3. When danger reared its ugly head,
  4. He bravely turned his tail and fled.
  5. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
  6. And gallantly he chickened out.
  7. Bravely taking to his feet
  8. He beat a very brave retreat,
  9. Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
You can call me *Sir* 74, from now on.  ;-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I, by contrast, am 'Plain Mr. Botany (B.)' I also live in the town where the young man who went down with (on?) Alice opened a bookshop. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a great shame your IP address does not start 42. See WP:42 for enlightenment. Fiddle Faddle 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've been waiting to see somebody with one of those. It's like collecting license-plate-sightings during a road-trip, from all the countries in the EU, or from all fifty states, or whatever. I just bagged 14 yesterday, which is bad luck in the UK, but you have to decrement your superstitions by one over in the USA, which is curious methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
See also, WP:-) as well as WP:-D but not yet WP:-p over in project-space. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed fix for Bob Huff page[edit]

Here is the troublesome entry -- as it currently reads:

Huff opposed a plan that would have replaced the current testing system with new tests based on the Common Core learning goals. Because test scores would be unavailable during the new test's two-year trial period, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state. The alternative supported by Huff was to require the use of both the old and the new test during that period. The state Senate approved the bill.[16]

Here is the suggested replacement, properly sourced (we found the letter!):

Huff strongly opposed a plan that eliminated California’s student assessment system – including social studies[4]. Because test scores would be unavailable, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to impose financial penalties on the state[5]. The alternative supported by Huff was to retain student assessments for California’s students[6]. The state Senate approved the bill knowing it could cost public schools billions in funding[7].--Billbird2111 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) --192.234.214.110 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC) ... sorry forgot to login

Strong opposition is sourced in video that I place on the Senator's web page. Yes, I know it's his web page and some editors have a problem with this. But it is his speech from the Senate Floor when the bill was brought up for debate. We think you're going to run into a problem by removing the Common Core language, but we'll see. --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) --192.234.214.110 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC) ... sorry forgot to login
((partial response, still working on other portions)) Excellent, thanks. The upload to scribd is "no good" as an Official Wikipedia Reliable Source, because just like an internet-sports-forum, *anybody* can post almost *anything*. Including faked documents. That said, feel free to post scribd links for *me* to check over, or for other editors. But as cites, they are not usable. They are sometimes usable as clues to Reliable Sources... in this case, there was a clue in who uploaded the letter, it was somebody who works at Southern California Public Radio. Following the trail, here is the story they wrote, which outlines the D.O.Edu versus the CA dems.[90] Probably we can use that story, to get the cites we need, eh? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
September stories, with the two folks that received the letter mentioned.[91] Talk of a 19-page letter, not the same as the two-page one on scribd.[92] Some good quotes here about "not having the budget" to implement the tests... contrast with Huff's Reliably Sourced statement here, back in May, about how only half of Prop 30 funds were going to education, not all of it.[93] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Left message for you on my talk page, where you requested "three edits." Is that the same as "three wishes for Christmas?"--Billbird2111 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Clover1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Clover1991 (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There are times when stepping back is essential[edit]

Obviously I am annoying the wizards, so I have asked for external eyes to come to the article (see its talk page). I still subscribe to the view that the quantity of blether they produce is inversely proportional to the notability of wizardry.

One of the major issues is that everyone believes their firstborn child to be notable. Most of them just are not.Some of them may become notable, but usually not before puberty at least! Wizarding is highly likely to become notable, but not all computing projects do so. I once worked for an organisation which sold "Goliath" and their little friend "David: computers. They were revolutionary, exciting, emerging technologies, and vanished. Not that I have checked, but I doubt there is an article here on them. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a grey area, methinks. The key is this: "always with strictly independent peer review process". Refereed scientific papers like that *are* still primary sources, in the sense that they came from the professor in many cases (often as co-author at the bottom of the list... as head of the lab/project/similar this is traditional in biomed and many engineering disciplines where the final review is by the inventor of the initial seed-research... not as a way to boost the *inventor* but as a way to prove the *other* listed authors know what they're talking about!). But we can use those, with care. We just have to get the language encyclopedic. I believe I can solve the jargon-problem, using a spreadsheet-analogy, or a web-browser analogy, which will make the contents understandable to mere mortals.
  Point being, this is not a case of my-children-are-the-most-smartest-wonderfullest-beings-in-the-world-syndrome. NIST paid $14 bazillion bucks for the prototype FIPER, and now the USAF is paying more bazillions for the working engineering-tools, not to mention the Chinese. There are a bunch of highly intelligent folks involved. But because it is military, and because it is extremely complex, there are no articles about it in newspapers. Look at PTC which is a *very* large CAD/CAE-toolsmith, or Catia. The articles are not *bare* of cites, but they are pretty weak methinks.
  This could be one of those rare cases where wikipedia ends up as the first layman's explanation of a complex scientific/engineering technology; we have to stick to the sources, but we actually *have* the humans behind the sources available to correct our mistakes. More eyeballs will definitely help, methinks. Also, it may help if we can confine the discussion of the *meaning* of SORCER and the underlying jargon, to user-talkpages... and try and keep the Talk:SORCER discussion with a laser-focus on listing Reliable Sources that have independent peer-review, ideally also independent publishers and so on. We can call in Drmies and Yngvadottir and friends when we have that list, and they'll tell us if we are out of the grey and into the gold.
  Anyhoo, please don't be unhappy about the situation. You've done zero harm, see below, and in fact, without you being the extremely broad-shouldered good-natured eye-on-pillar-one fellow you are, willing to call in those other eyeballs, they all prolly woulda been indef'd for SPIP by some trigger-happy patroller. (And well, they day is still young, so who knows. ;-)   SORCER folks are *lucky* you were their shepherd, in other words. But clearly they are acting in good faith, and have some hope of achieving wikiNotability consensus on use of primary-sources-with-care, if not in 2013, then prolly in 2014. I'll be interested to see how it works out.
  Step into the background if you wish, WP:REQUIRED applies as always, but please stick around, if you don't mind, because we need a wide-open set of eyeballs that have experience judging the grey areas. That's not me, I'm always an optimist.  :-)   In other news, I'm *still* trying to write up my reply for the CSD/PROD/AfD system... I'll get there. p.s. And speaking of such things, if we end up deciding SORCER is too much of a walled garden for mainspace in 2013, please help shuffle the work into the AfC queue, where Pawel and beaver and Kamuso and the professor can all try and help me get the source-list completed and the prose non-promotional, so that in 2014 SORCER can rise like the Phoenix. <grin> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. Regarding below I have a friend who has a Masters in ComSci at a German university and a wide experience of complex projects. I pointed him at the article. He pretty much said it is words, all of which mean something, and which he understood individually, but not when they were put into those sentences.
He then turned to the Sorcersoft website. His analysis was "I am ten minutes in and I have no idea what and where the product is." He spent more minutes failing. His conclusion from the resources there is that it is an open source environment. He said "if I had to take a shot at an explanation, I'd say it's a layer that hides web services behind a standaradized facade". He is the type of man that would, were he still in academe, be likely to be a peer of the professor's. I am from a different background, but I saw nothing on that website to tell me what it is either. And the article fails to tell me what it is. And it must. And it must in the lead paragraph(s).
I return, beating the same old drum, to notability. As you know, once this is proven to be notable, I have done my work. Of course I'm happy to attempt rewording things, but will not attempt it prior to proven notability. I can copyedit until the bovines return home, and remove their scatology, too. It just isn;t worth the attempt before notability is established.
Other eyes are easy to call in smile. I don't care about the content at this stage, just the references and notability. The challenge is actually getting other eyes in. No-one will die if this happens slowly. Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems we have other eyes. Despite the fact that their edits will upset the wizards, bold editing can only be a good thing because it fosters discussion and thus consensus. Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  Yes, we are on the same page. I have some background here, so I actually understand what the professor said, and what SORCER does. Translating that into something the readership will understand is another matter, but I will take a shot. As for wikiNotable, and wikiReliable, this is a special situation, with many primary sources and high complexity. It will take time, at least the rest of this month, prolly longer, but I expect by February we'll know if we have enough peer-reviewed papers, or if we need to delay another semester to get a high number of cited-in-the-literature-of-the-field counts on them, or what. Danke my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have some background there too. A lifetime of IT sales and marketing, converting concepts into bullshit & hype and into sales. Serious product management for a once major mainstream vendor of tin and software, and also for the 900lb gorilla in IT the research space. TRPoD is doing a fine job with a scalpel. I wonder what the midwifery team willl do. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── p.s. Actually, speaking of notability-expertise, can you give me a judgement call on Duromac? We have three main sources, plus several WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions. There is a newspaper article, a government website article, and a couple of financial magazine articles (but these finance-articles cover one event). The company has been around since 1995, but recently upgraded from municipal contracts to also winning government-of-Malaysia military contracts, for equipment-maintenance. The military angle is what most of the press-coverage concerns.

  Each source is tiny in terms of wordcount. A paragraph plus a photo in the first newspaper source. A paragraph plus a PDF press-release in the government source. Two sentences in the financial mags (content varies a bit so call it a paragraph). Most of the time, the *title* of the piece does not mention the company, but instead mentions the product, or the contract... but in all cases, the company *does* specifically get "significant" coverage in each piece, 50% of the newspaper piece, 100% of the govt piece, and 20% of the finance-pieces.

  More importantly, to my mind, all three of the 'major' sources cover real-world events, where VIPs in the world of Malaysian politics were personally hobnobbing with the Duromac executives. Newspaper source was the Minister-of-Works personally attending the grand opening of the new Duromac HQ, then getting their photo 'driving' some equipment with the Duromac execs posed on either side. Government source was a Brigadier General in the RMAF personally hosting a contract-award-ceremony at another Duromac branch, again with the hobnobbing (no pic on the govt website but there is a pic of the event on some RMAF-related blog to verify nobs were smilingly hobbed). Finally, in the finance-articles it was the Malaysian Minister-of-Defence doing the hobnobbing, at a big defence-department awards gala, with Duromac and eight other companies being especially noteworthy for getting especially lucrative contracts which involved floor-space in a new govt-funded mil-tech-park facility. (Some other company exec got the photo-op shaking the defence-minister's hand in the finance-articles I've seen, so Duromac folks got totally shafted by the dern journalists the *third* time around.  ;-)

  Anyhoo, by the usual proxy metric, wordcount in sources, the subject is *not* yet wikiNotable... but by number and variety of sources, spread over time 2003 thru 2013+, and by read-between-the-lines inference of all the personal attention the firm gets from high-level government officials, it seems very much a grey area to my eyeballs. Cheney and maybe even Halliburton were not notable by wikipedia standards in 1999, prolly... but prolly there *was* enough coverage to justify them, by then.

  I guess my real question is not a yes/no, does Duromac qualify for mainspace today, but more of a can-you-school-me-in-how-they-fall-on-the-spectrum type of thing. If you have some time, here is the AfC submission,[94] see comment#2 for my assessment of the noteworthy & maybe-notable sources. If not, no prob, as always. p.p.s. There is a like-an-advert-snark-banner up top, but that is already corrected, the current prose (such as it is) stays minimal and religiously stick to indep sources. Also, Clover has come up with the list of equipment-models, so I'm planning to add a photo-gallery, similar to the Hako article over in deWiki, which is one of Duromac's main overseas suppliers (municipal not military... they use French and methinks-Turkish hardware for their military contracts). Gracias por tu mui bien la wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See new section Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

SORCER Challenge[edit]

It's nice the hear from you. I work at least 16 hours a day on hight priority projects so my time is very limited for other activities.

If you are really interested what I do, please read the most recent paper by R. Kolonay that explains AFRL challenges in physics-based design used for the next generation of air vehicles. In that paper SORCER is just mentioned as the platform of choice. How it is used is described for example in the paper on mogramming for the next generation efficient supersonic air vehicle (public release of the DoD ESAV project). More on mogramming in "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages". You can download these three papers at: http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34808, http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34826, and http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393. All papers written on SORCER by me and others are published in journals and conference proceedings always with strictly independent peer review process, so in my opinion all these papers can be treated as secondary sources as well.

You can find the list of my papers at: http://sorcersoft.org/sobol/resume/publications-sobol.pdf and much more of other authors in the internet. If you need copies of any papers you are interested in, please let me know and I can email you a copy. I assume selected papers are provided as the references in the Wikipedia SORCER article, not mine however after I have asked editors to remove my contribution to the SORCER article when I was accused of promoting my work. From the Internet point o view I do not care where that is located, anyhow everyone interested comes to http://sorcersoft.org or may page at http://sorcersoft.org/sobol/ or visit us at the Multidisciplinary Science and Technology Center at AFRL/WPAFB.

To describe in plain English the methodology of SORCER is not an easy task at all even for me. It requires a different mindset to service orientation. When we say everything is a service, usually everyone thinks about a service at the back-end (server or provider). In SORCER a service is the end user composition of services created at the front-end, at runtime, per a single invocation that runs multiple front-end and back-end services. So there are at least front-end services, back-end services, and the end-user composite services. Yes it gets confusing when we say everything is a service and then multiple types of services are distinguished that run in multiple places at the same time. To make it a little clear I use terms front-end (intra), back-end (inter or intra) and composite (exertion). The SORCER federated method invocation (FMI) invokes an exertion as a federations of inter/intra services running at the front-end and back-end. In engineering terms (e.g., aerospace) each exertion (created on the fly by an engineer) is his new composite tool that combines automatically a set of component tools specified by the end user (not programmer at the server but at the front-end) for very complex calculations that run concurrently multiple models and multiple programs(mograms) anytime and anywhere. That allows for creative people run each time their new tools as exertions locally and/or in the network with autonomic provisioning of service providers.

For me the above description is clear and a pretty good description, but when I teach SORCER, usually everyone gets confused. To avoid confusion we have to name things differently, so we have a few new names as the necessity. Anyhow, only after programming exercises the best students and scientists get it right. It recalls me the paradigm shift from procedural to object-oriented programming. It took 10-20 years to get object-orientation right. SORCER's service-orientation faces the same challenge.

It looks to me like "mission impossible", but if you think you can help me translate this paradigm shift into plain English, I might find some time to review it and improve your or your colleague understanding of the underlying SORCER concepts and methodology.Mwsobol (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello again Professor, appreciate your reply. I remain cognizant of your time-constraints, but as it turns out, we have several of your former students who are eager to help, so I do believe that this mission will be a success... though I doubt it will take half an hour, like the old Leonard Nimoy episodes, or even 99 minutes like the recent summer blockbuster movies.  :-)   The key at this stage is to gather together the sources (I've already been going through your website actually — but thanks for the SCIRP.org link that helps), and categorize which mention SORCER, and which cover it deeply. We verify the reviewers exist, and are independent. Same for exertions. Same for the service-oriented methodology. Tim and myself have enough experience with the wiki-bureaucracy to do that work, with some help from your colleagues-turned-wikipedians.
  Then, I'll try my hand at the encyclopedic-prose-description in layman's terminology, and have Pawel and the other smart folks check my effort, and we'll present you with what we came up with. Fortunately or unfortunately, the wheels of wikiJustice grind very slowly... but they do grind fine. Don't be alarmed if you see "threats of deletion" and big banners asserting wild accusations on the article, from time to time. They are just work-in-progress signs, nothing more. They are like the "CONSTRUCTION CREW AT WORK" warnings that you see on the road, or the "WET FLOOR WATCH YOUR STEP" signs in an office. Unlike a construction job, or even a janitorial task, wikipedia has 500M readers every month, but only 185 paid staff (half server-sysadmins and half lawyers... they rarely touch actual articles and concentrate on fundraising-donation-stuff). Everybody else is here as a volunteer, yourself included, writing the history of knowledge. The signs and alarms are entirely intended to attract volunteer wikipedians, to come to the articles, and help improve things. That's all.
  A month or two from now, everything will have settled down, and either the articles will be in mainspace as part of the official wikipedia entries, or they'll be migrated into our incubator-queue of articles we expect will be ready for mainspace in six months or so (called WP:AfC which is where I'm working on the exertion oriented programming article you already created). From the outside, it looks like a harrowing procedure, but the intent of all the razzle-dazzle is merely to try and guarantee that wikipedia's contents are as reliable as they can be, and as neutrally-phrased as they can be, for a top-ten-website. Insert metaphor about making sausage here!  :-)   In the meanwhile, feel free to concentrate on your off-wiki efforts, I will leave a note on your wikipedia talkpage when we have something ready for your critical review. Of course, feel free to drop in any time, and drop a note on Talk:SORCER or my talkpage here, if you wish. Thanks much, once again, for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If you're looking to help and improve the draft on exertion oriented programming, I'd be quite grateful for that. After going over it a few times, I think I need quite a bit of help understanding what it is about, not to mention putting the article in terms that a non-technical reader will also understand. I'm also concerned about the notability of the subject. So far I'm quite unsure if it would stand up at AfD, but on first look, it seems it might not - and I very much don't like to first tell a submitter of a draft I approved their article, only to see it be deleted shortly after. — User_talk:Martijn Hoekstra 23:26, 15 December 2013‎ (UTC)
Sure, I will help Martijn — I've already read through the AfC draft, and like SORCER the satisfaction of wikiNotability guidelines turns on the careful analysis of the primary sources. But there are quite a few papers from peer-reviewed journals and conferences, which the folks who know the topic best are bringing forward. It will just take some time to figure out which topic (exertions / SORCER / service-oriented-architecture / other) is covered in each of the sources, and to what level of depth ... there are a lot of scientific/engineering papers, and they are complex documents full of complex concepts. In the meanwhile, leave the draft in AfC, we already have our hands full with related articles in the AfD construction-zones, and as I understand the related pieces better, I'll try and help fix up the jargon to be more accessible. Thanks much. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I would for a start be quite happy if I understood what an exertion is. Shall I move the draft from talk space to project space, so we can use the talk as a regular talkpage? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No, please leave it, the professor and the other folks (Pawel/beavercreek/Kazumo/131/maybeMore) prolly have the AfC URL in their browsers. We can just make a 'rough draft area' at the bottom. I will go there now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Just to double check we're talking about the same thing, I meant a move from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming -> Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know.  :-)   And usually that would be harmless, but the professor and the three or four other PhD editors that showed up to work on exertions/SORCER/etc are all beginning editors, not used to the crazy bullshit that passes for wikiCulture around here. They've already been deleted five times, and reverted several hundred, by zealous folks trying to defend wikipedia's reliability today this instant against anything and everything which is not 100% compliant with the five bazillion diktats from authoritah. So I don't want to have the move mistaken for yet another WP:BITE. Hope this makes sense. I created the section-splits, which we can nix when we're finished with them, or better, migrate to article-space versus article-talk-space, once the decisions are finalized. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let's hope it'll be a reasonable process. I'd hate to do a history split to distill a proper attribution chain for the talk page when peusdo-talk edits and draft article edits are made in a single edit action. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish you a successful process. All that has ever concerned me in this area is the same as in any area. WP:N with WP:V in WP:RS. The fog created by multiple learned papers, some of which may be acceptable as RS is hard to break through, as is the obvious loyalty and enthusiasm of the proponents of the various articles in this area. Our rigour is to delete things (or not to allow things to be created) when RS is absent. Getting this message across to an enthusiastic and cause-loyal editor is hard in the extreme. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Heck, I'd settle for a barely-by-the-skin-of-our-teeth half-the-editors-made-it-alive process!  :-)   Wikipedia is a real-world example of The Right Stuff sort of approach in action. As for the concern Martijn raised about edit-history of the exertions-article... well... I must admit the history-split is something I assumed was not needed. I always assumed that article-history was just "blank" except for the originator-who-created-the-AfC-submission getting credit, when moving to mainspace, and all the AfC-editing-history became mainspace-article-talkpage-history, but I guess that cannot be correct. What is the point of putting articles into "talk" in the first place, when they are created in the AfC queue, if not to allow COI editors to say their piece?
  Tim, yes, I know you are working purely on the basis RS, just as valiantly as always, and fully in good faith, as painful and thankless as that task is. Much appreciated; your work is far above the usual quality-bar, even when measured amongst NPP-savvy folks, and I don't mean to lump you in with the everyday deletionist... in fact, I *like* all the deletionists, they *all* do good work, even the ones which go overboard ( RickK) have my sympathetic ear. Tim is no WikiGiant, by any stretch of the imagination; they are a WikiKnight, methinks, no Patrick required, no coconuts necessary either.  :-)
  More to the point, it is not certainly not Tim's fault we have a broken wikiCulture... and indeed, it is *not* broken at all, when evaluated based solely on the content of mainspace. Our wikiCulture of immediate deletionism, and banning those who complain about WP:BITE as being 'disruptive', has been very effective at keeping mainspace free of the more blatant sorts of nigerian spammers, from 2007 through 2011 or maybe even 2012. (That is no longer true... see Wiki-PR if you need proof... they are just the tip of the iceberg.) But it is also, simultaneously, nothing less that horrid in terms of how effectively it drives away smart passionate experts, here to share their knowledge with the 500M readers. The fault is our own, not the experts. We must fix the wikiCulture, so we assume that every visigoth has a PhD and 90 peer-reviewed papers. Because as Mwsobol proves, sometimes they do! He is no visigoth, he is a prime asset, if only we can prevent ourselves from driving him away. We must reform our wikiculture to attract assets, whilst still retaining our capacity to repel visigoths. That won't be easy, but we have to damn well do it.
  The comments by beavercreek about the state of our articles on RMI, unix pipes, and similar stuff are 100% dead-on correct. No experts are maintaining those articles. They were driven away, long ago. There is still time to change ... but in terms of editor-retention, there *is* a deadline. We will last out 2013, no problem. We will get through 2014. But if we do not invert the declining active-editor-count by the start of 2015, when wikipedia is likely to have 666M unique visitors per month, we are in terrible terrible trouble.
  Already, right now, today, there is a new article created every 127 seconds, actual measurement across some particular 64-hour timespan. The vast majority are vanispamicrufticrapola, or whatever phrase Tim uses. But somewhere between 1% and 10% are written by Good Eggs. We can either delete *all* of them, and drive *all* editors away, Good Eggs as well as Bad Eggs, thereby killing wikipedia herself, as embodied in her community... or we can fix the wikiCulture, so that instead of driving away the Good Eggs, because we are too busy-busy to help, we retain them. Good Eggs, banding together, can repel the visigoths of the future, no matter how numerous the visigoths become. But we are running out of time to build that army of Good Eggs... and that is a mortal illness, if we don't act. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
As a quick note only on 'why on talk', that was done since IP editors can't create articles in non-talk namespaces anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Duromac[edit]

I've looked at the AfC item. I see just sufficient notability for a decent stub. The sourcing is tenuous at times, but the passing mentions appear to be significant and in RS. I fiddled with reference groups to I could see the wood form the trees. You may not even know this technique exists for refs. You'll like it of you haven;t seen it before. It allos (eg) Notes and References in spearate escetions in the same article.

My take would be to combine the attempts into a single referenced stub and either submit it to review (if the article was previously deleted) or simply to move it (once assembled) into main space.

Where is it on the notability scale? JUST on the right side of the border, I think. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good, we agree again. You must be incredibly wise and startlingly good-looking and fantastically wealthy.  :-)   Couple other editors have glanced at it and turned it down as not-yet-wikiNotable, but methinks on word-count, shooting from the hip. Once I put in the picture-gallery, and fix up the prose, we'll submit the article again. Clover will be happy to hear some leaning-towards-good news. We're still a long way from consensus, but there is hope. p.s. Some *much* larger corporations in Malaysia also have no entries, despite literally hundreds of newspaper-articles, which is crazy. Clover might be willing to help us with those; especially the sourcing is a problem, because the country uses Tamil and Chinese as well as English in their media, so getting sources is often a translation headache. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I am all of those things, or was once. except wealthy, natch. The sourcing is the problem. The article must be tight and play only to the sources. We don;t care about the product range, just the notability items. And it can be VERY short without compromising notability. Keep it really tight. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup, agree. p.s. Thanks for multi-reflist trick... your mastery of wiki-markup, and good eye for judging wikiNotability, may yet bring you riches... I hear wiki-PR is hiring!  ;-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
very happy! Thank you guys a lot!!!!May I know what I should to help DUROMAC article right now?--Clover1991 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, we're not out of the woods yet, careful with all those exclamation-marks.  :-)  

  1. You should prolly avoid writing the missing sentences, for now, so we can keep a neutral tone from the start.
  2. You can format the references, if you like, that is not controversial, just tedious. See WP:CITE#Webpages, plus this example wiki-markup.[8]
  3. You can look for existing free-as-in-freedom equipment-imagefiles, which have a correct copyright-license (wikipedia-compatibile! do not just download stuff from the internet! see WP:COPYVIO). Try [95] and also [96].
  4. If possible, you can create new free-as-in-freedom imagefiles with a digital camera, but you must get permission to take and upload photos of Duromac buildings/facilities/equipment/etc under a copyright-license that allows *anybody* to use them for almost *any* purpose. See particularly [97] and also [98].
  5. You can start working on the WP:AfC submissions for Hako (company) and Alam Flora, or for other Malaysian companies, which will help you flesh out the coverage of related companies, plus give you some experience with 'easier' articles (there are tons of sources about Alam Flora... and Hako is already sourced in the deWiki article).
  6. Along the way, keep your eye peeled for more Duromac reliable-sources, especially in Chinese or Tamil (which most of your fellow editors cannot understand nor therefore search for).
  7. Also, I want a WP:PONY.  :-)

Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, you can have a pony:

Chestnut pony with flaxen.jpg

Pony!
Congratulations! For asking nicely and having a fascinating user page, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

If you want a real challenge[edit]

Try the articles on caste and related matters that Sitush specialises in patrolling. The Asian Subcontinent produces editors of qualities ranging from excellent to appalling. We never notice those at the excellent end of the scale because they are, well, excellent. Fiddle Faddle 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDHT.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Caste aside? Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I've seen that movie, it was awesome. Wilson! WilsonnNN!! WILSON!!!! My goal right now is to overcome the wiki-caste-system here on-wiki, which only started getting bad around 2007 or so... I don't have time to take on the off-wiki caste-system. But I've seen Sitush in action, they seem very helpful.
  Ironically, in a very bitter way, one of the downsides to my plan of bringing in a bunch of new editors, is that it requires busting up the current wiki-caste-system of 2013... getting back to good old pillar five... but once that is done, and a million active editors becomes an accomplished fact, those same new editors will almost certainly form a *new* wiki-caste-system, not realizing they were just saved from one. People suck. The best I can hope for, is that we will enshrine WP:IAR and the other pillars into the wiki-constitutional-convention of summer 2015, or something like that. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I prefer Polar Express. THAT is a real nightmare, and Hanks did it so well. The WIkicaste is the one we must deserve, because we have created it. We will deserve the ones that come after it, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Also good film footage. As for just desserts, or justice in the desert, or those who trade a little editing-freedom in exchange for a bit of visigoth-security deserve neither... methinks I've heard those phrases before. And the counter-phrase is, to stick with a running theme, also from a good movie: No Fate But What We Make.  :-)     The question is not whether we deserve what we have now, today; the question is whether we can overcome inertia, summon enough gumption, solve enough obstacles, and create the future we deserve. If we do nothing, well then, we get what we deserve. If we do something horridly evil, well then, we get what we deserve. If we manage something sublime and beautiful, we get what we deserve. There is a tautology there methinks. But I can tell you this: I know what I deserve, I earned it, and I intend to hold my breath until I get it.
  Up until recently, I was just going along, in my own little corner of the wikiverse, assuming good faith, ignoring all rules, following the five pillars in my own little shire. But no longer. Now the dangers have become clear to me. The solution also seems clear to me. We must overcome the wikiCaste system, then cast the One Ring into the fires of... wait. Wait wait wait, wrong story. It's all going fuzzy, I've lost focus for this wiki-day. But on the morrow, I shall try again, and will keep trying until there is wiki-liberty and wiki-justice for all. Join me, Luke, and together we will rule the wikiverse as father and... wait, dammit, that's the wrong story too! Nevermind.  :-)   Talk to you later, if I can ever remember what the dern heck we was talking about, that is. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Occasionally I get Wikipassions. Something strokes me and truly is worth pursuing. Sometimes it is to enhance the article, other times to consign it to the recycle bin of life. Sometimes I get struck by topics like WP:CYBER, where 'we' fail to understand that this thing is used to bully others. Other times I get passionate about 'Suicide of Foo' vs 'Foo' article titles. I have even been known to lose my sense of fun with more strident editors. I tend to think of this place as Mission Implausible. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tale of me an 14.198.*[edit]

Thanks for the tale. I agree with all of it (including that both of us are acting in good faith, and have wandered too close to edit warning at various times). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein is a bit hard (that arbcom warning for MOS was totally over the top), but you very definitely *were* edit-warring on CatPeerReview, as was 14. There is a 'technical' definition of 3RR, but that means nothing, see the fifth pillar. I can tell you and 14 were edit-warring, because 14 got angry a little bit, over on the Talk:Science discussion-page.  :-)   When a pillar two four (thanks 63... I'm getting old :-) violation results, then it was an edit war, in my book, albeit in this case a slow one.
  Anyhoo, nice to meet you, call me 74. Well, unless some other pretender-to-the-throne-of-74 happens along, in which case, call me 74.192, or just "hey you" or whatever. Per the suggestion from Bbb23 that you and myself and 14 work things out, and then ask Bbb23 to deprotect, are you interested? If so, what do you think is correct, and what do you think is partially correct, and are any of these flat-out-incorrect? 14 had a local consensus that the first one is incorrect, but neither you nor myself were included in that earlier consensus, and consensus can change. But I was never really clear on your actual stance.
  1. CatPeerReview child of CatScientificMethod
  2. CatPeerReview child of CatScience
  3. CatPeerReview child of CatRhetoricOfScience
  4. CatPeerReview child of CatPhilosophyOfScience
  5. CatPeerReview child of CatMethodologyOfScience
  6. CatPeerReview child of CatPedagogyOfScience
  7. CatPeerReview child of CatNoneOfTheAbove
  8. CatPeerReview child of CatSomethingNotMentionedPleaseSpecify
Feel free to answer briefly, or at length, as you see fit. I'll ask the same question of 14, and then try and help you to get back to a strong focus on the content. Appreciate the note, and also appreciate you improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Ancheta Wis joined the discussion, and inspired me to look at all the parent categories currently on CatPeerReview, and notice that (in my view now) most of them (including CatScientificMethod) are actually wrong. See my most recent comment on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F. Hopefully this can resolve things. I don't actually disagree that peer review is better thought of as part of the rhetoric (and publishing) of science -- my issue was that I saw what looked like a pattern of downplaying any relationship between science and peer review/consensus, and I wanted to question that. I accept your characterization of the interaction as an edit war (albeit a slow one). (Did you mean pillar 4, not pillar 2, though? I don't think there was a violation of NPOV (i.e. pillar 2), unless I'm still missing something...) 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Peer review is *tightly* related to what I would call the methodology and pedagogy of science... it is a way things are kept neutral slash objective, and also the way most teaching and most research happens. (Maybe that's why I said two instead of four; good catch.) Here on the pedia, we try to keep things neutral by sticking to the sources... whereas in science, they try to keep things neutral by calling for independent peer review, experimental replication, and so on.
  Those things involving "peers" actually aren't the scientific method, though. Robinson Crusoe, on a desert island by himself, can engage in the scientific method... if he is careful to think clearly and objectively. He cannot engage in peer-review, though... unless we get philosophical, and start talking about him objectively reviewing himself. Which is what I think the scientific method boils down to, in the end: peer review of oneself, and checking one's facts against the universe's answers, empirically. Now, since I don't have a WP:RS for my pet theory, we'll have to ditch it. <grin> But yes, it's a fun topic; kinda thorny to think about, and tricky to get right. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I was about to ask what all this stuff about Cat Pee was. Ah well. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion or Draft:[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft:. The floor is yours. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

While you are having lots of Wikifun with ANI and things, this one os moving reasonably positively despite the wisdom of crowds. Come and have some leit motflight relief. Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have an open tab with a response to you, saying that I'll be tied up in the vortex for a bit. I'm almost finished with the hectic portion of "wikiFun" and am ready for something refreshing, like pushing a gigantic boulder up the side of a mountain forever. Also, I invited Jenova20 to join our chat about outing the hetero-cabal, or whatever the heck it is we're trying to make happen.  ;-)   Maybe if we're lucky, they'll award you a copy of Civ5 or something cool like that... I was too slow to enter the contest, myself. TFIW. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you try to push a rope up the hill first. The Wisdom of Crowds has, in many places, turned to lunch law. We beat folk to death with sandwiches. But I hope one might kickstart a little back to the time when hope was bright and matters were new.
Is a Hetero-Cabal like a minotaur? If so I commend Mary Renault's novels to you. Actually I loathe, detest and despise all cabals, either formed ad hoc or actually running behind the scenes. I am not keen on cartels either.
What I expect in Wikipedia is way above what happens. I expect high standards of politeness even in ht disagreements, and I expect respect for all forms of diversity. I also recognise that Wikipedia is US Centric and that the US culture is starting to learn about non discrimination. It was ever slow. Back emancipation only happening within my lieftime was a profound shock. Here in the Uk we could not believe how this was even an issue. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your statement on the Kafziel arbitration case[edit]

Hi 74, just letting you know that I've moved the statement you made on the evidence talk page because it appeared to be a comment on the process and case rather than evidence. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARE[edit]

Information icon There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Magnifico[edit]

MONGO the magnificent?! Well...not sure about the accolade, but you are right about the key to avoiding burnout...find a quiet corner to edit where no-bloody will bother you. Thanks!--MONGO 18:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen your hairy-shakespeare-barnstar-slash-portrait, don't try to pretend MONGO is not in all ways MAGNIFICENT. Tell fishzilla or bishwilla or WhatEvah they call themselves today, that they better stay in the water, cause the forest is ruled by MONGO
  p.s. Since I will soon be consumed, whole, by a very large blue kraken, I hereby pre-probate my talkpage and all my other wikiverse-belongings to 42, the anon with all the answers. R.I.P. 74, we knew ye too well!  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

DUROMAC new pic[edit]

Hey, 74! I went to DUROMAC and discussed with them about pictures, I am allowed to take some pictures and upload to Wikipedia. They suggest me only to take DUROMAC facility and DUROMAC Cityfant 60 pictures. Because they think if I am going to take all product pictures, it will looks like advertising again. I already post in my afc submission page, please go and check it. And please tell me these pictures are ok or not.Thanks--Clover1991 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and take pictures of all the products: front view, side view, close-up of the engine, close-up of the cab, if they don't mind. That would be advertising, if we put those pictures into the article about Duromac, you are correct. But those pictures would be great for wikipedia's other articles, about engines, about street-cleaning-equipment, and things like that. Do you know what I mean? Anyways, you are not WP:REQUIRED to take a million photos if you don't want to, but if you are going to be there anyways, and it's not too much trouble, go for it. Take some pics of Puchong, too, eh? Or whatever facility you happen to be around. Just remember that once they ar euploaded to wikipedia, anybody can use them. Should not be any recognizable humans, except "public figures" like Samu Vella, for instance... we don't want wikipedia to get sued. But places and things, and people in teh distance (or who have agreed to have their picture uploaded for anybody to photoshop later), those are all fine. We don't have to use all the pictures in the DUROMAC article, for that we just need one or two or three, plus a map. Hope this helps, hope you are well, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Got it. I will try my best to take more pictures and contribute to Wikipedia. I discussed with DUROMAC CEO, he agree with DUROMAC article right now, he suggests to submit our article again. How do you think of it? If you think it is a good idea, then I would like to only keep the article part and I will submit it:)--Clover1991 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What were you trying to say about Barleybannocks?[edit]

74, I noticed that an administrator has deleted[[99]] your contribution to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks due to its ramblingness. I tried reading what you wrote, but became confused. It seemed to me like you were suggesting that Barleybannocks be banned or you were very sarcastically suggesting that he not be banned. I just thought that I’d stop by and ask what exactly you were getting at. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey again 76, welcome back, thanks for the heads-up. No way to put this gently: dead wrong on both your seemed-to-me interpretations.  :-)   My fault as the author, not yours as the reader perhaps this hermeneutic tangent (more concise but with more run-on sentences) may help you grok more deeply, but given your reply to me over on David's page, I'll admit such grokkage seems vastly improbable to occur in my lifetime (I'm not giving up just yet but my morphic-related-gumption is a bit low right now). Anways, here, try this: I might try again at AE, I suppose, but since the AE admins didn't bother with the courtesy of letting me know they reverted, I'm pretty sure that the only thing the AE admins want is ban-worthy diffs, and I'm not playing that game.
  Anyhoo, I doubt that was clearer. If you still want to chat here, I'm happy to give you an incrementally-ever-clearer picture, but please cut-n-paste a specific sentence you don't understand, rather than saying you got lost, and asking for the nutshell. If, given the tight time-constraints of AE stuff, I was able to boil it down further, I would.  :-)   You have not posted there yet, even though you are wp:involved... maybe telling me your take, will help me explain how mine differs. Or we can talk about the lilac and the glacier, if you can cool on that topic. There's an allcaps bolded sentence in the exquisitely-carefully-crafted-ramble you saw over at AE... did that one not jump out at you? Does it not make sense, both the message to fringe-fighters, and also the message to BarleyBannocks? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
74, my comment in David’s page was not a “reply” to your comment; I was addressing David’s earlier comment about “reliable sources to the contrary”.
There’s no need to elaborate further on your statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks, I really just wanted to know the general thrust of it. I asked because I was initially flabbergasted that you seemed to be calling for Barleybannocks to be banned. I see now that I had misinterpreted your meaning.
I don’t (presently) intend to post a statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks. I don’t think it would do any good. I know that may sound a bit defeatist, but it’s not. I simply think that Barney, Red Pen, Roxy, and Vzaak may have better luck if I don’t get involved. Some admins seem to have a grudge against IP editors, and I think my presence could actually hurt more than it helps. After seeing how they treated you I’m pretty sure that I made the right decision.
Oh, and I’ve changed my mind about Vzaak since last we spoke. I still think he’s a redacted of course, but I no longer think that he’s trying to prolong the conflict. He also seems to be quite enthusiastic about swatting the tumble-trolls that have popped up. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know you were speaking at David... that speech is what I was pointing to, as the mental hurdle of anger, which you would have to overcome, if you want to understand what I say. I've redacted your phallus-allusion 76, sorry about the breach of talkiquette. WP:NPA applies, and you have trouble with that. Your inability to understand why David or Vzaak (or anybody for that matter) act as they do, is no excuse to cast names. You've seen what Sandstein said on Barney's talkpage; please take it to heart, and be WP:NICE. That said, knowing something about cultural groupings, I absolutely feel your pain at being attacked in Real Life by folks who ridicule your work, and I'm sorry that happened... even more sorry that it *happens* in the ongoing-grammatical-tense. On average, people suck, and life is not fair. Still, two wrongs don't make a right; you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and I am here to improve the encyclopedia. But we must improve it collaboratively, not adversarially. Quit lashing out. There is a thing called WP:IMAGINE which I highly recommend, and it applies heavily to the Sheldrake page. Remember that there are only 30k active editors on enWiki, out of 500M readers -- nobody here is "on average" methinks.
Anyhoo, zero admins have treated me badly, with regard to Sheldrake, or with regard to any other stuff for that matter. I was blocked once, unrelated to Sheldrake, but it was a good-faith mistake by the blocking-admin, and quickly cleared up. In fact, one of the fringe-fighters came to my rescue, that day, and it was much appreciated. If *you've* been treated unfairly by an admin, well, let me know, with a diff, seriously. There's plenty of admins who still believe that wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including several I'm friendly with. Agree that the wikiCulture nowadays *tends* to slot all anons into a low-caste position, and some pseudonym-using editors assume the worst... but aside from why-do-you-not-have-an-account sort of questions (which i answer the same as you and jps -- for "philosophical reasons"), and stupid bohts with their not-very-well-tested regex, I've had it easy.
I'm just astonished that somebody expects 74s rambles to make some sort of sense! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, Roxy, 76 was just trying to get another bang for lunch, their actual expectations seem clear from their inter. p.s. I still recommend you to take a gander at my oxygen-of-publicity novella on your talkpage, when we last spoke; perhaps with the passage of time, you will find it more illuminating. If it is too hard to read in the glare of the pixel-production-device, try printing it out, and sit by the fire with some earl grey (mmhhhmmmmmm) or whatever you prefer. I can guarantee you will find my advice illuminating that way, either metaphorically when you catch my drift about what Sheldrake's bluff-strategy in the November Bekoff interview, or literally when you give up, and fling the offensive pages into the fire. Double-win!  :-)   Anyhoo, don't forget to dress warmly. Stop back any time, if you'd rather the bitesize version of my oxygen-advice... but just like I ask of 76, please cut-n-paste the specific sentence where you lost the thread of the logic, so that I can work incrementally to improve your grok. p.p.s. Congratulations on moving into the top ten list. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

“Just trying to get another bang for lunch, their actual expectations seem clear from their inter”?!?! What the hell happened to all your talk of assuming good faith 74? I came here because after reading your statement I thought that you might have switched sides and I wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth.

“BarleyBannocks, like vzaak, is a wikipedia-beginner and pure-WP:SPA”

-74, explorer in the further reaches of miscommunication

“BarleyBannocks simply doesn't understand”

-74, who thinks it’s not what you say, but how much you say

“WP:FRINGE applies to the theory of morphic resonance”

-74, the only man I’ve ever encountered who got his statement on WP:AE deleted by an admin due to its inanity

“BarleyBannocks does not understand the subtle nature of WP:FRINGE”

-74, who once successfully contributed 62.8% of the content on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

I think you will have to excuse me if I, after reading the encouraging comments above, allowed my optimism to get the better of me. If I had come here to insult you, then by God, you would have known it because SUBTLETY IS NOT MY STRONG SUIT!

74, don’t play dumb about me and David. You know the relevant history. David insulted Red Pen and me, I told David off, and then Vzaak attacked me out of a redacted desire to stay on David’s good side. You know perfectly well that Red Pen and Barney have edited Sheldrake in good faith, and that David’s accusations against them are both serious and untrue. I take false accusations seriously, and I can WP:IMAGINE that Barney and Red Pen would be pretty pissed off that they’ve been falsely accused of bullying. David has used his talk page to attack other editors. He has even used an illustration to do it. David’s slinging of serous accusations at good faith editors is beyond the pale. You talk of WP:NICE, and good people, and civility but you’re not judging David by his actions. David may not apologize, but at least I can say that I spoke for what was right.

That said, while I’m here I might as well try asking you to reconsider your position on fringe topics. 74, I think that what you’re failing to do is distinguish between “minority scientific viewpoints” and “anti-scientific viewpoints”. Alan Feduccia’s hypothesis about the origin of birds (appears) to be a minority scientific viewpoint. It’s apparently based on embryological data. And while I don’t think I agree with Feduccia, I think that his hypothesis appears to be a scientific hypothesis. If I ever get my hands on a bunch of ostrich eggs then I can recreate his study, and maybe I can prove him wrong.

Sheldrake, on the other hand, redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted Anyone who has ever passed a high school level physics course knows that conservation of energy is the truest thing that ever was true, yet Sheldrake’s distain for science has reached such magnitude that he has denied even that.

74, if you’re really concerned about minority viewpoints on Wikipedia then please try to distinguish between those that are scientific and those that are anti-scientific. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do assume good faith... I know you're here trying to improve wikipedia... and even on David's page you were *trying* to improve wikipedia... but that doesn't mean I can't tell when somebody is canvassing for votes, which is what you were doing, hence my WP:BEANS response. So yes, I do know you came here hoping I had switched sides (bang-for-lunch is shorthand slang for bangvote-for-the-lunchmob), but I admit, I got a happy laugh at your 'NOT MY STRONG SUIT' ... it is funny, because it is true.  :-)   Your limitation is that you are a straight shooter, you want to call a spade a spade, both mainspace & talkpage, plus you are sure of yourself (by extension thus of biology). I like you quite a lot, as a matter of fact; bet we'd get along swimmingly in the real-o-verse. And those qualities are all *good* ones to have... just sometimes problematic on-wiki. *My* limitation is TLDR, and like you, I recognize it, but like you, it's damn hard for me to overcome. I'm a'trying, though.
  Anyways, I appreciate your asking me to reconsider my position on fringe-topics, and on wikipedia's supporting minority viewpoints... but you simply do not understand my *on-wiki* position. This is because, you think in terms of sides and which one I am on and are angry at those on the wrong side. My goal here, on-wiki, was to see if the sides could be eliminated and instead of editors spending time&energy jockeying to ban/censor/flood/driveAway/fuckWith "the other side" instead folks could sit down, religiously stick to the sources, and reflect what the sources say.
I argue for sticking to the sources instead of fighting amongst ourselves because as wikipedians we gotta stick together not break into feuding factions. I'm against on-wiki sides, because I'm *for* not driving editors away (for encouraging editors who make good-faith contributions regardless of whether anybody else here agrees with their POV). That's pillar two and pillar four, working to keep wikipedia 'fair' and fun. SOMETIMES THAT MEANS A FEW SENTENCES IN MAINSPACE WILL BE OBJECTIVELY WRONG. But it is a pure-dee fact to say "according to Bekoff PhD the well-known biologist Sheldrake has a groundbreaking theory and wishes Jaytee was in Bekoff's new book WhyDogsHump"[100] and then turn right around and give another pure-dee fact by saying "according to Coyne PhD author of WhyEvolutionIsTrue the pseudoscientist Sheldrake has crazy ideas and Coyne's campaign to put the TEDx talk in a special time-out room for misbehaving woomeisters worked"[101].
  Saying one, and not the other, is picking sides, and permitting the picking of sides is itself inherently bad for wikipedia. Sure sure, WP:MEDRS is a necessary evil, but still evil because it makes wikipedia pick sids (science-based medicine trumps snake oil... but simultaneously big monopolistic pharma also trumps the lone genius little guy). In the long run — decades — I think that the real-o-verse 'sides' with objective truth backing them up, someday *will* become reflected in wikipedia mainspace, and that staying religiously NPOV while we wait for the correct historical moment (a truth-based society not a spin-based society), will speed the achievement of that moment. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  p.s. David insulted Red Pen and me. (mhmmm... you two perceived it that way I agree... and perception *does* count in this case).
Nutshell: because *sides* are permitted, I felt attacked as soon as I arrived on the page, and bullied off the page (that's not why I left... just tactics in the long-game of strategy... but the feeling was no mirage). Same feeling for you, 76, albeit aimed at different players (and you have a similar head for tactics). Same for David, except not tactical whatsoever. Barney, when his frustrations eventually get the better of him and Sandstein follows through on the warning, will feel the same way as David. Vzaak and jps and Iantresman were *already* acting tactically, before they even arrived on the page. Anyway, to repeat one last time, even a busted watch is correct twice a day... the only solution I see is to *not* permit sides, or at least, not permit *adversarial* sides ... the rock of pillar four we shalt not rubberize, unto pillar two we shalt all stay 100% true. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  p.p.s. Sheldrake claims to have done drugs only when he was a mainstream scientist... but he disliked them... and so he switched to transcendental meditation in the late 1960s or early 1970s, as a non-drug-induced mechanism for exploring the mechanics of consciousness, prior to leaving his U.Cambridge teaching-n-researcher slot. He is popular amongst the new-age-crowd, but not himself a new-ager; see commentary by TRPoD on the talkpage to that effect, archive 11 or archive 12, plus the Sheldrake quotes I found about sufism. Or not.  :-)   Cause who cares? You were just trying to blast him a good one, eh? But I gotta redact you, he is a BLP, gotta protect the server farm. I caught your drift though, the druggie-swipe was just a minor point. You could make your point as well, just sticking to Coyne and Maddox, though, right? Right. Take it easy 76, feel free to drop in any time. I won't take your side, on-wiki, but I enjoy your NOT SUBTLE approach to the world.  :-)   TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please excuse my belated reply; I’ve been preoccupied with holiday-related activities and have had little time for Wikipedia lately.

74, did you seriously just attempt to deny the existence of objective reality? David did, IN FACT, insult Red Pen and me.[[102]] I did, IN FACT, tell him off for doing so.[[103]] And Vzaak did, IN FACT, attack me unprovoked.[[104]] Those are things that happened. They are reality. Factual reality is not some subjective occurrence that you can try to spin-doctor however you like. I did not simply “perceive” it that way, and your flat out denial of facts is not in any way equal to my diff supported account of events. At this point your arguments have degenerated into pure sophistry. You are trying to suggest to me that I only “felt” insulted when someone really did insult me, while simultaneously trying to argue that your “feelings of being bullied” are valid, when you were really just prevented from pushing POV. You have made an argument that is the intellectual equivalent of saying “well you shouldn’t have assaulted his fist with your face”. 74, you attempt at victim blaming is both insulting and a lie. I see no point in in continuing this conversation any further. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh... zeroth things first, WP:DEADLINE applies as always, glad you are enjoying the holidays, and first things first, *I* don't feel bullied by you nor TRPoD, but David did, and does. You and I never interacted until you had already *left* the article-talkpage. Anyhoo, I quite truthfully don't see you as a bully: I see you as a provocateur, here to 'startle the boundary' of pillar four, and drive off people that disagree with your WP:SPOV. It's a fine line, but the key is that you take no enjoyment from the provocations; bullies like their bullying, but for you it is a duty and something you see as a tactical necessity, not for lulz. You are doing what you think is best, and upholding a code of morality, and it is hard to fault you for that. As I say, in real life we'd get along methinks. As for not replying promptly, I have a different excuse; I didn't notice your reply until today. (Didn't notice JzG had banned Alfonzo until today either.)
  As for your substantive points, I believe quite fully in objective reality; feelings have no impact on it, neither yours nor David's (nor mine nor TRPoD's for that matter). Feelings exist, they sometimes govern behavior, but feelings don't shape objective reality. Actions do of course, so it's a fine philosophical line, but we're on the same philosophical page about objective reality not being subject to anybody's feelings one way or the other.
  If you wish to grasp my analysis of the reality of your diffs, I'm happy to try and show you, but as you PERCEIVE only that I simply *must* be a liar, a sophist, a reality-denial-subjectivist, a spin-doctor, and (gasp!) anti-fact ... to include the law fact of COE and your perception fact that *David* is the real really real bully in this picture ... kinda therefore would be a pointless waste of pixels to do so in advance. Likely you'll satisfy yourself that since *you* provided a diff from the fight you picked with David, and all *I* provided was a list of the fighting words you just used to try and pick a fight with me (plus the full text of your earlier diffs for all to see), that means you wwwwiiiinnnnn. Still, you seem unable to resist getting in the last word, so I extend the offer, which stands indefinitely: if you wish to see where your perceptions of the diffs above fail to match objective reality, if you wish me to give your premises a little spot-check, feel free to ask.
  Anyhoo, I stand by my original assessment. You're a straight shooter, you have a clear understanding of Sheldrake, and a clear understanding of biology, but you're treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to further your WP:SPOV, and you see anybody that disagrees with your WP:SPOV as an enemy who must be driven away, pillar four be damned. This is not because you misunderstand that WP:NICE is policy, but simply because you don't *care* that pillar four is policy, you are more interested in righting great wrongs, how dare those cold fusionists and telepathy mongers pollute wikipedia, they offend you, just like those mean old creation science folks offends you. I don't suggest you give up your beliefs; I don't suggest you change your opinions. I insist you treat pillar four like a rock here in the wikiverse (especially when you disagree with the other editors... and doubly-especially when you perceive some slight... stick to the high moral ground). Further, I insist that you stick to what the WP:RS actually say... and as far as I can tell from non-mainspace editing, you have the same problem as the other fringe-fighters on the article (if a WP:SPOV or even just one true Scotsman disagrees with a source — no matter the field of inquiry — then that source can be deleted entirely from wikipedia using WP:POLL). Expect I'll see you around, I hope under improved circumstances. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Clover1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Clover1991 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I apologise for the delay. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Translate an article from German?[edit]

Which one? If it's a technical topic, I may not be the right person. And I have a lot on my plate right now - not least, trying to improve 2 rejected AfC submissions in the hopes of their getting passed next time, and Yule - but you do know I have been known to do that, right? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a short article on deWiki, so the quality should already be pretty good, and the machine-translation is likely to get me most of the way there. Clover is going to make an AfC submission for it, and then I will pull the pieces over. Once we're done, then I'll have you do a side-by-side, should only take you fifteen minutes or so. (And yes, you were the speaker of German I had in mind... Kudpung also sprachen sie deutsche as well as Roskinde but they are a little bit wikiStress'd now concerning AfC stuff.) I will figure out where this project is. p.s. It is a firm that manufacturers street-cleaners, those big trucks with the spinning-spring-steel-bristles underneath, pretty straightforward. Thanks for the offer, appreciate it. p.p.s. Yes, Yngvadottir, you & y'all's yule yucks, yearly, why, why, yesterday's yodel, yeah! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I won't offer more than I can execute and I'm headed to bed now - but beware of Google translate for any language involving endings; the stupid thing seems to ignore them. Talk to you later. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wel, Englis work jus fin withou th ending letter whic mean googl probabl wil hav n problem whatsoeve.  :-)   Left you some NYT over on the marimba's AfC page. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
(watching) beware of Google translations for whatever, latest was "highly dramatic soprano", - I can look next year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, chuckling out loud ... (do the kiddies say COL for that? hmmmmm) ... do you know, Gerda, when I tried to think of people who were from Germany, or who knew how to speak German, that your name did not even once enter into my considerations? Because I consider you to be from wikiCriminaland, a true patriot of that nation for certain, and assumed you therefore only spoke wikiCriminalese.  :-)   You have my heartfelt apologies for stereotyping you, and I'll try to remember that you once used to have a homeland ... BEFORE YOU LEFT THE PATH OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND TRUE IN THIS WORLD, and began rampaging through the wikivillages, spreading your infoboxen terror amongst the terrified wikivillagers. <sigh> Anyhoo, seriously speaking, sure you can help too, if you like. Watch out for Yngvadottir, though, they're one of those "rouge" admins that sees red every time somebody fails to heed the five pillars. Plus there are rumors that I think they may just control most of the Scandinavian military forces. Thanks for improving wikipedia, friends. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  (( my awesomely-grammatical English machine-translated into msft™ germaneze™ )) OK, lachen laut... (sagen die Kiddies dafür COL? Hmmmmm)... weißt du, Gerda, als ich versuchte, denken Sie an Menschen, die kamen aus Deutschland, oder wer wusste wie man Deutsch, sprechen, die Ihren Namen nicht ein einziges Mal in meiner Ausführungen eingegeben haben? Denn ich halte Sie für bestimmte von WikiCriminaland, ein echter Patriot dieser Nation zu sein und davon ausgegangen, Sie damit nur sprach-WikiCriminalese dass. Sie haben meine aufrichtigen Entschuldigungen für Klischees Sie, und ich werde versuchen, nicht vergessen, dass Sie einst eine Heimat zu haben... BEVOR SIE links den Pfad der das ist gut und wahr IN dieser Welt, und begann tobten durch die Wikivillages Verbreitung Ihrer Infobox Terror unter der Angst Wikivillagers. (seufz) Wie auch immer, ernst sprechen, sicher können Sie auch helfen, wenn du magst. Achten Sie auf Yngvadóttir, aber sie sind einer dieser "Rouge"-Admins, die rot sieht jedes Mal, wenn jemand ausfällt, die fünf Säulen Beachtung zu schenken. Außerdem gibt es Gerüchte, dass ich denke, dass sie die meisten der skandinavischen Streitkräfte nur steuern können. Vielen Dank für die Verbesserung der Wikipedia, Freunde. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  (( msft™ germaneze™ machine-translated into msft™ englisheze™ )) OK, laugh out loud... (tell the kiddies that COL? Hmmmmm)... know you, Gerda, when I tried, you think of people who came from Germany or who knew how to German, speak, that not once in my speech have entered your name? Because I you for certain WikiCriminaland, a true patriot of this nation consider to be assumed, and you just said WikiCriminalese that. You have my sincere apologies for clichés, and I'll try to remember that you once to have a home... BEFORE she left is the path of the good and true IN this world, and began spreading your infobox raged through the Wikivillages terror under the fear of Wikivillagers. (sigh) As always, seriously speaking, sure you can also help if you like. Watch Yngvadóttir, but they are one of those "Rouge"-Admins, that red looks everytime when someone fails to respect the five pillars. Also, there are rumors that I think that they can control most of the Scandinavian armed forces only. Thank you very much for the improvement of Wikipedia, friends. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Owwww. Reminds me of when I discussed something on Skype with someone in German and Klingon. Thanks for the refs about the marimba/vibraphone gentleman; I've used some of them and hope to use more. Speaking of editors having a bad experience at AfC, Hafspajen is concerned about Freedombulls, although their article did get accepted. Perhaps you can offer some words of demystification/encouragement? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

redacted self-referential humour faces are often seen in public places[edit]

I see my name in several of the recent tables on your talk page. I'm happy to see it there, but I don't grok WTF the different columns in the tables are. Nor do I grok why my name is always in such a small font. My evil twin imagines that my presence in the table, and maybe even its tiny font, are because the forces of "COE is a fact not a law or principle" have me in their sights because I use such an odd keyboard to express my tzitzit views. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tzit, tsk, tzit, your 'fringe' is showing, unicomp-fanboi!  :-)   The tables were put together haphazardly... there is a key, but it is buried in the middle somewhere. Tinyfont means that you expressed the desire to leave the sheldrake article, then did. This is a fuzzy category; Vzaak expressed the desire to leave wikipedia, when he got the uber-strictly-defined-count-of-reverts-warning from bbb23, but did not seem to slow down his activity, so I left him in the normal font. 76 left the talkpage under duress, but they aren't in the top-fifteen edit-count. CraigWeiler left wikipedia entirely, but again, not in the top-15-of-all-time, and zero in December. LouSander has more edits to the talkpage in December than someone who has actually left... three for David, one for me... maybe you should be back in regular font? with a footnote perhaps. I'll add the categories you and roxy requested, feel free to directly edit yourself into the place which best reflects your status, if you don't like where I slotted you. HTH.
p.s. Adjusted your existing commentary, to correct for the fact that col-names were not listed, and you guessed wrong. This boils down to a policy dispute, over whether wikipedia should contain articles about Islam/etc, or instead only articles debunking Islam/etc, with dissenting RSes elided as not *really* reliable. All the frustration and battle-mentality results directly from that policy-dispute; the poisonous atmosphere (thanks in large part but not entirely due to the tumblemen) makes a calm discussion of policy very difficult to even have. If I make no progress with Erik, I'll try Tnkia(sp). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I replied[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC) +1

and I left a message at the Gerbic talk page ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

replay on SORCER[edit]

Hello. I provided You answers on Talk:SORCER Pawelpacewicz (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Freddy Fuller[edit]

I'm a bit confused. The deleted article at AdsMadeEZ created by a User talk:Frederick S Fuller is hardly the kind of thing that the genuine Freddy Fuller is likely to write, so maybe your well intended comments are on a page he's never likely to see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, yes, I'm not sure what the connection is there, but the User talk:Frederick S Fuller was included in the wall that Freddy posted over at WT:WER. Maybe it is some kind of endorsement-by-the-famous-boxer thing? I cannot see the deleted contents, but maybe you can watchlist just in case... if there is no connection, possibly their username is security-compromised? Anyways, I left the standard you-can-try-again-using-AfC-with-AnneTikukoJulieDavid-helpful-folks, just in case.
  Anyhoo, it looks like Freddy has been trying to get this simple thing done since at least September... your idea of a "landing page" is a good one. Why not work on what it should look like? We can turn it into a welcome-template, and then someday, an edit-filter. #1. welcome to wikipedia, here are the five pillars. #2. if you are working on an article about you or your employer or your band or your friend/family/coworkers/etc, please use AfC and mention COI. #3. If there is already an article about you/etc that needs corrections see WP:TEAHOUSE. And so on. HTH, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Hey, 74! I asked you few question in my talk page, could you please go and check it! Thanks in advance!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 74[edit]

I'm a friend of Clover. I will help her to translate the Hako page. Do you know how it should be done exactly?--Maartje77 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Maartje, appreciate you helping out. I've also found some folks who are interested in helping, Yngvadottir and Gerda Arendt, when they have time. I suggest this.
  1. please create Hako in the WP:AfC queue,
  2. with just one sentence of content to start with ("Hako is a manufacturer of street sweeping equipment.")
  3. Then, post the URL here, so that everybody can start to work on it,
  4. translating sentences from the German version on deWiki,
  5. verifying sources,
  6. checking the licenses for the photo-uploads (deWiki shares photos via Commons methinks but we should make sure), and so on.
Does that sound good? Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will be on next year. Typically you don't need all details here, a stub is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I created a page. Could you take a look at it, if it's alright? I did not submit it yet, first I would like to know if its correct or not.. [[105]] Merry Christmas to all!--Maartje77 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Useful.

  1. (ref,name="ebundesanzeiger") Suche im elektronischen Bundesanzeiger Hako Werke: Jahresabschluss zum 31. Dezember 2009 (/ref)
  2. (ref,name="LV2010") de:Florian Langenscheidt, de:Bernd Venohr (Hrsg.): Lexikon der deutschen Weltmarktführer. Die Königsklasse deutscher Unternehmen in Wort und Bild. Deutsche Standards Editionen, Köln 2010, ISBN 978-3-86936-221-2. (/ref)
  3. (ref) de:Berliner Zeitung vom 31. Juli 1998: Hako will bei Multicar mehr Stellen schaffen (/ref)
  4. http://www.hako.com , 6 brands + 5 factories + 15 branches + 25 EU dealers + 20 intl dealers,[106] , dealers [107][108] , brands [109][110][111][112] , all per WP:ABOUTSELF
  5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hako_vehicles , WP:EYECANDY , deWiki uses five.[113][114][115][116][117]
  6. See also de:Hakkoren , in German
  7. https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Traktorenlexikon:_Hako , training manuals , in German

Maybe useful.

  1. Newspaper; note that these are mostly about a single local dealer-slash-acquisition (not sure which), and thus not *directly* about the entire Hako conglomerate.[118][119][120] Hoovers of the dealer-slash-acquisition.[121]
  2. University.[122]
  3. Court.[123]
  4. Misc.[124][125][126]
  5. Biz mags.[127][128][129][130]
  6. Shows.[131][132]
  7. Awards.[133]
  8. Patents.[134][135]
  9. Market data.[136][137]
  10. Government, prolly purchasers.[138]

Also, added a couple quotes to the article. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I left you a message on my talk page [139] --Maartje77 (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Happy Holiday's[edit]

Thank you for your effort on my page :-)
Gr Barry --Freedombulls (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holiday[edit]

Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Thanks for helping on Wikipedia:)--Clover1991 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

New change of DUROMAC AFC[edit]

Hello, 74! Merry Christmas! I did few changes in my AFC page of DUROMAC article. Please check it and feel free to tell me if there is something I still need to be improved. Thanks a lot !--Clover1991 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 4711[edit]

Martes foina.gif Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Yes, little Bob is a weasel. Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Best of the Season to all
  • How very clever of you. Sometimes, an obelisk is just an obelisk, but Freud might never say so. For him everything was something else ( I guess I am getting just as silly as the editor whom disruptive edits I was tracing). Hafspajen (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 4711[edit]

Martes foina.gif Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Yes, little Bob is a weasel. Hafspajen (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Best of the Season to all
  • How very clever of you. Sometimes, an obelisk is just an obelisk, but Freud might never say so. For him everything was something else ( I guess I am getting just as silly as the editor whom disruptive edits I was tracing). Hafspajen (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There was some famous quote of his, when he was talking to some students, and pulled out a huge phallic-shaped cigar for himself, and one of the students asked him (possibly innocently but presumably mischeivously) about the deeper mental significance in the unconscious mind that would cause a male to develop an interest in cigar-smoking. Freud said, sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.  :-)   I don't like cigars, but I like trees. Indoor trees are a particularly extravagant idea. Good practice for a space-faring civilization to get into, methinks. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ready to submit[edit]

Hey,74! I just upload DUROMAC logo, ready to submit! Do I need to only keep the article part or I can also keep the comments, rough-draft and analysis of sources then I submit it together with DUROMAC article? --Clover1991 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, cool. The logo should be licensed as "fair use" NFCC because it is a symbol of duromac, and wikipedians cannot remix/change/reuse it; did you do it thataway? (There might be some AfC rule against keeping the NFCC logo ... if it gets deleted don't worry, we'll just re-upload later once the article is in mainspace.)
  As for the commentary, definitely leave it in there, it is meant to help the reviewers understand the WP:N and WP:NOTEWORTHY stuff. When approved, the final-draft article will then be moved to mainspace, and the person doing the move will hide away all the comments, at that time. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, when I upload the picture, I didn't see there is " fair use", may I know where I can find it? I only choose" this is my own photo" and nothing more.--Clover1991 (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I tried to upload picture again, but I only find three different licensed:
  • Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (legal code)
  • Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (legal code)
  • Creative Commons CC0 Waiver (release all rights, like public domain: legal code)

May I ask you which one I need to choose? Thanks! --Clover1991 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


I have never done a logo-upload, so I don't know how.  :-)   It is none of those three, though; fair use and NFCC cannot go through the uplaod-wizard, prolly. But you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE and maybe somebody will help with the specifics. But as I said, I don't think AfC rules (or maybe Commons-rulz) permit use of trademarked logos in the AfC queue anyways, so we prolly have to wait until the article is in mainspace, before we upload, most likely. Here is the background you need to know.
  You cannot upload the duromac logo as your own photo; it is a trademarked symbol of duromac corp (sbn bhd) which means the owners of the corporation (your friend the CEO) have certain legal rights, enforced by the courts (in Malaysia and worldwide), to the name on the logo, and the 'look' of the logo. Nobody else can sell sweepers in Malaysia, and put the DUROMAC™ logo on them, for instance. Also, nobody can use a *similar* logo, such as the DVR0NAC™ logo... because it is too confusing, it will be too easy for bad guys to defraud customers (who think they are getting DUROMAC quality) and then to give the real DUROMAC a bad name in the market (which they don't deserve). So, governments protect the corporate logo with a special kind of legal rule, which differs from country to country.
  But what about wikipedia? Imagefiles uploaded to wikipedia are under pillar three, free as in freedom, just like text. Anybody can change the duromac article, right? Right. Anybody can even copy the duromac article, and put it on another website, as long as they give credit to wikipedia. What if you upload the duromac logo, and the BadGuys copy that logo to www.DVR0NAC.com? They can take people's credit cards over the internet, and promise to deliver the CityFant model 60 to your doorstep next week, for just USD$999, special sale!  :-)   That is a scam, right? How does the CEO of the real DUROMAC, and owner of the real www.DUROMAC.com, keep the bad guys from winning? Easy: they call up the Malaysian High Court (or something like that I don't know the details) and say, hey, judge, help me out, some bad guys are abusing my trademarked copyrighted logo. The judge tells the cops to stop the bad guys, and the cops call the webhost-n-ISPs where the badguys are running their scam, and suddenly "DVR0NAC" is deleted, and the badguys put in jail (or fined or whatever the laws are).
  So how can wikipedia have free-as-in-freedom content, which anybody can copy and put on their own website and modify if they want to, while at the same time showing the official DUROMAC logo in the official article about DUROMAC? The answer is called "fair use" and the wikipedia policy is called WP:NFCC. It is a special loophole in copyright/trademark/patent law, which allows some things (like logos) to be uploaded to media/educational sites (like en.wikipedia.org and commons.wikimedia.org). In other words, "fair use" is an exception to the usual rule. Usually, you can only upload photos that are *actually* your own photos, that you actually took, to wikipedia. If not your own, you have to get permission from the photographer, and they have to release their copyrighted material under CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL. What about the logo? Well, the CEO of DUROMAC *could* give you permission, and release their trademark and copyright on the logo... but that would mean the badguys could scam people! Bad idea. So, since the logo cannot be re-licensed as CC-BY-SA/GFDL, but we want the logo in wikipedia anyways, we upload it under the "fair use" provisions of United States (and WIPO also) laws. That way, we can have our cake, and eat it too.
  Anyways, this logo-uploading-work is complicated stuff... as you prolly realize by now :-)   Don't worry, it will all work out in the end. I'll come to the file and help get it figured out, if nobody at the WP:TEAHOUSE is awake to help you. There is also some kind of helpdesk/refdesk, where somebody might have an answer for you, and there is a special questions-about-imagefiles noticeboard, but I forget what it is called. Anyways, start with the teahouse, and explain you are trying to upload a corporate logo, for an article in AfC, and accidentally just uploaded it as "own work" which is wrong. They'll prolly get you straightened out in a jiffy. Hope this helps. p.s. Also, mention that we uploaded two other photos, and give them the link of the AfC article, so they can check if those are properly licensed and such, while they are helping with the logo-upload-question. Thanks as always, let me know if this makes no sense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But we can figure all the logo stuff out, as time goes by. Submit the article for review, and leave a nice request on Tikuko's talkpage that we think we are ready once more. We can get the logo stuff worked out (and the Hako and Alama Flora and other articles finished up), while we wait for the second review of Duromac. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, and speaking of loose ends that we can work on while we wait for a reviewer, what about this? "...for the first woman in the world[clarification needed] to operate a road-sweeper..." Is that really what the article says? Or does it just mean, first in Malaysia, or first in the Alam Flora corporation, or first to drive a Bucher-Schoerling-sixteen-tonne-model, or something like that. First in the *world* is a pretty strong claim, right? But I cannot read the article's language, and the machine-translation is awful, as usual. Can you read the language of that 2011 source fluently? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I got your point! Thanks, 74! my point right now is I would like to first not upload DUROMAC LOGO and submit to be reviewed. While I am also going to ask the help from Teahouse and see what I should do to get NFCC. Because personally, I would like to see DUROMAC article itself is ok enough. How do you think of it?--Clover1991 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I read it again the first woman article, I think I would rather change it like this: first woman drive of 16-tone road sweeper. How do you think of it?--Clover1991 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Your change is good. (But probably you should say 16-tonne ... otherwise people will think it is a musical vehicle.  :-)   As for whether the duromac article is okay, yes, please submit it now. We can figure out the logo thing while we wait for an AfC reviewer. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,74! Sorry to ask you a stupid question. When I ready to resubmit my AFC,I need to create a new section for submit, right? in this new section, do I need to copy paste everything I have in my draft version??? I mean everything? Thank you! BTW,TTK checked my AFC page already, he said we improve 200%!!!wow!!!--Clover1991 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You should not have to paste everything ... are you just resubmitting our existing work? That's not the same as creating a new AfC submission, from scratch. Here is what you should do.

First, go to our existing article. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/DUROMAC(M)_SDN_BHD

Next, at the top of our existing article, there is a pink box where Tikuko reviewed our draft from a few weeks ago. It looks like this.

  • Submission declined on... (top of pink box)
  • This submission appears... (embedded blue box)
  • You are encouraged to... (middle of pink box)
  • Resubmit. Please note... (bottom of pink box) <=== click 'resubmit' at the start of this portion

Finally, after you have clicked the resubmit, all that happens is one single line of hidden text is inserted into the article, which looks like this example-diff.[140]

Hope this helps. p.s. You can also ask Tikuko or Davidwr, if this does not make sense, or does not work. Tell them you are ready to resubmit your updated AfC-submission for another review. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I did the same step, I click resubmit, and suddenly jump into the page like this [141]I don't get it, is there something wrong with my page??--Clover1991 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You are doing it right. After you click 'resubmit' you will see the weird page you described, then you just click the 'save' button at the bottom (do not paste anything). That weird page is a "technical limitation" of the way the AfC software works... it is just built on top of regular wikipedia stuff, not specially coded for AfC work, so the confusing "intermediate page" is nothing to worry about.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi 74! I just found out the article was declined. :( What can we do now? ~~----


OrderUp[edit]

Hey, thanks for your message! I'd love your help with getting the OrderUp article into shape. I made some changes based on suggestions from Huon, but would welcome additional feedback/guidance in getting this ready to move it to article space. Socialmedia2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tracy, I'm still behind, though I am struggling to catch up on my backlog. If you are in a hurry, you might try picking somebody from the member-list on WP:RETENTION for assistance, or somebody at WP:ASSIST might have time. Ask folks one at a time, obviously, don't bulk-message all 200 people.  :-)   You can also leave a note at the WP:TEAHOUSE every couple of days, to see if anybody there feels like giving your article a once-over. The main trouble is that it is short on fact. The sources *give* facts, but the article elides most of them, instead just sticking pretty firmly to the description of the current biz-model, and the current product-line. My main advice is to treat the topic of OrderUp as a *historical monograph* rather than as a press release. You're doing good work, and trying hard, but you are a little to WP:INVOLVED with the company to make the prose fully neutral.
  What I mean is... try imagining that a huge fireball has engulfed all of North America (luckily you were on vacation overseas at the time! ... whew) and that there is no longer any OrderUp, or indeed, any cities with restaurants. Write the article as a dry, fact-filled history of that former corporation, in a now-gone era: genesis in LionMenus, with local coverage. Transition to Baltimore, with local competition, and million-dollar investment. Midstream changes to a completely unexpected new biz-model, with distributed branding, and franchising of a web-property and mobile-apps... "innovative" says Inc magazine. In 2013, just before the half-kilometer-asteroid strike wiped the continent from the map, the business model changed again, with centralized branding and turn-key operations. WP:CRYSTAL applies, we never found out what happened after that....
  Such a mindset might help. Along the way, give the wider historical context: WebVans, GrubHub, PizzaHut.com selling the first food over the internet, current competitors, modern advances in teleporters so we can someday just get our food delivered star-trek-style, that sort of thing.  :-)   In any case, I'll head your way when I have a spare minute, certainly, but also feel free to ping my talkpage when you wonder if I've forgotten, or have a quick question. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Good thinking on some of the broader data about the industry. I'll ping others/get back to you when I have done the next round of revisions. Good luck escaping fireballs on New Years. Socialmedia2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

→Hello again! I'm going to pop over to chat for help on the latest revisions, but hopefully these latest changes should have a drier tone and show more notability. I'd appreciate any more feedback if life has become any less crazy. (Yeah, right...) Socialmedia2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pingback[edit]

I've stuck some replies to you on my talk page, sorry they aren't more ingenious. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

But what have I done with the talk page?[edit]

Billydove.jpg

Here is one for you, as you like them. Also this File:Alfred Cheney Johnston - Dorothy Flood with The Mirror (1920).jpg|Dorothy Flood with The Mirror (1920)

But what have I done with the talk page? How do you fix this mess? Hafspajen (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SORCER[edit]

Hello You have my answer on: Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A perfectly innocent Swedish article[edit]

I've been asked on my user talk about WT:Articles for creation/Adolf Fredrik's music school, which has just been declined for the second time, and I suspect you may have useful ideas. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We already have an article on Adolf Fredrik, have you never heard of the thousand-year-reich? I can see why another article would be declined in a heartbeat, I hate nazis as much as the next... oh wait... Adolf Fredrik. Sure, I'll take a peek.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
74, It's 4:30 am and I just got out of bed to start a little minivacation (to listen to choral singing in Berlin, no less) and I was met by the wonderful message you left on my own talkpage :-) Yes, indeed I would appreciate all the help I can get. I have no desire whatsover to make this article mine, I just think the subject is noteworthy. As I said I will be goen for a few days and can't do anything myself until I am back, but if you want to go ahead and improvements in the Adolf Fredrik's music school article, please do, I'll catch up!
74, I just posted some comments about this subject on Yngvadottir's talk page, destined for both you and Yngvadottir. Andersneld (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions.
Message added 07:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re your trombone festival question: I don't know enough about the various festivals and similar events, I'm afraid. Try asking at http://tromboneforum.org/ PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SORCER talk archived[edit]

So as suggested I archived Talk:SORCER. I like your ideas for our cooperation which You propossed on archived talk page. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:SORCER now is empty - as You are more experienced and You have structured idea how to apporach it - I count on You with new structure :-) Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, please add your commentary about "paragraph one" when you have time. Thanks much, it looks way less cluttered now. Also, note that there is a separate discussion (more technical in nature) going on at WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming, which is relevant to some of our work at Talk:SORCER. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year! 74! Thanks for helping me with DUROMAC article. You are a nice person. All the best wishes! talk to you later!--Clover1991 (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Theodore-Gericault--cheval-arabe-gris-blanc-rouen.jpg
Happy New Year!

Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Following your example, I collapsed tales on my talk, proud of the last DYK of the year and sad about losing another friend here, the one I mentioned with no real name (but now we know it, and that he was the one who wrote 'tis the season, my gift of 2012) - happy new year, such is life, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
free popcorn

'tis the season

For your thoughtful encouraging responses you receive the gift of 2012 (context: look for pride and prejudice on my user page), better late than never, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The AfD had to happen in the end[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination) where your opinion will be valued, the more so since you have worked hard in this area. Fiddle Faddle 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ho ho ho[edit]

Well, you finally address me directly, instead of just staying silent when asked good-faith questions, or appealing to the nearest authority-figure to try and get rid of me.

  1. 2 January 2014‎ at 17:27 UTC
  2. Vzaak (601,402 bytes) (-13,256)‎
  3. "Data on BLP and BLPTALK participation:"
  4. remove inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND charts
  5. for the third time;
  6. you had promised
  7. to quit this disruption

Tut tut, vzaak. WP:ASPERSIONS. All that I "promised" was to talk those charts over with you, but then, you refused to discuss anything whatsoever, charts or otherwise. You were perfectly free to be that way, you were not WP:REQUIRED to respond. Of course, as you well know, there are plenty of noticeboards concerning the blatantly-obvious-to-everyone WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I've little doubt that battleground will either continue until all your content-opponents are banned, driven away, or otherwise give up... or until the case goes to ArbCom for the second time, and the dispute over whether NPOV==SPOV is settled. Or perhaps you were referring to my promise to stick around until the battleground was ended and the article was fixed? That one still holds, too.

  I suspect the only reason you dislike me posting the full context of content-contributions and talkpage-contributions, is that it graphically illustrates exactly who is perpetuating the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please self-revert your unwanted deletion of my talkpage information, or start to explain yourself in an actual talkpage conversation, right here, today.

  Summarized WMFLABS data is not COPYVIO, and none of my statements were BLPTALK violations by the longest stretch of the imagination. Back up your "inappropriate" accusations, or apologize, but don't stay silent now that you've broken cover. Your vague handwaving about how I'm being disruptive when I post contributor-data (in response to *your* post of contributor-data may I point out), whereas you're just being helpful-n-constructive, seems pretty tenuous. Is the data only allowed, when it improves the perception of WP:MAINSTREAM fka WP:SPOV as a policy?

  I'm all ears to learn how you're not participating in battleground-behavior, it's all those *bad* people, the Sheldrake fanbois, the tumblesocks, anybody who disagrees with the contents of mainspace as defined by WP:SPOV. Is that your actual stance? You have kept your cards close to the vest, and failed to state your actual philosophical position on the relevant wikipedia policies, preferring to let others speak. Please, go ahead, speak now. I'm genuinely curious, because although actions speak louder than words, you don't seem to interpret your actions thataway. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick ping before I go to bedddd[edit]

Could you keep an eye on Ryk72's situation? We seem to have an unfortunate confluence of holidays, a (regrettable) retirement from adminship, an intractable issue of world politics, and ... a newbie who writes well and either is a quick study or I am a hopeless softie. Iff this person is able to be unblocked, we could use your sage advice to help them; it's a bit late now for a welcome template and a short note, which tends to be my style in advising new editors. Tx, g'night. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Either you are quite tired, or the key between the F and the S on the lefthand side is stuck. :-)   28bytes I presume you mean, which aslo sent Gerda into temporary retirement. RRRRrrrrrgggh. When you are awake, and have a moment, the article about which I mentioned the russian-language newspapers to you is in AfD#2 (article is SORCER but direct AfD#2 link is in my note from FiddleFaddle just above), seeing if we can resolve the original no-consensus of AfD#1 into something more like a Keep, or more like a Move-To-WP:Drafts. It is a tricksy bit of sourcing, because we are mostly resting on PhD theses per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "with care", and on conference proceedings. Comment if you wish to, thanks. I haven't yet talked with Ymblanter, but I will, now with a bit more WP:TIAD in my step.  :-)   Talk to you later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I am exploring new frontiers in exhaustion (and the news is not good on my ersatz cat, so between the two and general chaos I am lucky if I have one working brain cell). Thanks for your post on the new editor's page; I'm told e-mails have been sent by others, and we'll see if a way can be found. (As you see it was a different administrative retirement.) I looked at the AfD but doubt I can help - when it gets into citation indexing I'm not much use anyway, since I have no experience with wielding those metrics. I suspect there is a wealth of Russian material, and personally I do think the conference papers count for something, but that's me, and the topic is way, way, way beyond me. ... Did you hear that there was a premature change to a template and by the time it was reverted, some 170 AfC submissions had been put in Draft space (which the relevant bots cannot yet handle)? I hope they have by now been fished out of there, or people will have to remember they exist and be prepared to deal with them manually. Ah, technology. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is my brain unable to keep up with kvenland's finest, or your brain unable to function while under the influences of sleep deprivation, but most of the pronouns in your reply were meaningless and/or esoterically obscure to me.  :-)   I have been trolling through google-scholar, counting up the cites for SORCER-fka-FIPER. If you know anybody that does computer aided engineering stuff in academia (or the military), that is the sort of person we need to have a glance over the papers, and determine whether they meet wikiNotability. But yes, certainly the system meets WP:GNG, so in the end it will be a keep, even if the most recent AfD ends up as move due to interpersonal issues. However, our new folks have been (as usual ... par for the course on wikipedia) frustrated to the point of tearing at their UNIX-beards.  :-/       The wikiCulture is the crux of the problem, as I keep wailing about. Anyhoo, it will be a rough ride for these folks, but maybe I'll introduce them to the logical clueful Ryk who was perma-banned after four (4) talkpage posts, zero (0) mainspace edits, zero (0) noticeboard posts, zero (0) warnings, zero (0) lack of WP:CLUE, so the SORCERers understand what REALLY rough-shod treatment looks like. Sleep well, and please rework your reply above with more specifics, so that I may grasp it, if you will.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Those "test edit" templates can kill ...
Ryk72 has responded saying that they are going to try the e-mail - they pinged you but of course you don't get red numbers at the top of your screen. And Pratham asked a question on his talkpage a couple of days ago, which I responded to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Article creation - Jennifer Diamond Cancer Foundation[edit]

Thank you so much for your help with this article. I have made some changes re: the sources, I wonder if you could take a look at it again? I found a source for the Councilman's commendation but not the city proclamation and have removed that statement. Also, everything in the libraries were paid for solely by the foundation except the physical space, which I have made note of. Thanks again. Jenniferv240 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

New FA![edit]

Hello again. If you're not aware of it already, McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now an FA! Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you have a Happy New Year. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent[edit]

Hello 74

I understand your point that I should be nice ... I do not like if someone (FF in this case) is destroing our work without adding any feedback.

Let me explain what in my opinion is not correct on the way FF works on SORCER and what we all are loosing:

how FF works:

  1. FF asks for proofs for notability and sourcing;
  2. people are doing their hard work and providing proofs
  3. FF does not read it and clearly states that he will not go into details (but proofs for his doubts are IN THE DETAILS!!! - no other way); Due to that he is not able to give any feedback ... so we cannot improve it!
  4. Later he is stating that there is no proof (becouse he did not get into details) ... which clearly generates annoyance ...
  5. As a next step we se that someone who did not get into details is making (second) nomination for deletion ...

what we are loosing due to his way:

  • loosing time for repeating existing proofs
  • we do not get any feedback on what's missing in presented proofs - so we have no chances to improve it
  • we loose eagerness for cooperation due to not nice behaviors of FF
  • we do not get time to improve article - becous it's nominated for deletion
  • we do not have any dialog - it's stopped by FF by fact that he does not give any feedback


how it should be done:

  • if FF asks for proofs; proofs are delivered then FF should point out what exactly is missing in presented proofs.
  • nomination for deletion should not be done by those who does not get into details (so not by FF)

Due to that I really believe that way of FF cooperation does not provide anything valuable, is annoing, disturbing and people who could give sth. into article loose their eagernes for cooperation ...

moreover ... he repeated the same mistake 2nd time already ... for me looks like he is focused to kill this article - no matter what is inside, no matter what are proofs ...

maybe I do not see sth. so please explain me how this could help us to make any progress?

regards


Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello pawelpacewicz, good to see you.  :-)   I have left you a huge pile of questions over on Talk:SORCER. Don't be scared off by them.  ;-)   Your frustrations are not unusual, sorry to say. Wikipedia is a tough place, nowadays. I'm working on that problem, and TimFiddleFaddle is helping me. You are welcome to contribute to that long-term work, of making wikipedia attractive to experts with brains, if you are also interested in such things... we need all the help we can get. <grin> To your eyes, when TimFiddleFaddle demands this, and demands that, and is not themselves doing the work, but *are* themselves pressing the big red delete button, it looks like an attack. There is an old saying: anything which does not delete the article, makes it stronger.
  Here is the article on the subject. I direct you to the notes section, which speaks of information asymmetry. You know more that TimFiddleFaddle about SORCER, and it is unreasonable for you to expect them to learn. But by the same logic, TimFiddleFaddle knows more about WP:PG, and it is unreasonable for him to expect you to learn. Both sides have to give a little here: you'll have to learn more about wikiCulture, and how it works. I'm happy to show you the ropes, and of course, have been trying to do so, all along.  :-)   TimFiddleFaddle is *also* trying to help show you the ropes; in particular, how to deal with the possibility of deletion bravely (it is only procedural... the edit-history remembers it all), and also how to deal with perceived-as-coercive demands for work! In a nutshell, you will do just fine, and the article will progress nicely, if you just do your best to stay WP:NICE, stay neutral in tone & decisions (in particular editing talkpages rather than mainspace... and staying *cool* when the discussion gets hot), plus finally, trying to figure out how this crazy thing called wikipedia works.
Anyhoo, feel free to chat with me further, about this, or about technical SORCER matters, or whatever. That said, I've also pulled in Ahnoneemoos to help us get SORCER/FIPER/exertions/etc properly worked out. They have volunteered to be the person that tries to handle the team-interaction-issues, and I'm going to try and concentrate on learning about SORCER deeply enough to get the first rewrite finished (necessary to remove the COI tag in mainspace ... as well as to improve the confusion-level in the article... see note#2 in the policy-page about responsible tagging I posted above). Ahnoneemoos can be blunt, like TimFiddleFaddle, but they have a *ton* of experience with wikipedia, and in particular, with editing really controversial articles like political stuff. Listen to what they say, they'll steer you towards a safe home port.  :-)   As usual, thanks for improving wikipedia. If my questions are too volumnious, please let me know, and I'll try and pick the top three that are holding up my understanding. Talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello 74

thank You for Your message ... I appreciate your way of communication. In my opinion FF should take a lesson from you: "how to communicate to others not to annoy them and encourage them to cooperation - basic training" :-) ... In my opinion it would help a lot ...

I fully understand all what You have written, I read a lot of Wikipedia rules to better understand the way wikipedia is working. Most of this what I got from you in your last message was there in Wikipedia rules already. Those rules DO make sense and I DO belive in it and I DO understand ... but in my opinion problem is not here.

Where problem is in my opinion:

  • due to fact that now article is nominated for deletion (due to notability and sourcing) - what's sense to work on it??? - there is huge risk that all our work will be for nothing. So it's better now to stop improving - just focus on notability and proper sourcing. But FF (biggest hater and attacker) is not talking with presented proofs of notability and sourcing ... This is why this pile of questions are waiting ... I count on your understanding. I do want to cooperate with You on this. Unfortunately I do not have unlimited time for wikipedia ... I have to put priority to those tasks which most propably will give fruits ... due to nmination for deletion and lack of cooperation on presented proofes it is better to stop and wait ...
  • let's assume good scenarion - it will stay ... most probably FF will try to destroy it again ... again there is huge risk that all our efforts will go for nothing ...

you are suggesting that FF is helping ... I'm sorry I do not see that. In my opinion he is destroing our work and eagerness for cooperation:

  • Telling NO without argumentation, without feedback, whithout pointing out what is missing in presented proofes (would be good to get it from experienced FF) ... is completely not helping - it's stopping any dialog ...
  • nominating again for deletion at moment where all the work is in the middle ... again is not helping.
  • I can see that no matter what proofes will be presented - FF will not read this (as he clearly stated). But he will nominate it for deletion another time ... he have a lot of experience ... so most probably he will finally kill it ... - so why should we made our efforts?
  • beeeing not nice to new people on wikipedia ... isn't helping ... it's discouraging them ...

You have mentioned that FF is specializing in Wikipedia:PG ... I have doubth here as well ... he mentioned (here: Articles for deletion/SORCER) that:

Sorry but those are basic errors ... we cannot call FF specialist in Wikipedia:PG - best would be to have here for cooperation someone much more professional.

I personally do not have so much eagerness and energy to work on it (due to reasons above) as I had before ... if You are waiting for some answers related to SORCER from others ... I guess - the reason is the same ...

I DO want to cooperate with You and others similar friendly Wikipedians (and I'll try to find time and eagerness) but FF convinced me that:

  • most probably all our work will be lost ...
  • that he willl attack it all the time - without cooperation, without dialog on the proofs ...

I guess others have the same feelings ...

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, what I meant when I said that TimFiddler specializes in WP:PG, is that he specializes in protecting articles from later wikiLawyering, by deletionists who want them deleted because they want *everything* deleted that they don't personally like. His own sense of WP:PG is not derived from reading the plain text. Your reading of the texts, and what they mean, *is* correct. But the written rules are only fuzzy guidelines, they aren't ironclad statutes. See WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOTSTATUTE, and especially my all-time favorite, WP:IAR. *That* is how wikipedia ACTUALLY works, in practice, in the trenches. TimFiddler has a very strong sense of how the wikiCulture functions in practice, and what will keep and article safe in the wild, and what will put it at risk of an outside-the-rules-deletion. He nominated SORCER for deletion the second time, partly because he was annoyed at the wasted time arguing in circles, but *mostly* because he wanted to get a firm answer on record: that is what stops arguing around here, WP:CONSENSUS based on policy-backed arguments.
  As it turned out, we got the firm answer we needed, *because* of the policy-backed arguments by Ahnoneemoos and myself. That is why TRPoD changed their bangvote, from delete at first, to keep later. Because we had the necessary procedural proofs, of wikiNotability, and presented them correctly to the wikiJudge User:Collect — nothing else works. But now that it is done, as TimFiddler says below, the chances of us getting deleted are very slim. The article is well on the way towards being bullet-proof, all we need is to clean up the prose.
  Anyways, you and TimFiddler need not work together shoulder to shoulder, or be best buddies. If they get on your nerves, just ignore them; if you get on their nerves, they should just ignore you, but if they don't, keep serene and aloof, fighting is bad news, and arguing pointlessly will help nobody. Just concentrate on the content, not the contributor. And truth be told, you need not even believe me, that TimFiddler was acting for the good of wikipedia, and also for the good of the SORCER article (as distinct from the good of the various branches of the real-world SORCER projects). But TimFiddler was absolutely acting properly, by wikipedian standards, to improve the encyclopedia.
  As for your point about getting discouraged, not only do I wholeheartedly sympathize, I also firmly agree that the procedural adversarial nature of wikipedia's WP:PG are killing retention of good editors like yourself. TimFiddler and I are actually in the middle of a big discussion, and there is a group of 150 people or so that I work with at WP:RETENTION, trying to solve these wikiCulture problems. There is another group that I'm working with, trying to make wikipedia more friendly to companies, and employees of those companies... it is just nuts that we would *drive away* people who are getting paid to add facts to wikipedia!  :-/
  One of the main reasons that TimFiddler invited me to come help with SORCER in the first place, was so that I could try and keep the byzantine wikiCulture around here from discouraging you so much that you quit. My success at that venture is tenuous, but we're past the really hard stuff.  :-)   I hope that a few months from now, when we have a good solid exposition of SORCER firmly embedded in mainspace, bullet-proof against the wily deletionists, you will look back on the obstacles you overcame with a wee bit of pride... and stick around, to help improve the rest of wikipedia (our coverage of hard-core aerospace and cutting-edge programming is "not optimal" as you may have noticed!), or to help me in my quest to make friendlyism the law of the land once again. Pillar four exists, and threatening to delete tons of work is not WP:NICE... it drives people away, see WP:BITE... but the worst of it is, the damn thing is just a move discussion, not even about deletion at all. Arrrgh!  :-)  :-)  :-)
  Drives me nuts. Your experience of getting frustrated at the nutty rules and the jungle-style wikiCulture is not at all unusual, and I'm sorry to say, TimFiddler was EASY on you, compared to some cases I've seen. Wikipedia has issues right now; you are experiencing some of the side-effects; believe me, I'm working hard to fix the root troubles. TimFiddler is not the root trouble; they are helping me solve the root trouble, actually... but it is hard to see that, when you come here as you did, eager and ready to collaborate, and run headfirst into a big wall.
  Anyhoo, I'm glad we got the keep at the end. There will probably be several more AfD/RfC/etc WP:ALPHABETSOUP procedural discussions, that will sound terrifying, but are actually meaningless. Somebody will want to delete SORCER, and rename the article FIPER, but with the same content. Somebody will want to delete SORCER, and rename the article FIPER and Engenious and SORCER. Somebody will want to merge with Computer Aided Engineering. ... somebody may even want to delete SORCER, and rename the article Exertion-oriented programming, since that is more general. Just stay calm, and concentrate on the content. I'll let you know if any of the procedural stuff is actually worth worrying about, or if we can just ignore it. We won't lose anything, because wikipedia remembers the history. Delays can happen, but hey, there is no WP:DEADLINE. Everybody is volunteering here, for the most part, right? Right.
  Including me. Which means, enough with SORCER business for now, I'm supposed to be volunteering on three other pages too.  :-)   But I shall see you on the article-talkpage, whatever name it has, and we shall get the content into shape, I have little fear. It will probably take longer than we plan, and be frustrating at times, but the end result will be worth it, because we'll have produced a clear explanation and a reliably-neutral history of the effort. A good day, methinks. Getting there will be a bit of a haul, so gather your gumption, and keep your eyeballs on that end-goal of a solid bullet-proof article. Don't sweat the small stuff, and don't worry too much what other folks say or do, just keep trying hard to improve the content, and you'll be fine. Hope this helps, sorry about my *second* wall of text for you today, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply from WWB[edit]

Hi there, finally got back to you with a couple of answers myself, at my Talk page. Talk more soon, WWB (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback: SORCER[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Ahnoneemoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not[citation needed] matter[edit]

Wikipedia is an amusing pastime, and a vehicle put together by the alleged wisdom possessed by crowds. Why on earth would anyone ever consider Wikipedia to be of even the tiniest importance?

Crowds, in their wisdom, create amusingly complex bureaucracies, and then adhere to the rules so slavishly that they create other rules. Other crowds lynch black folk. Other crowds support monomaniacs.

"What do we want?"

"Something!"

"When do we want it?

"Now!"

This is a hobby. Some folk think it is real life. For some folk it is their real life. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the spirit!  :-)   You are correct in most everything you say. And it is not a bad 'tude, especially if it keeps you sane. But like all of us here, methinks you just may secretly harbor a deep belief that wikipedia is so totally important duuude. As the old saying goes, I'm donating my brain to science when I die... every little bit helps. <grin> There is a good reason that about 50% of the people on earth consider wikipedia to be pretty dern important: that gold ol'mission, creating a place where all can share the sum of all knowledge. Aristotle wanted it. Leibniz wanted it. Ada wanted it. Vannevar wanted it. Most of the digital computer nerds wanted it; some of them liked the ivory tower, but plenty of them thought computing was for everybody, and information meant to be free. Pretty much *all* of the internet and hypertext nerds, BADLY wanted it.
  But the pinnacle of the internet is facebook, gag me with a spoon. Just like them, Google wants *your* private information to be freely accessible to *them* but not vice versa. The only top-ten website in the world where that old dream still holds, is wikipedia. Therefore, I plan to free the wiki-slaves, revert the wiki-BURO, prevent future lynch-mobs (wiki in particular but in general is also quite plausible... a wealth of information cures bigotry), and if I get the chance, give somebody going across the DMZ into North Korea a nice little USB-key, with a harmless bunch of tourist photos stored on it for showing to their friends... plus a plausible-deniability steganographically-hidden secondary filesystem containing a static dump of wikipedia, and the mainpage pre-configured with Liberty and Justice for all.
  There is precious little wisdom in crowds, as you say. Tommy Lee Jones was correct: a person can be smart, and an individual can cope with fear. But people? They tend to become violent panicky mobs, or pack animals fighting each other for dominance, or DahCommuhnity exercising tyranny of the majority with evil glee. And yet, we've come so far. In the days of Aristotle, democracy was just another name for mob rule, and eat the rich was always the first thing to happen. Aristotle was particularly impressed at *one* uprising where the peasants did *not* immediately institute land-ownership-communism (followed shortly thereafter by famine). Thousands of years later, we have the brits and the americans slowly figure out this magna-carta-through-rebublican-form-of-constitutional-democracy-thing, with checks and balances... but not guillotines! The french are a warning that metric time leads to republican dictatorship, as surely as mob rule leads to democratic dictatorship. Couple hundred years later, we have Stalin the democratic-dictator and then Hitler the republican-dictator, showing us just how bad it can really get, when bad ideas and modern technology combine forces.
  It was very bad. But it could have been worse. There were no jets then. There were no missiles. There were no robots, except in the movies. There were no computers, or at least, no programmable digital computers with electronic memory. There were no nukes. Seventy-five years later, we will have all those things, and far more... plus wikipedia. Jets cannot prevent WWIII, nor nukes, nor spacecraft, nor robots, nor drones, nor tablet computers. Recent events prove people will still kill each other over nationalism, religion, commodities, and the assassination of some minor political figure. There is a possibility that nigh-unimaginably horrendous WWIII can be averted *without* creating a world totalitarian government "to save us from our dangerous freedoms", and I say to you, wikipedia is a very large facet of that possibility. People don't trust the press. People don't trust the leaders. People don't trust the neighbors. But people — sometimes, and usually for the wrong reasons — are beginning to trust wikipedia.
  Not that we've earned it! But we've done better than the others listed, eh?  ;-)   If we can learn to govern ourselves, if we can learn to keep greed/COI from trumping logic/truth, if we can learn to keep factions/snark from trumping facts/nice, then we can propagate that elsewhere: starting with corporations and informal organizations, then gradually converting towns and cities and provinces and nations. But that's an extremely outside-the-gaussian-probabilities-possibility; how editors behave is not really going to change the world, chances are excellent.
  How the readership behaves, now, that is another matter. COI brings people here, that want to influence the 500M. Real-world factions, political and religious and corporate and ideological, brings people here to impact mindshare. You know about the floating voters, in a twin-party system. Even in a proportional-voting system like 'mindshare' tends to be, there are tactics. But we have the knowledge. We have the empirical evidence we need, and the double-blind trials scenario if we need. We could figure out this whole bigotry thing, methinks, and this whole battleground-behavior thing, amongst the readership. Wikipedia is a hobby in practice, but it is also a utterly serious in theory. The folks over in the pokemon section, and the folks in the List Of TeeVee Episodes, are not here for serious reasons, really; they are truly engaged in a hobby... something soothing, and essentially pointless, like stamp collecting.
  But the hook is there. The folks who are pulled into wikipedia by television, sometimes get a little addicted to that drug called Knowledge... a little of which can be a dangerous thing, but nobody every achieved vast knwo-how, without first taking a sip. Anyhoo, suppose I've blathered and blethered enough for the nonce. I'd like to solve the gordCOIn knot (without swords), and as part and parcel of that solve the factionalism (or at least channel it into useful energy-expenditures rather than fruitless ones). Part of that means, we need to make wikipedia more WP:-D and make the wikiCulture-learning-curve less of a boot-to-the-neck experience. If we can make it more fun, and get a steady influx of Good Eggs, then we'll start to have the personnel necessary to attack those hard problems. Many hands make lengthy tedious tasks much more bearable; and with many minds, one individual can often see the truth... the trick is getting the rest of the unruly mob to listen to logic.  :-)   In any case, although wikipedia doesn't matter, life would go on without it, it most certainly *does* matter... with luck. You gotta ask yourself one question, punk: do I feel lucky? <but actually I liked good bad & ugly better than dirty harry... two mules was also pretty good> Talk to you later, my friend. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
With Wikipedia the meek have inherited the earth. They do not even have to ask "Is that all right with the rest of you?", for the meek can, at last, put the boot in, and do it with authoritah! So it is fun. The meek have always wanted to be bullies, and now they can.
It's not important, it's just the research material for a whole department of psychology. I wonder if that is important? Let'stake over the world!
I'm off for a week. Have fun with Dumbledore and the Wizards. Sounds like a band. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Heinlein, on the subject of inheriting the earth. With any luck, wikipedia will be one of the keys to privatized spaceflight finally taking off. But yes, fully agree about the psychology-researcher fodder, and in fact, over at AN/I there was a professor using their class to run a live psychology experiment (the hypothesis was something like "what are the chances wikipedia admins will hard-block all IPs in a fifty-mile-radius centered on a large city"). There's also multiple folks using wikipedia personally, putting on some custom-tweaked "persona" and then trying to see what the response is that they get, so later they can write up their thesis (presumably called something like "my experience bear-baiting wikipedians"). Those direct-experimenters are at the noticeboards constantly, which is why they stick out.
  Of course... these direct & indirect are few and far between. The really interesting psychology-research will happen when somebody downloads the dumpfiles, and uses computerized automatic statistical analysis, and correlates the on-wiki evidence with their large off-wiki database of micro-demographics data (provided by the NSA in concert with Facebook and the sysadmins of the Great Firewall), which when published in the non-classified literature fifty years from now will give us a quantitative count of how many of the 30k editors are here for LULz, for psych-undergrad-research, for COI at the behest of their boss, for COI at the behest of their friends, for worshipping the Great Jimbo, for ending bigotry amongst high-schoolers, for improving the sum of human knowledge, for getting the right people elected to real-life political positions, for getting the readership into a purer religious mindset, and for social networking. Ughhh. And yes, not to be forgotten, how many are here for the thrill of authoritah, battling for the adrenaline rush in the drahmahz. And there are even some people who are here to improve the encyclopedia, rumour has it!
  *All* these categories are non-zero; my idea is that rather than try to categorize them quantitatively fifty years from now, we instead should just go ahead and build a system, right now today, that mitigates the problematic behaviors (by channeling it into something either positive or at least non-negative or at least negative-but-easy-to-handle). More crucially, though, we need to simultaneously build a system that encourages and is evolutionarily-selective-for the Good Eggs, and provide them with the wikitools to back them up. Have a beautiful week away! When you return, we can do ... the same thing we do every week. <insert theme music>  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DUROMAC(M) SDN BHD (January 5)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

New Message[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

New Message[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

Hello 74[edit]

Hi, 74. Thanks for helping to improve the article on Heng_Siew_Chiang_Sendirian_Berhad. Regarding the court case, the company has appealed after the loss in High Court and it was allowed, which means the company has won the case in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB Heng (talkcontribs) 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Questions on my talk page about editing Adolf Fredrik's music school :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You have a talk back[edit]

Hey, 74. I leave message on my talk page, please go and check it. Thanks--Clover1991 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Today's business[edit]

After a quick-fail at GA, New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary was turned into a redirect to List of schools in India, which I reverted, and is now at AfD. Could you talk to Pratham about this? I still have a dreadful cold and can barely string two words together.

I also had not seen until today that Ryk72 apparently decided to go the Arbcom appeal route; see the unanswered unblock template on his talk page and the draft beneath it. I'm making inquiries on IRC with the thought that maybe I should instead start an AN discussion. (Which will be laughably badly worded if I do.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I just got done messing with SORCER and Duromac, and still need to mess with my other two tasks of Deewells and Andersweld (plus now Pratham). Kafziel's workshop (extended to the 10th now) and Bish and Ahnon/WWB and Ironholds and Carib... plus I'm still gonna write up a friends-of-fix for Tim and an ontology-of-goodness for you, Yngvadottir, not to mention my friendlyism template-messages and six custom jscript projects and upgrading the wikiCulture. Plus, if I don't get my Billbird sentences finished, the San Andreas fault may finally give up the ghost, and the land of the West slideth into yonder sea.  :-)   I'll ping HJ_Mitchell again, and see if *they* want to write up the AN wording. p.s. You have the flu. Go to sleep for 36 hours. WP:NOFRETTING. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfinished and even unstarted tasks ... you and me both, and I do sympathize. I spoke to Ryk72 on IRC confirming his decision to go the e-mail route - he's still there, under that name, in case you want to log on; he appears to have just finished dinner. I will probably head to bed soon (another hour or so); I'm afraid I'm not good for much right now, which is why I pinged you. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 74.192.84.101. You have new messages at Talk:Islam.
Message added 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I answered your edit request, but I'm not sure if more changes are needed. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary[edit]

Mr. IP,
Looking at the huge contributions coming from this IP and style of comments and all i know that you have been here for long. You must have been approached by various editors to register and edit but as you clearly have not done that i wouldn't repeat it. Thanks for your views on the AfD. But i very much disliked your comment on the article creator's talk page you posted thus. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. Editors can take their time to edit articles. If you are in rush, you do it yourself. Practically we do require some edits to be done within a certain time and those edits for the article to prove school's existence have already be done. I am assuming that you mean well; but "now", "right now", "no more delay", "newspapers first" is simply not done. You are well versed with WP and you can help find yourself all the policies that would say same stuff what i wrote without blue-links. AfDs are not FACs and AfDs are certainly not means to practice ransom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dharmadhyaksha, you can call me 74 please. Everything you say is correct.  :-)   I do appreciate your criticism, and in other circumstances, would follow the bluelinks you implicitly mentioned. However, in this particular circumstance, my goal is to train Pratham to listen. The difficulty of that task has led to my admittedly-drastic measure; I'm not sure if you will agree with me, that such a step is justified for the long-term good of the editor and the article, but I will attempt to explain my rationale.
So, while I agree there is no WP:DEADLINE for content in mainspace, there *is* effectively a deadline for Pratham learning to be WP:NICE... if they frustrate WikiDan and other folks trying to work on the page enough, Pratham will find out about the banhammer (which is supposed to be non-punitive... just like AfD is supposed to be non-coercive... but again... practice versus theory). I would appreciate your advice, if you have any, on whether you still think my step was too drastic, and whether or not you do, what specifically you would recommend for helping Pratham. And of course, if you would like to show me how it is done more directly, by stepping in to guide Pratham a bit, that would be most appreciated; add their contributions-page to your watchlist, if you like. Pratham seems like they could be an asset here, given time to grow into the role.
  In any case, I do thank you for leaving me a note, and especially for looking things over before deciding how to phrase it. Your criticism is perfectly justified, and is a good thing to keep doing, if you see similar problematic things in the future (from me or not from me!). In this case, I was purposely using strong language, partly to make sure to overcome the language-barrier and communicate the level of frustration folks are beginning to feel, but primarily as a one-time attempt to make the connection with Pratham; it isn't my usual style of interaction, and once connection was made, wouldn't have been necessary to repeat. I'm not sure it was the right choice, or if another gentler way could have worked. p.s. Pratham has responded... I will leave them a nice reply, and see if I can keep the conversation going. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WWB replies[edit]

Given the activity on your Talk page, I figured it was best to let you know I've responded to both threads on my Talk page. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. Best, WWB (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note[edit]

I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the note. After years and hundreds of thousands of edits to the project the community has made it extremely clear to me that my presence is not needed or wanted. Its clear to me that the project and many of its processes are broken beyond repair and whats worse is the majority of the users are either too lazy to fix it, don't think its a problem or have a vested interest in keeping the project down so thy feel important. That's not the environment I joined the project for and I have no interest in participating in that. If I could undo all the edits I did, I would. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There is only one thing to do, with any particular process (one which serves a useful purpose), when that particular process has become broken beyond repair. Instead of trying to upgrade the process, create a much-better new process in parallel, which serves the same useful purpose, only, you know, better. Not sucking at it. Pretty soon, all the rational folks switch over to this newfangled approach, and the ones that don't switch... well, they aren't very effective in preventing the newfangled approach from winning, because by definition, the old process is broken beyond repair.
  As for particular broken-beyond-repair-processes that serve no useful purpose... my policy is to just document that fact, for non-actively-harmful processes. If the broken process is basically harmless to the rest of wikipedia (i.e. it is a waste of time but only impacts the folks that decide to involve themselves with the process in question), then who cares? There are plenty of things in life which waste time: facebook, fishing, and other illicit recreational activity that begins with the same letter.  :-)   Wikipedia ain't gonna stop those timesinks, so why sweat the small stuff on-wiki?
  There is a third category, which is rare, but does exist: particular broken-beyond-repair-processes which actively harm wikipedia. That one takes a bit more ranting to deal with.  :-)
Yea verily, herefore ends the rant-eth-ing. Go forth in good cheer, Kumioko, and seek ye The Good that the real-o-verse yet holds. Be not so hasty to wish your efforts here eradicated from history; some here yet see value in them. All hope is not yet lost, though the hour is perhaps getting dire. Should ye wish to return someday, I hope it will be, that you heard from a real-life acquaintance that they had fun editing wikipedia, over the weekend, without scarequotes, without airquotes, without sarcasm, without gallows humour. On that day, take a peek at the reportcard.wmflabs.org , and see whether you can decry an uptick in net 5+edits/mo actives. If you see such an uptick at I describe, that is a good omen, a sign from the wiki-deities.
  If you see a monotonically-upward trend, please return immediately!  :-)   Because what that means, is that the historical moment for fixing the Processii-Which-Have-Proven-Impossible-To-Fix ... will finally have arrived. In the meanwhile, if you feel like fiddling around with some off-wiki software hacks, which I'm busy working out the designs for, you're welcome to swap emails with me. Thanks for improving wikipedia, maybe I'll see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Chiming in to "All hope is not yet lost": I observe amazing poetry. Did you see the poem that arrived on my talk under the heading "Hope is precious and great joy is found in living"? The poetry here? I understand that one of our new arbs wrote a poem for his RfA in 2010, and even I - challenged - tried a Haiku, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gerda, your first line is starkly beautiful, but your last line is too much of a downer.  :-|       You must learn from the master:


This day should leave us glad, not sad.
Yours very truly,     Newyorkbrad


WP:-D, wheeee! Epic trilogy of cyclic wonder![142] My favorite bit:


Instead, can all (yes, admins too)
Resolve to use a bit more Clue?


Also very good, and immoralized (or is that immortalized? hmmmmm) in an official-Cabal-approved-religious-diktat known as WP:UIAR.


There's way too much red tape on wiki
Sometimes that tape is rather sticky
You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,
To say we each should write an article
Instead of having to....


I stole *my* haiku from MastCell. But you will not find it, sekrit messij, too bad for you.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

sekrit messij: a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now! - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Computing Conceptualization[edit]

I really appreciate your efforts to understand and clarify the role and functionality of SORCER so far. I have mentioned before that it looks to me like "the mission impossible". Now I am about to teach a course on "Service-oriented Network Systems" and have a similar challenge with respect to my grad students that becomes more evident now in the context of SORCER misconceptions related to the Wikipedia SORCER article. I have completed a presentation on "Computing Conceptualizations" in order to bring just in the beginning the right semantics of confusing computing terms from the metamodeling point of view (Tarski's undefinability theorem) as a system of Domain/Management/Carrier (DMC) triplets. PLease review those concepts in th the PPT presentation at: http://sorcersoft.net/download/ComputingConceptualizations.pptx A few charts are animated so please watch in the "Slide Show" mode. Feel free to drop me email for more details at mwsobol@gmail.comMwsobol (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You are surely welcome; as for myself, I appreciate your efforts to improve this place.  :-)   The mission is very much possible at this point, we have found sufficient sourcing to satisfy wikiJustice. It is now just a case of 1) getting the explanatory metaphors both correct and simultaneously useful-to-the-readership, and 2) getting all the procedural T's dotted and I's crossed or vice versa, or something. There will be some wiki-turmoil surrounding both tasks, and it will take a considerable amount of time/effort yet (especially if ALL parties fail to stay calm-cool-n-collected), but success is basically guaranteed at this point, barring imminent killer asteroid strike or similar.
  I will check out the powerpoint this weekend, thanks; of course, wikipedia is mostly about summarizing the established research, and the historical arc of ideas, so some of the cutting-edge things won't get into mainspace during January. That said, it is helpful to me, if I can try and catch up to somewhere *near* the cutting edge, so that I can look back at the sources with a wiser eye. Appreciate your time, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom[edit]

Your comments at Arbcom made a lot of sense, I must admit to having similar thoughts at the outset of two editors acting in good faith. As the case went on, I must admit my view changed with Hasteur's rather obvious pre-occupation with Kafziel. In truth as I said at the outset I didn't think this was ever a case to be placed under arbcom and I can't see this ending well for anyone concerned. Anyway, just wanted to note my appreciation for your comments. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 16:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks; appreciate your compliments. Yes, the case should never have been brought. Yes, unless the arbs take my advice, and issue some pillar-clarifications and wikiproject-role-clarifications, it will turn out badly ("arbitration" always means banhammers all around... how asinine is that, eh?).
  But my grok here is that WP:IMAGINE applies. Hasteur really is rubbed the wrong way by Kafziel, sure, and by myself for that matter.  ;-)   Nothing wrong with that; there are people that rub me the wrong way, that's to be expected in a huge global project like enWiki. I'm currently avoiding a conversation, with one such; at least the feeling is mutual, so we try to stay out of each other's hair, and mostly succeed.
  The main point for Hasteur though has *never* been Kafziel personally... it is a mistake to think that Hasteur is out to get Kafziel when in fact Hasteur is just out to make sure there aren't such disagreements about How Things Are Done in the future, a good goal methinks... for Hasteur, this has always been, what about the *next* time some cowhand comes along, saying that WP:IAR is their reason? What then? Hasteur believes (very correctly) that if ArbCom punts on this one, then that is effectively the same as ArbCom saying that Kafziel *can* retire, without losing the admin-bit. It is also effectively the same as ArbCom saying, the close at AN/I was correct. To my mind, both of those things are the *desired* outcome (Hasteur strongly disagrees).
  Anyhoo, if in fact Kafziel did something wrong, then ArbCom can rule they ought to lose the admin-bit, whether in absentia or not, who cares? The arbs that are squeamish about removing the admin-bit of somebody who is not there to defend themselves, have lost touch with how AN/I lunch-mobs and AE lunch-mobs work, it seems. But I don't think Kafziel did anything wrong. Hasteur *does* think that... but Hasteur *also* thinks that wikiprojects set policy, or at least, set procedures which have the same weight as policy "in the articles/pages related to the purview of that wikiproject". Hasteur ain't the only one: I've seen the same thing from many other wikiproject members. If that WERE the case, well then sure, Kafziel did it wrong, and abused tools! But it ain't the case. This is the core misunderstanding, and if anything good comes out of this case, it will be that either Hasteur learns I'm right, and can adjust their future behavior to match, or *I* learn that Hasteur is right, and that pillar five is no longer made of stone. This is the difference between WP:UIAR (one good thing to come out of this stupid arbcom is that I had never heard of that essay before), and the diagram Hasteur quoted, WP:WIARM.
  The hour is late, but the WP:DEADLINE has not yet struck. The workshop is officially "closed" but the various pages&talkpages *are* still open. The arbs are likely listening, especially the newly-hatched ones, eh? I would urge you to think over whether Hasteur is really the bad guy here, or if this is just a dispute over the meaning of "improved" in the fifth pillar, and over the role of wikiprojects as statute-setting bodies (versus just voluntary clubs). See my post to Hasteur's talkpage. Same advice for ColonelHenry; just because Kafziel got a little abrasive, was no excuse for Hasteur to get abrasive in response... and by the same token, just because Hasteur has been abrasive recently, is no excuse for the Colonel to stop being WP:NICE. Retain the high moral ground, is a good idea tactically. But more long-term, that fourth pillar is made of stone, dammit, stone I say!  :-)   Appreciate you dropping by, WCM, feel free to come back anytime, or talkback me if you are working on something and need a hand. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, can you see anything inherently wrong with this? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Replied below. It looks like a mess to me.  :-)   But methinks it can be repaired. Classic example of where the AfC queue is useful, giving a place for puff-pieces to get their prose tightened and their sourcing improved, prior to hitting mainspace. Of course, simultaneously a classic example of everything wrong with the AfC queue: nobody is ****helping**** fix the problems, just pointing out the problems and moving on. Me included.  ;-)   But hopefully my list is specific enough, that somebodywith access to the cited sources, can go through them and see how many names were *actually* mentioned by the RSes, and whether any of the puff-words were *actually* quoted in the RSes, rather than WP:EDITORIALIZING out of thin air. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Summoned I respond. We have approximately 1200 pending submissions right now. Let's assume that each volunteer gives 5 minutes of face time to each submission. Half of that time is spent reading the prose. If it's close, then the volunteer can spend the time to correct the problem themselves, if it's not dropping a decline and for what reason is a easy way to give the writer more guidance and get the reviewer back on track to reviewing. Based on the current backlog drive there are approximately 10 reviewers. Assuming we have the volunteers reviewing one after the other and no new reviews coming in, the volunteers could complete the backlog in 10 hours if all the volunteers are working on it. This is untanable and no volunteer can sit down for that long to get through that many. Yes we'd love to be able to dedicate 15 minutes to each review, but when a new submission can be slapped together in 2 minutes, it'a a infinitely loosing proposition that leads to individuals taking a "Burn it to the ground" mentality and take actions significantly divergent with policu. Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think five minutes is overstating the case; some current AfC people are that conscientious, but most cannot afford to be. 3 minutes and fifteen seconds was the average I measured, in one sample-session from one AfC person, who shall remain nameless. (Not you Hasteur. :-)   At that avg rate of 3mins/article, our anonymous speed-reviewer could burn through all 1200 submissions in the queue within about 65 hours, aka two 40-hour workweeks, all by themselves. Now, obviously, they are a volunteer, they aren't working 8-hour-days; we *have* a few of those, Kudpung is one I know who puts in an incredible number of hours, but Kudpung is the exception not the rule. But still, the point is clear: going through the queue, is not that difficult.
  The trouble is, at only 3 mins each, most of the 1200 articles are not going to be LEAVING the queue. They're going to be declined, for one reason or another, and sent to the back of the queue. So the 1200 doesn't get smaller; in fact, as more submissions are added, the queue *grows* uncontrollably. The perils of success! So if we want to get articles out of the queue, there are two choices: either we have to delete them (which is the appropriate case for the worst attackpages/spams/copyvios that should *not* be recreated), or we have to approve them. The rule of thumb, is that articles should be approved, once there is a 50% chance they will survive the AfD. Now clearly, 90% chance would be better... but due to practical constraints, this is such a lowball number because otherwise the AfC queue would be overrun.
  There are two ways out of the dilemna, that I see. The first way is cap-n-scrap™ in which we need to set a cap on how big the AfC queue can get, something like 500 articles, to pick a number for the sake of discussion. Once the queue grows to 501 articles, then immediately the submissions that were already reviewed, and marked as "close" to being ready, would need to be pushed to mainspace, to sink or to swim. For this scheme to work, reviewers would have to explicitly assign percentage-grades (rather than a binary accept/decline) to each article they reviewed. Then, we would have a means to keep the queue-size down. Once we crossed #501 in the queue, the top 99 (say) articles of the ones that had already been reviewed, the top 99 with the highest assessed chances of passing AfD, would be pushed into mainspace. The AfC queue would be back down to about 400 again, by that point.
  The other way out of the dilemna ... which is orthogonal slash complementary to the first solution... is the forcible userfication of the *worst* articles in the queue. When we hit 501 articles in the queue, we push the 99 already-reviewed articles with the *best* assessed-chance of surviving into mainspace, to sink or swim (they have a better chance of getting the help they need there). At the same time, we should userify the 99 already-reviewed articles with the *worst* assessed-chance of surviving, back to the author's sandbox. They are too far from being ready, and they are clogging up the queue. This is not quite as harsh as outright deletion; rough drafts in user-sandboxes can always be resubmitted to AfC later.
  Anyways, to my mind, AfC is a reviewing-service. The ten people, Anne/David/Julie/Tikuko/Kudpung/Anup/Hasteur/Richie/Rodger/DGG and the other regulars, are experts at glancing through the article, and giving it a few helpful pointers. That's a precious resource, and we should not waste it, by leaving stuff that is good enough to survive *in* the queue, and by the same token, by leaving stuff that is nowhere *near* ready to survive in the queue. AfC is for stuff that is close-but-not-quite, a temporary-landing-area, for processing and then moving along, not a permanent home. Does this cap-n-scrap scheme make sense? *Can* the articles be assessed with a percentage-grade, which gives the reviewer's opinion about the article's chances of surviving AfD, in the current state? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe either 74 or I summoned you Hasteur? Colonel Henry alerted me to Hasteur's venting of his spleen, it may amuse you[143]. I've been called many things but Scum an Villainy is a new one. I may even add scum and villain to my signature. My previous favourite was when I had some Brit calling me a "Fucking Argie Loving Wanker" at the same time an Argentine labelled me an "an abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker" on Talk:Falkland Islands. I intend to ignore this as I ignore other similar comments.
My reason for asking about that article was that if you do a search in Wikipedia for that gallery, you will find it referred to frequently. Hence, I was rather surprised given its notability that it was not covered already. The article in AfC is a bit of a dogs breakfast but I would have launched it into article space immediately. Whenever I have launched my own articles I have found that within days they're polished by enthusiastic editors who are skilled at tittivating references and tidying prose. See Political development in modern Gibraltar and compare it with the original from my sandbox (User:Wee Curry Monster/Political development in modern Gibraltar) for example. Yet I don't, because the AfC project would go apeshit that I wasn't following their process (one of the reasons why I and other editors don't get involved). The confusion between projects that their rules are "policy" is unhealthy and one good outcome of arbcom would be a clear comment this is not the case. Projects may set guidelines but they're not policy or rules. My own take is that AfC is failing new editors by keeping them in AfC space for far too long. Articles should be launched to sink or swim much earlier. Too many editors who try to create their first article give up due to the glacial pace there, whilst there is little help or advice offered.
74 pleased to make your acquaintance and I will take you up on your kind offer with my next article. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wee Curry Monster's comments, 74. Glad to have run across and read enthusiastically your level headed judgment and contributions to the ArbCom matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

review of Stuxnet[edit]

FairyTailRocks & Hasteur ==

  1. WP:RS, must have proven WP:42 ... seems close, but does it have 50% chance of surviving AfD ? (Hard to tell since most sources are offline... Stux *not* in title of most)
  2. WP:TONE, WP:PEACOCK, serious trouble here
  3. WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPROMOTION. pretty bad
  4. WP:SECTIONS. easy fix, might as well
  5. WP:MOS, can defer most of the other minor fixes until in mainspace

These are all still problems, to my eye, except maybe WP:RS. Obviously, not all of it needs to be fixed before moving to mainspace. The key is to prove WP:N by showing significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The next key is WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:PEACOCK and friends. The article is clearly an advertorial, written by somebody who is trying to show how famous and important the gallery is. Gotta plain-jane the language, gotta delete all the non-WP:NOTEWORTHY name-dropping, gotta cite the accolades with direct quotations from important sources. Also, seems clear that criticism is entirely elided here, ditto for context; somebody with a bit more experience/expertise in NY&Boston galleries is needed. Where is this gallery ranked, in teh list of two hundred? What is their position relative to other galleries in NY and Boston? Put those other galleries into the see-also section. This is an encyclopedia article, intended to inform the readership about the topic. Specific bugs:

  1. FIX. notably including ... WP:PEACOCK, delete or completely rewrite these bits
  2. FIX. "The success of their early work raised the gallery's profile beyond Boston" puffery
  3. FIX. presence in the New York art scene was secured... puff
  4. FIX. to their stable, ... puffery/jargonic
  5. FIX. the gallery continued to introduce more young talent ...puff
  6. FIX. senior artists such as
  7. FIX. roster of international artists
  8. FIX. significant art fairs
  9. CITE!. When the international art market as a whole foundered in the early 1990s, ...[citation needed] very strong, they are explaining away the failure of *their* gallery, blaming "the global economy"
  10. CITE!. began to show internationally-established artists such as Dennis Oppenheim and Orlan, ...[citation needed] very strong ... notability is not inherited. Who says they are int'l-estab? And if so, who says Stux is a WP:NOTEWORTHY location of these two?
  11. CITE. , had been teaching at Harvard Medical School, [citation needed] strong, WP:ABOUTSELF not enough ... and what does this have to do with the *art* gallery? is it WP:NOTEWORTHY?
  12. CITE. taught math at Boston Latin School, [citation needed] strong, WP:ABOUTSELF not enough ... and what does this have to do with the *art* gallery? is it WP:NOTEWORTHY?
  13. ~CITE. In 2002, Andrea Schnabl joined the gallery as a new Partner and Director. ...WP:SPIP unless WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in WP:RS
  14. ~CITE. folks with their own bluelinks (to dedicated BLP page) are usually fine to mention, per *mutual* WP:ABOUTSELF aka artist-homepage mentions gallery && gallery homepage mentions artist
  15. ~CITE. folks without a BLP are not WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to get their name in wikipedia sans an RS which deems fit to mention them
  16. ~CITE. giving each of these artists their first solo shows in New York. ... [citation needed] double: who says it was first?
  17. ~CITE. ...But say it is factual: who says the fact that it was first was WP:NOTEWORTHY?
  18. ~CITE. Artists represented/exhibited...(list) [citation needed] medium
  19. ~CITE. Doug Anderson, Gerry Bergstein, Alex and Allison Grey, and Paul Laffoley, ... [citation needed] medium
  20. ~CITE. adding Lawrence Carroll, Vik Muniz, Holt Quentel, and Andres Serrano ... [citation needed] medium
  21. ~CITE. and mid-career artists including James Croak and Margaret Evangeline as well.[11] ... [citation needed] medium
  22. ~CITE. Fabian Marcaccio and Cary Leibowitz... .[6]
  23. ~CITE. Elaine Sturtevant and Gerhard Hoehme. [citation needed]
  24. Cite? Stefan, who holds a Ph.D. in Immunology ... [citation needed] weak, WP:ABOUTSELF usu. ok iff not disputed
  25. Cite? who attended the School of the Museum of Fine Arts ... [citation needed] weak, WP:ABOUTSELF usu. ok iff not disputed

Many of the refs are not online, so it's hard for someone lazy like me to rewrite the stuff from the sources. Anyways, I agree with the criticisms of the reviewers... but the main problems are that the article needs somebody neutral to go through it, and delete all the puff-words. While they are doing that, they can convert the bold subsection-names into ==TOC subsection names=== that Hasteur pointed out. I have a couple folks in mind that are experienced de-puff-erizing, which I can suggest, but it will help if somebody goes through my list above first; they can be pretty rough if the puff is too severe when they first arrive on the scene.  :-)   Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You can try archiving your talkpage to make it easier to load for the less technologically inclined. Wish you good luck on your campaign to have less BITEy templates and editfilters for the newer users. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 11:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow up Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayrampaşaspor[edit]

Sorry, that Hasteur person has archived the conversation so I decided to post on your talk page instead. First of all thank you for all your help, I have added in the references that you posted, so thank you for those. However I still have a few questions, and please forgive if I sound cheeky/annoying (I really don't mean to) but I just want to play devil's advocate a little for future reference.

Would it not have been easier to have accepted the article as I had written it and then you (or someone else) could have added in those additional newspaper links themselves in a further edit? I mean techinically I did meet all the criteria, I did have "multiple sources", 2 is still more 1 haha ;) This may be contrary to the philosophy of a perfectionist, but alas, I am not one of those.

I am new to wikipedia editing, this is my 2nd article ever, so whilst I know all the basic rules and so on, I don't really plan on doing becoming a major editor (unfortunately I don't have the time), my purpose was only to fill in any gaps in Wikipedia that I have stumbled across, I'm still having some trouble navigating through all the talk pages and the such. Therefore how would one go about creating a stub for example? Because I would argue that having even a stub is a lot better than no article whatsoever.

Once again, thank you for the help, it all came in very handy :) Abcmaxx (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcmaxx (talkcontribs) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Abcmaxx (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are surely welcome! And well, having a two-way conversation on another's talkpage is pretty counterproductive, unless they're interested in the discussion, so I offered (in my edit-summary to Hasteur) to take this conversation to your page. But sure, we can gab here. Nothing wrong with being a bit cheeky, I'll larn ya but good.  :-)   You should meet The Devil's Advocate, they are worth a quick study.
  1. "Isn't accepting articles with no refs easier for all concerned?" Correct, number four in a row. <crowd goes wild> But hey, if that's the main goal, isn't it easier just not to create any new articles, and just lock wikipedia down and throw away the keys? Hmmmmm. Point being, your question misses the goal of wikipedia: to build and maintain an encyclopedia. See Bodoni International Airport. "Easier" without improving, is not good. As you can see, none of the *other* people to create tier-two articles have added refs. Any refs. That's bad for wikipedia's reliability, right?
  2. "I had two refs, technically that is multiple." Oh nohz! <crowd gasps> Not correct per WP:WikiSpeak; broke the streak, too bad.  ;-)   You did have multiple URLs in the refs-subsection, but they weren't WP:RS because the target-pages weren't both wikiReliable. Check that WP:42 thing again. Articles require "significant" coverage in "reliable" sources that are "independent" of the subject. You listed the homepage of the team; that's fine for WP:ABOUTSELF information, but doesn't count as wikiReliable, because it's not independent. So you end up with just the Turus ref. Is one ref enough, to count as 'significant coverage'? Prolly not.  :-)
  3. Now, it is true that one ref *is* enough to count as WP:NOTEWORTHY coverage, so if Turus was all there was, you could get a Reliably-Sourced-sentence into the 2013–14_TFF_Second_League#Red_Group article, because getting mentioned in wikipedia only needs one source. Looking at that RedGroup article, they *already* list Bayrampaşa, but it links to the city-article, not to the team-article... plus it doesn't cite a link to WP:PROVEIT that the city in question really has a futbol-team in the Red Group. Now, does this mean we should delete the Bayrampaşa team from the list? No, because in fact the truth is that there is a Bayrampaşa team, and they are in the Red Group. But adding a ref, *proves* it is the truth. That ref, therefore, improves the encyclopedia: makes it more reliable overall, includes a link to a reliable source that readers can check for more details, and verifies the truth about the Red Group. Makes sense? That's why, up at the top, there is the ugly snarky banner: "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve [it]."
  4. But to create a dedicated article Bayrampaşaspor must go beyond WP:NOTEWORTHY and achieve the stronger WP:N, which is boiled down into WP:42. That demands "significant" coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.192.84.101
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-15
1049588
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GDYET3KCIHTRA6PKP3XFCIA3K7MUQXCZ
<urn:uuid:36fe4d00-3213-4f0f-a554-ec28c85ee01b>
2014-04-19T16:40:03Z
198.35.26.96
sha1:YQYRU63L3PKUIFGY3T3N5HCMLZHUSHKA
<urn:uuid:d5679940-8934-49f5-a557-8741a287aa7d>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.192.84.101
response
<urn:uuid:1c3aa81d-f279-444a-8a39-78801f527dbf>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-147-4-33.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-15
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for April 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf