User talk:Lambiam/Archive 14

; Archives
	Archive 1: January 2006 – March 2006; Archive 2: April 2006 – June 2006; Archive 3: July 2006 – September 2006; Archive 4: October 2006 – December 2006; Archive 5: January 2007 – March 2007; Archive 6: April 2007 – June 2007; Archive 7: July 2007 – September 2007; Archive 8: October 2007 – December 2007; Archive 9: January 2008 – March 2008; Archive 10: April 2008 – June 2008; Archive 11: July 2008 – September 2008; Archive 12: October 2008 – December 2008; Archive 13: January 2009 – December 2009; Archive 14: January 2010 – June 2010; Archive 15: July 2010 – December 2010; Archive 16: January 2011 – March 2011; Archive 17: April 2011 – June 2011; Archive 18: July 2011 – September 2011; Archive 19: October 2011 – December 2011; Archive 20: January 2012 – June 2012; Archive 21: July 2012 – December 2012; Archive 22: January 2013 – December 2015; Archive 23: January 2016 – December 2017; Archive 24: January 2018 – December 2019; Archive 25: January 2020 – December 2021;

Ocean Pearl

Stop moving the article. Did you even see the edit summary? The / is not used on wikipedia for technical reasons. It makes the article as well as the talk page subpages of M. There is nothing we can do about that, and the display thing is also not endorsed by the Manual of Style. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP replacing things that were removed without discussing them. The use of display title is not mentioned by the MOS, nor has it been specifically approved by WP:SHIPS for use on these articles. Your continued insistence on doing things "your" way without discussion will only lead to your being blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the technical reasons have been dealt with, there are several other reasons for the non-use of the /. The {{MV}} and {{MS}} templates used for easy ship article linking, and the passages in the ship naming conventions. As to the display title template, even if it is not explicitly mentioned, for continuity with the rest of ship articles, its useage needs to be discussed at the appropriate places such as WT:SHIPS and the MOS talk pages. -MBK₀₀₄ 09:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redirect7

Template:Redirect7 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Lambiam! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 149 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Thomas Lang - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anchiornis

Hi Lambiam, please stop restoring the inaccurate image of the green Anchiornis. According to a new study, Anchiornis was gray, black, and orange with white wings, not green. Thanks. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azedo Gneco file in Commons

Yes, the correct spelling is República Social. Sorry for the mistake. Angrense (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases with no known cure

You have new messages

Hello, Lambiam. You have an old message at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 23:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Snafu with importing old history

Yeah, that's an unfortunate side effect of importing old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. I had mentioned it as principle #6 at User:Graham87/Import, but I've just added a sentence on how it messes up the previous/next edit feature. Graham87 00:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Bär

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Philippe Bär. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sourcing this article. NW (Talk) 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on AfD

I replied on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mondrian programming language discussion to your vote. Please respond further. Silver seren^C 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks :)

Hi, I left a modification on the article Relational algebra and you corrected it, I just wish to say thank you because I know my english is very poor, and I think the modification were badly presented, sorry for the time you lost for that :$ Fabian Pijcke (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slania-Reutersvard stamp.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Slania-Reutersvard stamp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly FYI

Hello!

Just so you know, when you {{subst:}} the template {{Very long}}, as you did here, it caused the page to show up in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. I understand fully why you did so, just wanted to let you know that when you do similar actions, please try and remove the text that adds it to this category. Great idea though! :) Keep up the positive contributions. ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

جواب cevap answer

I'm sorry for the late reply

cihanda sulh

جهانده صلح

--Tarih (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ietsism

Good job finding sources for this one. I'm withdrawing the AFD. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates

See my additional note there. Rich Farmbrough, 04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Tonnage

Hello Lambian. While Wikipedia has gotten much better in distinguishing tonnage from displacement, there is one refinement of the former which is often overlooked. Prior to 1969 the measure was gross register tons (grt), but in that year the measure was changed to gross tons (gt), a change which took effect in 1982. They are very similar but not identical measures. Passenger ships rated after 1982 should all be measured by gross tons; ratings for those built before depends on the rating date. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

Hi, fwiw, I fully agree with your revert. Ather this and this on my talk page, and due to the fact that communication is impossible with people who change their IP every minute, I decided to stay away from this editor and wait for someone to clean up their mess. If they persist, we can file for semi-protection of the article. Anyway, some trouble might be ahead... - DVdm (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is so funny though, that you re-edited totally the article to a point where it is conceptually wrong. I don't know how many times I have said it: weight and mass are not the same, and then you went all over the place saying the opposite.

Plus reverting the contents of an article without the most minimum discussion is simply not right. Do use discussion section before doing reverts !!!!!!!! I'm going to re-tag all the article (where it is actually needed) again... reason for not logging in anymore on this wikipedia is because it is a shame to the Wikipedia model to struggle this much with something as simple.

ahh.. Having sources that state wrong information doesn't entitle you to put it as a valid reference on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.8.64 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???. --Lambiam 05:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediafire link @ Pacman

How is it relevant? It could potentially be anything. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. MediaFire could have changed the content. A link to a filesharing site is never acceptable on Wikipedia. Plus, the link was unrequired, Google had a link up. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 22:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Google Pac-Man banner.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Google Pac-Man banner.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information

Thank you :) User:Kannadakumara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

IHH

What are you calling weird, weirdo? Can't you distinguish the letter İ used in the Turkish name from the letter I used in the international name? Or can you speak any Turkish at all? Behemoth (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IHH listed as Terrorist Organization by the US

Note* Please read the original post in the TALK discussion again. It clearly mentions two existing documents, and you use an argument against the second that directly corresponds to the first. At least acknowledge that I am speaking of two (2) separate documents before using one to try and disallow the other. Thanks!Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your scrupulous attention to accuracy on IHH. Keep going! NSH001 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza flotilla - rods or poles

Hi, I had changed the caption in the image to poles, as it is a less specific term than rods (which is generally a term used for a very long slender object). The reference you added actually uses both (if you play the video, the subtitle reads "beating with metal poles"). I'm not too fussed either way, its just that 'rods' seems a bit more awkward to me. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. You wrote: " The document (...) contradicts the repeated assertions of the Israeli government that the blockade was instituted as a security measure" However you did not correctly attribute this statement to be an opinion of Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, phrasing this as an encyclopedic truth. The correct way to phrase this would be: Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said that this shows that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons of a security measure to prevent weapons from entering Gaza, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. I'm sure you have done this inadvertently, but in the future in such controversial topics, please be more careful not to introduce POV into the article. Thanks :) Marokwitz (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let yourself be intimidated by this, Lambiam. Your edit (taken as a whole) was in fact quite close to NPOV, and Marokwitz should know better than to template the regulars. --NSH001 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above message was not in any form intimidating, and I object to your wording. And that essay is not a policy. Marokwitz (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This use of the "Welcome" template is patronizing and thus completely inappropriate in a content dispute, especially one between long-time editors. I take no position on the facts of the dispute, but suggest that the discussion belongs on the talk page of the article and needs to be addressed to the wording of the article and not to the editors. Bielle (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I didn't check the edit history of Lambiam and didn't read the template carefully enough . My aim was only to point out what I though was an unintentional addition of POV material due to wording that should have been attributed to Sari Bashi, and calling for more caution per the special status of the I/P conflict. If it appeared patronizing then I sincerely apologize. Marokwitz (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IHH

Please do not engage in massive edits, as you did repeatedly, thereby reintroducing older versions of paragraphs and discarding many serious edits, including corrections to make the text conform to the source, to remove mischaracterizations of the primary source, and generally to introduce balance. Your approach to collaborative editing may be seen as edit warring. If you want to re-introduce a paragraph whose removal, in your opinion, was not justified, then the proper approach is to:

re-introduce such paragraphs one at a time;
re-introduce them in the latest edited version, instead of reverting to some much earlier version, thereby undoing the work other editors did in the meantime to improve the paragraph;
motivate the re-introduction of this paragraph in your edit summary with a specific motivation;
discuss the issue in specific terms on the talk page, preferably beforehand;
refrain from repeating the same.

Please try to work in the spirit of striving for consensus. Edit warring will not help in the longer run to get a stable and balanced article; either you will get blocked, or the article will be frozen in whatever random state it is in then, or both.

--Shamir1 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: this is apparently in reaction to this message of mine. --Lambiam 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

?

Why did you remove Şafak Altun, Rüşvet'ten Özelleştirme'ye yolsuzluğun 100 yıllık tarihi, Agorakitaplığı, 2004, ISBN 9758829513, s. 259. The money that two organization was transfered to Süleyman Mercümek (his nick is Welfare Party's cash register). "İnsan hakları hürriyetleri" is one of doctorines of Millî Görüş. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

İHH and Refah

The phrase "that was formed to provide aid to Bosnian Muslims together with Welfare Party" means that the purpose for which İHH was formed, was to work together with Refah. Correct me if I'm wrong – I can only see a fragment of the text from Rüşvetten Özelleştirmeye Yolsuzluğun 100 Yıllık Tarihi – but all the cited source says is that money collected by RP and İHH was transferred to Süleyman Mercümek's account. It does not say anything about why İHH was formed, and as formulated does not even imply that the organizations worked together in collecting the money. So the source does not support the statement, which is why I removed it. I thought the rationale for the removal was clear from the edit summary: source only states that both organizations collected money for Bosnia. If the book has further information, or you have other reliable information, on notable connections of İHH with RP (and other connections, such as currently with Saadet Partisi, or with Milli Görüş as you write), please let me know. I saw some claims relating İHH and Milli Görüş, but they were not reliable sources, and therefore not useable. --Lambiam 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communauté Islamique du Milli Gorus de la Région Lyonnaise Takabeg (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this list of contact persons of IHH e.V., Adem Bark and Zeliha Vural, mentioned in the French Milli Görüş item, are project managers of the German IHH. To the best of my knowledge, that organization is independent of the Turkish İHH; see also Talk:IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı)#Another IHH. --Lambiam 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they use very similar logomarks. (IHH e.V & IHH) Türkçeniz var mı acaba ? Takabeg (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bir birine yakınsa da aynı değildir. Ama İngilizce konuşalım; bu tartışma herkes için anlaşılır olsun. Yes, as I wrote on the article's talk page in the section I linked to above: "having a similar (but not identical) logo". Why wouldn't they simply use the same logo if it is essentially the same organization? Note that while the German and Turkish websites do not even link to each other – also not on the Klarstellung page of IHH e.V. where they mention İHH by name – the website of the German IHH does feature links to the other branches; see here. The website of the Danish branch states here (in Danish): "IHH's head office is located in Frankfurt, Germany, and has offices in several countries, including Denmark." Apparently there is no organizational connection. --Lambiam 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General relativity and its affect on weight

Lambian, have you seen what’s been going on at Talk:Weight#Weight in general relativity? Not only is the material far too complex for Weight and not only does it belong as a subsection on General relativity, but didn’t you catch how those guys were doing WP:OR-type arguments about the validity of the formulas rather than simply pointing to a citation that supported what they were saying? I deleted that “relativity” business because it was way too complex, but just now realized the section didn’t have a single citation. I had an epiphaney just now as to why that was the case: Wikipedians who seemed intent on changing the way the world works. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation/Plural forms

Please don't create pages in articlespace that are meant to be transcluded into other articles. Each page in articlespace has to be directly categorized as an article in its own right — but what you created at Abbreviation/Plural forms isn't an article and doesn't have a category it can be added to. We also don't create "subpage" articles, where an article is titled "Other page/Subtopic", in articlespace. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]