User talk:Lambiam/Archive 17

; 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;

your edit to Template:AFC submission/declined

Declined is used more in Afc, like someone says, "Jack's submission has been declined." That's why your edit that you made to Template:AFC submission/declined didn't make sense at all to me. Maybe you should consider undoing it. If you think your edit was in Good Faith let me know so we can talk this over. Cheers, Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap the article Principle of bivalence

Have you been following any of the back-and-forth there? Way back when in 2006 or so, you wondered how and why this "principle" should receive its own name distinct from the LoEM. Based on a study of the history, I can see no justification for the creation of a whole new phraseology that seems, until I'm persuaded otherwise, to be just a case of Bullshit in the philosophic sense. I've put a similar not on Vaughn Pratt's talk-page, too. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've read the discussion in the sections above, but L's paper has been translated in English and included in two volumes: ISBN 0198243049 and ISBN 0720422523. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default

Whilst I do not wish to continue discussion of a failed proposal, I do feel - as proposer - you will be interested in my comments on User talk:NuclearWarfare#Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default - in that, I think it would be a pity if the entire debate disappeared. (I will also notify Kayau of this). Cheers, Chzz ► 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Braun

Hi, I noticed the citation that you inserted into Scooter Braun. I was wondering if you had originally submitted that piece of information? Or if you just gathered the source. It's a bit objectified... Bped1985 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. With the change it sounds a lot better. Cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rice's and Halting Problem

Just a head's up that I undid the deletion of the paragraph in the Halting Problem article on Rice's Theorem. I explain why in the Talk section. I felt reluctant to undo a good faith edit by a contributor of your caliber, but I simply cannot feel that deletion of all mention of Rice's would produce a better article, or that any defects of that particular treatment were so great that they required that remedy.

--Jeffreykegler (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009

Hello Lambiam, I noticed that you had commented during speedy deletion (can result in deletion without discussion) on the Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009 article, that I created 6 June, 2009 on Wikipedia. It was consequently deleted and I hadn't been part of the discussion.

I have recently attempted put it on Wikinews:Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009, but that also may be deleted, as I didn't know that; "Wikinews does not publish reports on events that are not sufficiently recent. New details must have come to light within the past 2–3 days, and the news event itself must have happened within a week."

The rational to perhaps restore the article on Wikipedia could be WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:POLITICIAN.

Do you think that this article merits any significance to be an encyclopaedic article? Because I think it does.

Should it be put to Wikipedia:Deletion review?

RW Marloe (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Membra Jesu Nostri

Thanks for you improvements! Translations: dealing with the Bach cantatas, the project argued against any translation, always being a matter of taste, and (in Bach's case) several available. "Thou" or "you" - not easy to decide as Latin doesn't have it at all, but at Buxtehude's time English would have been "Thou". I had to translate MJN to German for a concert program and tried to be as close to the Latin as possible, but gave up on "ad ubera portamini", the talk of animal anatomy not possible in a church program, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I personally support "you" in this case, as the relationship is so very personal and intimate in this poetry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Ori

I have modified the image on Commons. Thanks, bye. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak

Hi, Lambiam: Good idea; done. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Honestly I have been editing a long time and I recently was shown how to nominate an article for deletion. I must say all of them seemed justified to me. Although I might be wrong about the BART station. Since it doesn't exist I thought it does not supposed to have an article. But isn't that what AfD is for?Yotemordis (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yotemordis

Good catch on Yotemordis (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edit summary

Your edit summary here implies that you believe I removed or changed an AfD message while the discussion was ongoing, when I did no such thing. If you look more closely at the edit you undid ([1]), I merely added a CSD template on top of the AfD notice, not in place of it. I did this because I believed at the time I tagged it that it was a borderline case of A7, and wanted an admin to adjudicate it. If you believed that the article does not or did not merit A7, then I would have appreciated an edit summary and/or a note on my talk page indicating that fact, rather than an edit summary that falsely accused me of wrongdoing. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misinterpreted the situation; the CSD message box visually drowned out the AfD one, and I really thought it had been replaced. --Lambiam 08:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I have seen people make the same mistake before, though frankly I've never seen an established user do so. At any rate, on a third and fourth look at the article I think an admin would have declined A7 anyways, so no harm done except maybe to my ego =). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Einstein condensation (network theory)

Hi - good suggestion on the title. Do you have an opinion on the AFD enough to cast a vote? PAR (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mudde

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mudde's talk page. Yoenit (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS is finally unprotected!

Hi Lambiam.

I see that you contributed to discussion at WT:MOS concerning the protection that had been imposed on WP:MOS, way back in February. Well, finally the protection has been removed. I was not a party to the dispute; but since it is still unresolved I have initiated a proposal and a discussion to set things on a better footing. Reviewing the archives, I was so impressed by your own efforts that I have cited them in the present discussion. You may like to take a look, and perhaps join in to lend a hand once more.

Best wishes to you. Noetica^Tea? 08:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]