User talk:Mark viking/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mark viking. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Lucumi people
Hi Mark viking, I am confused by your edit summary. There is no such thing as "Lucumi people", it is not a content dispute. Therefore the page has to go. What am I not getting? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Rui Gabriel Correia--thanks for reaching out. I am certainly no expert on this topic. Your prod complained that they are not an ethnic group, not that they did not exist and thus fail notability. A quick WP:BEFORE-style search showed hits on Google [1],[2] and Google Books [3],[4] for "Lucumi people" and some of these hits don't look derived from the Wikipedia article. So at first glance, they are mentioned in independent sources. I don't know if it is enough coverage to reach WP:GNG notability. An alternative to deletion for verifiable material might be to merge the article into Lucumí language because they are speakers of this language, or Santería, as people who practice the associated religion. Of course, if you believe that the content is in fact not verifiable (I could be wrong) and the article should be deleted, you are welcome to take it to AfD. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}03:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)- Hi Mark viking. I have had a look at the sources that you provided; the first one is about Lucumi, the language, the second and fourth use "Lucumi people" to refer to the people who follow the Lucumi religion (Santería), much like a book here uses "Mormon people" and here several references are are made to "Amish people", to refer to followers, with hundreds of thousands of sources on Google following the same logi; the third is set in the time of slavery, explaining how the term came to be a synonym for Yoruba (cf the Olukumi people).
- The article was created as a one-liner, with a source about Santería, that says nothing about Lucumi as a people. The articles Cubans, Afro-Cubans and Demographics of Cuba say nothing about "Lucumi people", except as a parenthesis on the geographical origin of people of African origin, with "Lucumi" in brackets after Yoruba. See above reference to "Lucumi" as synonyn for "Yoruba".
- All things considered, I believe that the right thing to do would be to redirect to Afro-Cubans. What do you think?
- For my own edification, I would like to understand the different modes of deletion — you suggested that I "take it to AfD". So — barring the misunderstanding that I created by lack of clarity on "they are not an ethnic group" vs "they did not exist" —, was WP:PROD the wrong method?
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see that you have already converted the article to a redirect. I won't contest that; let's see what other editors think. The prod process is for uncontroversial deletions. The presence of the Lucumi people being mentioned in the literature suggested to me that there was possibly verifiable content. For verifiable content, alternatives to deletion are preferred per our policy WP:ATD. At that point, I considered deletion controversial because a merge seemed likely a better alternative. Generally, use a prod when you think that deletion a slam-dunk and no one is likely to object, and also that there is no verifiable material worth merging, and also the term itself does not merit a redirect. AfD, Articles for Deletion, is the best venue when there may be some controversy and a discussion among editors is likely warranted. Given that, I don't think you did anything wrong--one cannot always anticipate editors' possible objections. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}00:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)- Hi Mark viking. Re "I see that you have already converted the article to a redirect", it is not that I just went ahead without waiting for further input - I know the area and can tell you that it will not attract much attention (barring a suspected sock that might put in an appearance soon), so the only one that I needed to hear from was you, hence, "What do you think?" above. Then I checked your contributions and saw that you are still not fully active and feared it might be some time before you responded and I wanted to do it while everything was still fresh in my mind. Then you appeared roughly 20 minutes later and put in a long slog. ;-) My apologies, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Rui Gabriel Correia--it is true that I'm not on WP all the time these days. No worries about the bold edit. Thanks and good luck with your editing. Cheers, --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}10:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Rui Gabriel Correia--it is true that I'm not on WP all the time these days. No worries about the bold edit. Thanks and good luck with your editing. Cheers, --
- Hi Mark viking. Re "I see that you have already converted the article to a redirect", it is not that I just went ahead without waiting for further input - I know the area and can tell you that it will not attract much attention (barring a suspected sock that might put in an appearance soon), so the only one that I needed to hear from was you, hence, "What do you think?" above. Then I checked your contributions and saw that you are still not fully active and feared it might be some time before you responded and I wanted to do it while everything was still fresh in my mind. Then you appeared roughly 20 minutes later and put in a long slog. ;-) My apologies, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see that you have already converted the article to a redirect. I won't contest that; let's see what other editors think. The prod process is for uncontroversial deletions. The presence of the Lucumi people being mentioned in the literature suggested to me that there was possibly verifiable content. For verifiable content, alternatives to deletion are preferred per our policy WP:ATD. At that point, I considered deletion controversial because a merge seemed likely a better alternative. Generally, use a prod when you think that deletion a slam-dunk and no one is likely to object, and also that there is no verifiable material worth merging, and also the term itself does not merit a redirect. AfD, Articles for Deletion, is the best venue when there may be some controversy and a discussion among editors is likely warranted. Given that, I don't think you did anything wrong--one cannot always anticipate editors' possible objections. --
Grammarly
Thanks for the tip Mark, I will try to make the article less promotional, if this promotional editing business persists, should I open up an ANI thread for semi-protection? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure thing, I am sorry I had to deprod. If you think it should be deleted (e.g., perhaps it fails notability), there is still the possibility of bringing it to AfD. If you want to do that while remaining an IP user, I think you can do this by starting the AfD at the article and requesting someone complete your AfD at the AfD talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. See details at WP:AFDHOWTO. Otherwise, I agree removing promotional content is a reasonable alternative. If their promotional editing persists and the editor just won't stop or discuss their problematic edits, ANI might be the next step. Good luck with your editing! --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon on 02.02.2020
- I am delighted to invite you to the SPIE Photonics West 2020 edit-a-thon, at Park Central Hotel (Franciscan I, 3rd Level / 50 Third Street / San Francisco, California), on Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 5:00-7:00pm.
- Newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome to participate alongside SPIE conference attendees. Admission is free. Training will be provided.
- Details and sign-in here
See you soon! All the best, --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Books & Bytes – Issue 37
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Great signature!
Just wanted to say I appreciate your signature — great way to make it easier to ping you! I'm not sure whether I want to create one of my own, but if I do at some point I hope you don't mind if I take inspiration from you and go with a similar approach. Sdkb (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yes, please feel free to to copy or take inspiration for your own signature. We're all open source here. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}11:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The article IEEE Antennas & Propagation Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable sub-group of notable organisation
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Issue 38, January – April 2020
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
- New partnership
- Global roundup
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
About undoing my edits
Hi, you undid my recent edits saying that they were "unexplained", so allow me to explain it.
Please see WP:RCAT. It states that "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories". There are a few exceptions, but none that fall under the ones that I removed the categories from. If you have a disagreement please say so, but I think my actions were following Wikipedia policy.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Zxcvbnm, thanks for reaching out. The exception I was thinking of was Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects#Subtopic_categorization. But looking at the target article, I realize that the redirect target is an element in a list, not a subsection. So I think you were correct to remove the cats. Thanks for catching my error and I will revert my undo. As far as I know I only reverted one edit at Barghest (Dungeons & Dragons); let me know if there are others I have missed. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Genetic memory
Mark viking, I took this to AfD where it's languishing for lack of attention... sometimes I feel we're editing in a vast echoing aircraft hangar under lockdown with all the people missing ... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Much disruption in RL has affected my WP editing, too. I will take a look at the AfD, thanks. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}17:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
Hello Mark viking. Thank you for your contribution to this AfD discussion. I am relieved to hear from a senior editor that the article deserves a chance in AfC. --Cosmonought (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was happy to make the recommendation. Good luck with the article! --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}18:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
MySQL
Hi, I see you removed the WP:PROD template at MySQL. I take your point that it is notable, but I proposed deletion for a different reason, namely WP:NOTJOURNAL. As I have stated on the talkpage, the article is unintelligible to a non-specialist, and seems to have been written for people who already know about MySQL, which makes it pointless having it in Wikipedia. Can I suggest that you would be doing Wikipedia and its users a service if you were to clarify the article, or at the very least add a comprehensible explanation of what MySQL actually is. Regards from a fellow, but slightly lapsed, physicist. Davidelit (Talk) 13:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Metro A Line (Minnesota) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
WikiBooks problems
Hi Mark, With regards to the transwiki of Character Encodings (EBCDIC) that you first !voted for I am having issues and being streesed with admin JackPotte. Can you please remove the speedy from B:Building Haycocks as while it is not directly releated to B:Character Encodings (probable book title) I am using it to pre hone techniques in a smaller project. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Djm-leighpark - that's great that you are making a try for building a book of encodings. I have no experience at Wikibooks, but it looks like they have user sandboxes. "Draftifying" the haycock book by taking it to your sandbox would seem a good solution, as you could experiment without oversight or 7-day time limits. And please, take care of yourself. Wikipedia editing can be a stress-inducing activity and it is good to be able to walk away from it and go on a refreshing walk, to de-stress and put WP challenges in perspective. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)- Thanks fpr reply but useless and that wont sandbox. Suggest you avoid !Transwiki !votes in future! Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Mirror symmetry
Hi,
Could you add your comment on the talk page for Mirror symmetry conjecture to the wikiproject page? I'd like to stop a potential edit war before it happens. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Fixing_page_redirect Wundzer (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Avoiding an edit war is good. I'll put in my two cents. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}22:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Stateful firewall
hello, just wanted to hit you up directly about the deprod. I stated that it could be merged with the main article Firewall (Computing), but here is the problem. that entire article is does have a source or doesn't talk about the topic of the article... with that, im a little confused that you would undo it without reaching out to me first. i posted in the talk page about it already, but you didn't say anything there. also, what could possible be said about a "stateful firewall" that cannot be said about a general firewall? all firewalls have been stateful since the late 90s, and the ability to track connections does not need an entire article to cover. with that i will be going to afd, but thought id give you an opportunity to explain your reasoning in more detail before i do. as a side note, i work on enterprise firewalls for a living (cisco, fortinet, palo alto, sophos, etc.), so this isn't coming from a place of ignorance. edit: i will say that a redirect could be usefull, but tbh anyone who searched for "stateful firewall" shouldn't be going to wikipedia to read about it as they are already somewhat knowledgeable of the topic. StayFree76 talk 05:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Stayfree76--Thanks for reaching out. Proposed deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, deletions that no reasonable editor would have any objection to. In this case, a topic that is central to modern firewall operation, is widely verified in RS and ubiquitous, and has more than enough sourcing out there with which to build an article or a section in an article. Our policy WP:ATD says that if there is verifiable material, alternatives to deletion should be considered before deletion. If there are enough sources available to satisfy our WP:GNG notability guideline, then we can build a standalone article. I think it is reasonable to discuss whether this topic is better treated as an article or a section in the firewall article, but neither of those is deletion. Deletion was pretty clearly the wrong choice, so I deprodded and stated my reasons.
- Since then you've done a good bit of work on the article and nicely improved it--awesome! It looks like a reasonable start class article with much better sourcing than before you started. As you've noted, there isn't a single stateful algorithm and there are interesting things to talk about--UDP, IDS, DDOS, how it relates to application layer, etc. Historical development would also be encyclopedic; stateful wasn't always dominant. I think it could work as a standalone article. Of course, if you think a merge is the better course or even AfD, you are welcome to start those discussions. But I would still argue against outright deletion. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}23:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- yea, and if you noticed, i gutted 80-90% of the article because most of it was not even correct or covered elsewhere and i was not ok with letting people read false information when trying to learn. simply, i did it to stop the spread of nonsense, not because i think the article deserves its own. think about this. how does an article go 17 years, but doesn't even have 1 source?. i literally had to rewrite the entire thing and i dont think there is anything that can be added to that article since it is all covered elsewhere. there is already a page called Firewall (Computing), Application firewall, and Web application firewall. i could literally cut and paste all the stuff i wrote into the stateful firewall article and put it right into the main one. whats even more interesting, is the sources that i added are not even sources about firewalls, but but are about the protocols used in firewalls. notice how everything in that article has a redirect to somewhere else. that's because its just information about the fundamentals of networking with how they relate to firewalls peppered in (but not sourced). but seriously stateful firewalling has been the underlying mechanism in firewall since the late 90s. even IPS/IDS, or next-gen firewall, are stateful... they just choose to disregard state for certain inspection functions. StayFree76 talk 23:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Sharing
You removed the PROD tag I put on Sharing with a note that indicates that your previous note explains it, but it does not. There is also an active discussion on Talk:Sharing where you can explain. Thanks. Lagringa (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree--what was unclear to you in my explanation? --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)- I think you made a blank edit - so the explanation isn't in the page history. I also agree that PROD isn't the right solution here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I think you are exactly right--with my flub, nothing was changed in the article, so my edit with the explanation in the summary didn't register in the history. Lagringa, apologies for not realizing this. I will engage on the Talk page. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}08:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I think you are exactly right--with my flub, nothing was changed in the article, so my edit with the explanation in the summary didn't register in the history. Lagringa, apologies for not realizing this. I will engage on the Talk page. --
- I think you made a blank edit - so the explanation isn't in the page history. I also agree that PROD isn't the right solution here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Chef programming language
While participating in the AfD for Chef programming language in 2012, you had said that the language is notable enough for inclusion in the Esoteric programming languages article. It was included but subsequently removed in 2019, and became an orphaned redirect. It is now up for deletion again. Was the removal appropriate or is there a better target for the redirect? Jay (Talk) 09:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 45
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
- Library design improvements continue
- New partnerships
- 1Lib1Ref update
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Optical telegraph RFC
Mark, you have written support, but you are supporting the negative of the question asked. I feel that could cause confusion in subsequent contributions. SpinningSpark 11:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, your RfC ill-worded, with the question positive and the main assertion in your evidence para immediately following as negative of the question asked. I think my assertion, which parrots yours, is clear enough. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)- Seems everyone is following your lead so all good. SpinningSpark 20:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 46
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
- Library design improvements deployed
- New collections available in English and German
- Wikimania presentation
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 47
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
- On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
- Search tool deployed
- New My Library design improvements
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Nomination of Computational and Statistical Genetics for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational and Statistical Genetics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
--Xarm Endris (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 48
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021
- 1Lib1Ref 2022
- Wikipedia Library notifications deployed
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 49
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022
- New library collections
- Blog post published detailing technical improvements
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
About the nomination for deletion about the evolution archaeology article
Yes, I do kind of realise it now. I think that editing could help it not be essay / neutral like written. However, it seems to already be like this for a long way (As far as I know, it was like this since the creation of the article). That is why I am worried that it might be essay like for a long time and I can't edit it since I am not an expert at archaeology. I came across this article with random article and immediately saw the problems. About the sources, ALL of them are books or something like that and I think it would be better if at least a couple of sources would be via a website. Because not everyone is going to go to the local library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeshjen (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bigeshjen - I understand your concerns; it is a bit essay like and I could believe all points of view are not neutrally presented. But WP is OK with articles in a poor state that may take a while to improve, as long as there are reliable sources out there with which to write an article. See WP:NOTIMELIMIT and more generally WP:SURMOUNTABLE for the reasoning behind this. Online reliable sources are great, but book sources as well as other non-free sources are fine, too, per WP:PAYWALL. If you think the article is beyond hope per WP:TNT and deserves to be blown up, you are welcome to take it to AfD. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
The article is heavily outdated. Let me go through the index:
- ECMAScript version support : the current version is 13, the table in the article goes up to 6
- Standard library: there is a lot more stuff in the standard library and all browser implement the same basic standard functions. Comparing them is pointless. Listing all the standard functions is too much for an encyclopedic article
That's it. That is all the article is. That's why I proposed it for deletion. If you want to make the article good then you'd still have to rewrite it from scratch and compare js engines which are under active development (not MS HTML, Presto or KHTML) or if you think the history is so important, then rename it to History of Javascript engines. But as it is now, I think it is useless to anyone who wants to know about differences between Javascript engines. Performance comparisons (without measuring the DOM) would be useful.
Further I think the article ignores that Javascript is also used outside the web heavily. There are plenty of JS engines that don't run in browser like the Duktape or JerryScript.
— Updatepedia (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Updatepedia - Welcome to Wikipedia! I understand your concerns; the article is in poor shape and quite out of date. WP is OK with articles in a poor state that are improvable, as long as there are reliable sources out there with which to write an article. See WP:NOTIMELIMIT and more generally WP:SURMOUNTABLE for the reasoning behind this. For these reasons, we tend not to delete articles only because they are in poor shape. That is why I deprodded the article. If you think the article is beyond hope for improvement per WP:TNT and deserves to be blown up, you are welcome to take it to Articles for Deletion (AfD) so that editors can discuss its prospects. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}00:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)- Hi, I'm not trying to reason with the world but with you who disagrees (which is fine with me). It's a technology article that hasn't been significantly improved since 2007 when it was created (see https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_JavaScript_engines&diff=151547395&oldid=149512033). If I want to know, what JS function works in what browser, I just go to https://caniuse.com/ . And if it's a trivial function like tan() or a trivial object like String then the answer is always "all of them support it". It's not educative. All these functions and objects are from before ECMAScript (2009) and any JS engine, that implements ECMAScript (all that are being used are ECMAScript engines), implements all of them.
- I can see that one might recreate the article to write a new comparison of engines that are actually being used. So if you want to do that, go ahead. — Updatepedia (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 52
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
- New instant-access collections:
- SpringerLink and Springer Nature
- Project MUSE
- Taylor & Francis
- ASHA
- Loeb
- Feedback requested on this newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 53
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022
- New collections:
- Edward Elgar
- E-Yearbook
- Corriere della Serra
- Wikilala
- Collections moved to Library Bundle:
- Ancestry
- New feature: Outage notification
- Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Goodness gracious Great balls of mud!
Hey, thanks so much for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big ball of mud. It's really rare for someone to actually be specific about what should be moved to the target article, and what should be left behind. This really makes life easier for the editor who completes the merge. Joyous! | Talk 18:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- My pleasure. I think bringing the article to AfD was a good call. Cheers, --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about this? Similar aritcle and my BEFORE is showing just mentions in passing? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't performed a BEFORE style search on other members of the Z80 family. There is some coverage, e.g. [5]. I consider author Al Williams (of Dr. Dobbs fame) as being a reliable source for this sort of topic. But it seems clear that a merge of verifiable bits and redirect could be a reasonable alternative to deletion for this processor as well. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Question
Following some links I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 25#Category:Chapman & Hall books. As per you Springer and World Scientific are the best publishers for math and physics. As such I wonder f you know the same for biology and chemistry? Solomon7968 14:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- For graduate and professional level biology books, I don't think there are any publishers that are as dominant and well thought of as Springer is for Mathematics. It seems a more heterogeneous publishing field. The university-associated publishers like OUP are still well-regarded in biology. For biology journal publishing, Nature, Science, and Cell Press are considered top tier. Medical publishing is a whole separate ecosystem with its own publishers. I don't know much about chemistry publishers. I know that The American Chemical Society and The Royal Society of Chemistry are major publishers with top journals, but I don't know how well-regarded they are for their book publishing. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)