User talk:Olaf Davis/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Olaf Davis. 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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Admin coaching

Should resume shortly. Hope you've had an enjoyable weekend/holidays. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have thanks, yes. Hope you did too Julian, in spite of your minor setback at RfB. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, didn't realise you meant that shortly! Replied on the coaching page. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions.

No worries. I fully understand the meaning of "interesting" here. They are probably a bit on the rough side (in many meanings of the word). I meant to have one short and one long, but think I failed. I rarely ask questions, but I can't tell how much you really understand on deletion related issues, so you got some hard ones. Best of luck with the RfA! Hobit (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I did actually mean 'interesting' in the literal sense - they're both thought-provoking - but I suppose there's an element of this too. I have some ideas for answers but since it's 20 minutes since I announced 'bed time' I should scarper. Thanks for the well wishes Hobit! Olaf Davis (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful Rfa!

OK, I'm jumping the gun by a couple hours, but the overwhelming support in your vote means that you are the project's newest administrator. Congratulations and best wishes this year, and every year! Jusdafax 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tempted as I am to begin a massive vandalism campaign in the last moments of the RfA just to prove you wrong, I think I'll settle instead for saying: thanks! I appreciate your faith in my ability. Best wishes to you too, Olaf Davis (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to YOU for bringing a hearty laugh and a lingering smile... and I see it's official now, so I won't have to fire up Huggle just yet! Jusdafax 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA

Thanks for answering my last minute questions. I just want to let you know that I liked the answer and would of supported you if the chance came, but I was offline. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the vote of confidence - I'll try to prove it justified! Olaf Davis (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks WJBScribe! I'll certainly come ~~pester~~ let you know if I have questions. Are thanks for the shirt, WereSpiel. An extra layer can't go amiss with the weather we've been having recently, that's for sure. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Don't let me down. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Who, me? Not a chance - you must just be worried that I'll make such a great sysop the site won't need all you old fogies anymore. Seriously though - thanks once again for all your time, kind words and trust Julian. I truly appreciate it. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Feel free to ~~pester~~ ask me moppy stuff, I'll do my best to help :) Ged UK 08:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ged, and thanks for your support. I'll definitely bear your offer in mind. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:100, nice! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I wasn't expecting that! Thanks Rjang. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"trying to sow doubts"?

I was surprised to read your post on Skomorokh's talk page today:

My RfA

Hi Skomorokh. I just wanted to say a rather belated thanks for your !vote at my RfA. Of all the comments I thought might come up, I have to say that "he's so good he can't have been editing for just a year and a half" was definitely not on the list! Of course you did miss one possibility: my original account might not have been tied to my real identity just so I could come across as 'honest' when I made my sock :)
Anyway, instead of sitting here trying to sow doubts I'll just say thanks again for the trust - I'll endeavour not to prove you wrong. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you joking, or have you edited here under another account? - Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly joking: I was serious in pointing out that there was a gap in his reasoning. However, his conclusion was correct: I have not edited from any account other than this and the one I declared in my RfA and User:Botlaf. I can see the possibility for misunderstanding though, so sorry for that. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. It seemed a little early to be trying to de-sysop you (!) but things like Newbie@CSD/LestWeBeScattered leave a faintly persistent itch, I'm afraid. On a much more positive note, I hope you were out with your camera during the recent cold weather. New College in snow must have been pretty special! - Pointillist (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Olaf Davis. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just in case you stopped watching after my first reply. Ged UK 09:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

... on your adminship. I am 100% confident you will do a good job. I thought it better not to take part in the discussion, but I followed it with interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks James. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant job handling the NEWT affair. You must have been sweating when you saw the heat about that. Your comment on my talk made me miss DYK though... those were my happiest times on the project. Just don't have the creative energy for the new articles right now for some reason. Congrats on adminship. --JayHenry (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JayHenry. I was nervous for a bit - mainly because of the possibility you mentioned of it turning into an RfC on the subject with all its attendant drama. It's good to know my statement came off well - I wasn't too certain how it would sound when I hit 'edit'.

I didn't realise you were no longer active at DYK - that's a shame. I've been thinking about the possibility of getting back into it, and maybe giving a hand with the tools, but I'm sure it'd take a while to get reaquainted with how things work, especially since I left during a period of pretty rapid change, so I've been putting it off.

Anyway, thanks for the !vote and the congratulations - for me the nicest bit of RfA was seeing how many users I respect had noticed/remembered me enough to comment. Happy editing! Olaf Davis (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks KillerChihuahua! I'll certainly come to you when I ~~accidentally block a member of the CABAL~~ ~~get exasperated by idiots questioning my brilliant decisions~~ have questions! Olaf Davis (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, great response! I see you have this down already. In all seriousness, please do let me know if I can ever be of assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Salmon Kings, etc

Sure, if that's all he wants. He asked me to "reinstate" the article and I couldn't do that. Please feel free to do what you suggested. Deb (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that, I hadn't realised I'd used the wrong tag, guess it was finger trouble in the cut'n'paste. Regards, Justin talk 23:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern about the accuracy, the article when I first found it was worse. The title? Well that is how it is commonly known in the English literature but I take your point. Bluff Cove Air Raid perhaps? Btw its never known as the Battle of Bluff Cove. Justin talk 23:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the BBC article I mentioned on the talk page says it came to be known as the battle of Bluff Cove - I haven't done a detailed search for sources though. Perhaps I'll take another look tomorrow. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you learn something every day! Never seen it ever used before and I have read numerous books on the Falklands War. The most authorative work is Lawrence Freedman's official histories. I'll check myself again. Justin talk 23:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

McCain redirects

Thanks for that; I will do that. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 13:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm actually tempted to create John Sydney McCain, which seems like an even more likely search term. I'm willing to wait for the result of the RfD if you like, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

withdraw my AfD

hey I'd like to withdraw my AfD for FLOSS Weekly but I don't know how to do that :( could you help me out? andyzweb (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There is a 'Speedy Keep' process that can be applied if the nominator withdraws and no-one else has !voted 'delete'. In this case there is one editor still arguing for a deletion though, so it's usual to leave the debate open. I'd suggest adding a comment directly below your nomination saying you've changed your mind, and maybe even striking the nomination statement to make it clear.

Admins do sometimes close debates early if there's overwhelming consensus in one direction, but since its due to close at midnight tonight anyway we might as well let it run.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:John Stephen Dwyer/Sandbox 2

Thanks for making this corrective move. --John Stephen Dwyer (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad my guess about your intentions turned out to be correct. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Drug therapy problems

Sorry that I failed to catch the mirror. Thank you for spotting that. However, please note that both the mirror and the later version of the article (which was speedied by a different admin) cite a published book (Shargel,Leon. Comprehensive Pharmacy Review 7th Edition p. 563), and from the comments on my talk page I suspect the text is taken straight from that book, and so is still a copyvio. The creator does not seem to understand the Wikipedia copyright policy, look at my exchanges with him on his and my talk pages. I suggest that you look into this, since you have undertaken to userfy. Of course if this is an infringement of a printed text, we can't host it even in userspace. I ask that you at least raise the matter with the article creator. DES ^(talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right - thank youfor spotting that! My apologies if I've inadvertently reintroduced a copyvio after you got rid of it.

I see the editor's begun expanding the userspace draft but I'm not sure if the quoted text is still there (checking is non-trivial on my current connection). Unfortunately I have to dash and won't be online for the best part of a day or more, but I'll look into it as soon as I get the chance - unless of course you beat me too it.

Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Believer

Hi, Olaf. Here ([1]) you blocked Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) for Balkan related topic ban violation.

Just after block expired he created this [2]) as link to the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević. This is so much balkan related article also. Just to let you know. All best, --Tadija (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Tadija. I've blocked him again. I find it rather surprising that he'd create that page given the message he left to you, which indicates he's aware of the ban. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Olaf, this is showing a definite problem of non-compliance to the topic ban. He's been warned before, I'm extending this to an indefinite block. Let me know if you have any concerns. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, immediately after I made the block I thought I'd actually been pretty lenient given his history. No immediate objection to the extension. I'm going to be away for a few days, so I'll look at the situation again next week.

By the way, let me add myself to the list of those offering their congratulations! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, I should have noted that I took the extension to WP:AN/I as a standard thing I do when I issue an indefinite block. Clean forgot to tell you - WP:AN/I#User:Human Rights Believer. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Requested move

Hey, thanks a lot for your help and for the advice. Take care! =] Jonny (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Olaf Davis/Archive 3 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Skullptura

Thanks for the head up. I still voted to delete, but not a speedy, for reasons stated at the Afd. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've responded to your comment at AfD - I don't think you were mistaken as such, just a matter of personal judgement. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver

Hi Olaf, hope your PC gets better soon. Wikipedia:Toolserver is the thing I mentioned today. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers WSC. Was good to meet you, I'll probably try and make at least some future meetups if it's convenient. I'll let you know when my bot's back on its feet! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

igloo

Hi Olaf Davis, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Before using the program, please read the following information carefully - failure to do so may result in your test access being revoked.

igloo is a JavaScript-powered, browser-based anti-vandalism tool, which means you do not have to download or install anything on your computer and it will work on multiple operating systems. However, it does mean that the performance relies on that of your browser and it may operate more slowly than downloaded programs. You must have either Mozilla Firefox 3+ or Google Chrome to use igloo, as it is currently incompatible with other browsers.

igloo relies on a system called iglooNet to assist you in finding and reverting vandalism. It is this system that transforms the program from a pretty version of recent changes to an actual anti-vandalism tool. Naturally, this is beyond the power of a client-side program, and igloo will regularly communicate with an external, non-Wikimedia server. Because of things like server logs, and the iglooNet abuse tracker, this may allow your IP address to be attached to your username - something which is otherwise impossible on Wikipedia. If you do not want this to happen, you MUST NOT USE IGLOO.

If you decide that you do want to test igloo, please keep in mind that it not wholly stable, and you may experience problems where it performs an invalid edit, or other unwanted action. If this happens, fix any mistakes you've made, apologise to anyone you've offended, and let me know. I don't take any responsibility for your use of the program - if you aren't willing to fix any errors, don't use it.

igloo is already quite powerful. The following is a simple guide to using the program:

The igloo interface is similar to that of other software, including huggle. Recent changes appear on the left, and diffs appear on the right.
igloo sorts diffs based on iglooNet data so that edits most likely to be vandalism are displayed first. You can press spacebar to view the top diff, or click on any diff to view it directly.
When you find vandalism, press 'Q' or click the revert button to revert the change, and issue a warning to the user. igloo automatically issues the correct warning. It will ignore existing warnings that are more than 5 days old, and restart from the beginning.
The iglooNet assertion system tags clean and dirty edits with colour coding - if it suspects an edit is vandalism, it will be flagged as red, and if it believes it to be clean, it will tag it green.
At any time, you can re-review diffs you have already seen by pressing backspace or using the icons to move through the diff history.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions or other feedback, I'd love to know. If you hate it, and won't be using it again, please let me know why - and I'll remove you from the test whitelist. If you now try and use igloo, you should find that it will allow you to use the program. Thanks, and good luck! Ale_Jrb ^talk 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you/Falkusa

Thanks Olaf Davis for your help on the User Sir Floyd:Kalkusa page. Sir Floyd (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do let me know if you need any help improving the article, or want me to give it a look before you move it back out of your user space. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You know that would be great. Do you know anything about boats? Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a massive amount I'm afraid, but I could certainly give a hand looking for sources and with general formatting etc. of the article. Unfortunately I'm about to go away for the weekend, but if you drop me a reminder on Monday I'll be happy to give whatever aid I can. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I know a bit about boats but I need help with images. Check this out!. Issues with copy-write, import, image size and image page placement are a new wiki learning curve for me (sources and with general formatting- I'm happy with that too). Also, Monday is fine with me and thank you! Sir Floyd (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Just a friendly reminder for the User Sir Floyd: Falkusa article. Sir Floyd (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. Left message at User-talk:Sir-Floyd Falkusa. Must go Zzzsssss. Sir Floyd (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional: I think "this one on Commons" image is not really suited, sorry. :) Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "this one on Commons"' image is suited. Link to Sir Floyd. Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Olaf Davis! I've got GregorB wanting to contribute so I hope that's fine with you. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Collaboration is the name of the game, and getting an article on DYK is always nice. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang

You might find the following of interest at http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html (there are many similar conclusions by suitably qualified authorities - this is just one)

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe. To summarise, a cause might be unknowable, but still exist. cheers Androstachys (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you bring this up simply because I might be interested, or is it supposed to be a reference for your edits to Big Bang which I and ScienceApologist reverted? If the latter I suggest you start a thread on the article's talk page so I and others can answer there. If the former - well, thanks; I am actually interested in creationist ideas about astrophysics, but Wikipedia is not the forum in which to discuss them. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A bit of both... ScienceApologist writes that he reverted because of "unsourced commentary", but switches his objection to "non-neutral point of view" on my talk page. You delete my note as "original research". Hugh Ross uses the word "God", but I think he means it in the sense of unknown creative forces. Proponents of the idea that time-space came into being with the Big Bang completely ignore the immediate implication or corollary that if they are correct, then our particular universe was created from "beyond the dimensional limits of the universe" - Ross. ciao Androstachys (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think he meant "unknown creative forces" be he doesn't say so (and no reliable source says he does) then to use the source in the article as though he did would be original research. I disagree that people ignore that implication - I think there's been quite a lot of discussion of it by cosmologists. Still, I think Talk:Big Bang is a better place to discuss this so that SA and others can weigh in. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Loutro, Messenia

A little study of Google Maps has (I think) cleared up the confusion over whether or not this article is a duplicate of Palaio Loutro, and I'm 99.99% certain now that they are two separate places a few kilometres apart, as I've explained on the talk page. So I've undone your redirect. What threw me initially was the (incorrect) wikification that had been done to the original article. Anyway, I feel better now that's been cleared up, it was niggling at me. There's still the question of what the correct spelling of Palaio Loutro is to be resolved yet though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Malleus. Yes, I was thrown by exactly the same wikification. No idea about the correct spelling, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted the spelling as well now, they're alternative names for the same place, as I've now made clear in the article. If these two villages hadn't been so close together none of this confusion would have arisen. Ah well, sorted now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible check for a CSD G4

In your capacity as the first Wikipedia administrator that came to mind, I wonder if you might feel like taking up an invitation I made to "any admin" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demeiz? Potentially you could find grounds for speedily closing an MfD discussion: yes, I know it's not an AfD, but it's pretty similar. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you were going to say "your capacity as the first Wikipedia administrator promoted this decade" for a moment - but perhaps I'm the only one who cares about that. Anyway, I had a look at the page and discovered that the userspace version is essentially just the lede of the deleted version. I'm prepared to treat that as G4-worthy. However, a combination of a broken computer and a house guest this weekend mean that I may not be able to attend to it until Monday (I'm making this edit from my phone, which is sort of awkward to perform deletions on). Perhaps another admin will beat me to it, or perhaps I'll get time to see to it myself; if not, I'll do it on Monday. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Simon-in-sagamihara

Just to let you know, I've deleted their userpage as they were using it to attack another editor I won't name here (though obviously you can see it). I've mentioned this at the ANI thread, but in case you don't see that, thought I ought to mention it so that you're aware of it when their block expires. Ged UK 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed your deletion and at first was a little confused - but on looking back through history I understand. Well spotted, and thanks for letting me know. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gerald J Tate

Hi there! I've added contextual quotes for the sources I linked to in the article. I hope this helps. Unfortunately I can't post the entire articles anywhere because that would be a copyright violation but if you'd like anything else from me please let me know. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Panyd, and for giving the quotes. I've now !voted on the AfD. If you felt like scanning the articles and emailing them to me privately (I'm pretty certain that'd be ok under copyright law but IANAL) I'd reconsider my !vote's 'weak' qualifier - but it's probably not that worth it unless the AfD becomes more contentious. Happy editing! Olaf Davis (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

congratulations on your paper

I saw your paper submitted yesterday. Nice work! James McBride (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks James! I certainly wasn't expecting to receive any comments via Wikipedia, so that was a nice surprise. Hope your own work's going well - I must say I'm a tiny bit envious of your location, especially given the weather we've been having here recently. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not expecting to see a name I recognized from wikipedia on the arXiv, so I guess we were both surprised. It has a bit wetter here this year than is typical, though it is probably no competition for where you are. James McBride (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Faceabotage

Thanks, sorry about that. I've come away with the impression that PRODs aren't very efficient, and whether or that that's true, I tend to avoid using them. I really wish there was a CSD criteria that covered unsourced neologisms. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For instance, look at my contribs. All but one of the articles I just tagged have been deleted, as evidenced by their redlinks. The only one still remaining is this one, which I PROD'd as an unsourced neologism. Regardez-vous mon problem? ALI ^{nom nom} 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ALI. No need to apologise, it's not a problem. I totally agree that it often feels like there should be a CSD for unsourced neologisms - with a lot of them you can just tell it would never survive an AfD - but the difficulty in accurately determining what's a neologism and what's not a field one's not acquainted with would make such a category dangerous. The way I see it sending these to PROD (which I agree has a high 'failure' rate, but find worth trying as a first step since it's so simple when it does work) or AfD doesn't waste a massive amount of time, but accidentally CSDing things which look like neologisms but turn out to be notable would have a big negative effect by pissing off their (often newbie) creators.

Anyway, looks like most of your CSDs are being accepted as you say, so keep up the good work! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've taken your example to AfD. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Absurd

The page has no content and no references and I dount your bona fides, but I'm not going to waste any time looking into it.--Grahame (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have no content: it gives a launch date. Anyway, neither 'no content' nor 'no references' makes the page unambiguously promotional, which is what it was tagged for. Feel free to PROD or AfD the page if you still think deletion is warranted. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PIXELearning Ltd

I did, in fact, AfD it. This is a note. Dropped on you. So to speak. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Er, I mean, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rescuing Wikipedia from some of its deletor editors (two parts)

You have been proudly referred to: http://rubenerd.com/wikipedia-problems/

http://rubenerd.com/rescuing-wikipedia-part-two/ Keep up the excellent zeal! --Zor2711 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Zor2711's only edits have been to place this message on the talk pages of editors, none of whom is mentioned in the linked pages. I can only assume it's meant to be irony. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"considered to be the pioneers of..."

That's a piece of puffery, not an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

El chapo grande

Hi Olaf. While I usually agree with your conversion of CSDs to PRODs and the like, I think that the article El chapo grande quite easily satisfies A7. The article is written about a family's own domino "tournament". I mean, it's not even a club game or something, it's just some grandmother writing about her family dominoes game. Could you tell me if there are particular reasons it's not CSD-worthy? Thanks, Kittensandrainbows (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The PROD was removed by an IP contributor, so I've taken it to AFD. Regards Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kittens (if I may call you that). Thanks for your message. While I agree entirely that the article deserves to be deleted and contains no credible claim of importance, I declined the A7 since that applies specifically to people, animals, organisations and web content: I don't think a dominoes game, however unnotable, falls under any of those categories. This is one of those occasions where I find myself itching for a non-existent CSD criterion, but those are the price we pay for avoiding a free-for-all deletion-fest at the hands of rogue admins who feel like making up their own criteria. Anyway, I'm confident it'll be gone in a week so not too much harm done either way. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris and Jose of Menudo

You deleted Jose Bordonada Collazo wiki page on notariety but then why does Chris Moy stay when he is from the same new music group of One Call and Menudo at the same time period, is that not a double standard? Chris Page and compared to the page you deleted of Jose Bordonada Collazo located Here.

BTW see this page Band page that was deleted

Maybe you agree they both should go? Let me know. Take care.--75.74.208.55 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi 75, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've commented at the AfD for Moy - I actually believe that there is a difference here, since Moy has been the subject of significant coverage which it seemed Collazo hadn't. (Also for the record I didn't actually delete Collazo's page, not having been an admin at the time - I just started the AfD discussion.) Olaf Davis (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Family Movement

Thanks for the feedback Olaf, we are doing our best to make an entry that fits the guidelines. Your help is much appreciated. The Hang On tag had been inserted due to the Speedy Deletion tag that was added. Should I put it back up? We are working on an edit to respond to those other concerns. Stefanlorimer (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the speedy deletion tag was removed - what's currently there is a PROD (proposed deletion) tag. Since you disagree that the article should be deleted you can remove that from the article. If other editors still think it should be deleted they'll probably open a more formal deletion discussion, which will last seven days before a decision is made one way or the other.

Since you asked for advice to avoid deletion: I suggest you read the general notability guideline if you haven't already: that explains the criteria for inclusion of articles. Specifically you need to show coverage of the movement in reliable sources - like books or newspaper articles - that are independent of the movement itself. Some of the sources will need to talk about the movement itself, not just its members, to prove that we need an article on the movement.

Finally, because of the way Wikipedia is licensed it's our policy that each account should be used by only one person (basically we can't credit the copyright of an article to its author if their account has multiple users). So if you're working on the article with a group of people - which is fine! - you should each create an account to edit from.

I hope some of that was helpful - let me know if you have further questions. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I see quite a few people have already contributed to the article, so maybe I didn't need to warn you about having one account each. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Olaf Davis. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion of Tyler Owens

Tyler Owens has been tagged for speedy deletion since 23 March, and I am bewildered why it has not been dealt with. What are the admins who check speedy deletion-tagged pages up to? Perhaps you may like to look at it. It pretty obviously should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest, but this one's been resubmitting a paper to MNRAS. Although the backlog at CAT:SD does naturally fluctuate, a week is a long time indeed. I suppose the ordering by name and not by tagging date means people are likely to process them in an arbitrary order. Anyway, the page is gone now.

By the way, you might want to look at the Wikipedia IRC channels if you ever need to recruit an admin in a more timely fashion than talk-page posting allows. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are various places to contact admins for various purposes, and if I had really thought this was vital I would have looked to see which method was most appropriate in this case, but I didn't regard it as urgent. I didn't, however, specifically know about Wikipedia IRC channels. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Errm, I wasted a while trying to figure out what was the connection between Tyler Owens and MNRAS, until it dawned on me that "the rest" meant "the rest of the admins", and "this one" meant "this admin". Well, I hope the resubmission has gone OK. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not being clearer. Yes, it went fine thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alistair Urquharts

On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alistair Urquharts, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey Olaf. If you're bored, I thought I'd invite you to run your eye over my contributions list and see if you feel there's been any improvement (or not) in my CSD tagging. Since you were pretty familiar with my past "work" and aren't afraid to be critical (I don't mean that negatively), I feel you can answer objectively. If you have any feedback, too, I'd like to hear it. Regards Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Simon, sorry not to respond earlier. I've been little busy the last couple of days and will be away at a conference all of next week, but I'll try and take a look through your edits when I get back. Feel free to give me a poke if I forget! Also, thanks for asking: I'm glad we can still maintain a collegial relationship without hard feelings. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Botlaf

Hi Olaf, long time no speak hope you are well and happy. I know there are a couple of tweaks needed to Botlaf's poop patrol routine, but for several words it works just fine. Any chance of getting it to run on a weekly basis? Ϣere SpielChequers 08:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, thought I'd already responded to this. I am indeed well, though unfortunately a bit busy for Wikipedia most of the time. I hope you're happy too! Sorry about the pause in Botlaf's operations; I'll set up a script to run him every, shall we say, Saturday morning. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that would be great, he actually ran a few days ago for the first time in a month, but missed out planing, which was one I was hoping to see a big change in. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was me running him manually (and apparently forgetting to let you know). Planing caused the bot to crash to I skipped it - afraid it will have to wait until I can dig that bug out. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got those pages watchlisted so there's no need to tell me unless there's an unscheduled run with the bot flag set on. There are some that work fine with botlaf as it is, planed for example I just had to add a dozen or so safe pages that I'd hoped to take out with a safe phrase. But others won't work unless we can find a way round the linked words bug. Is there a limit either effective or defacto to the number of safe pages or phrases? PS if planing crashed because I missed out two blank lines, that is now fixed. Or did it crash because it was >1000 bytes? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like planing crashed because one of the safe entries contained a pipe, |, which messes with the regular expressions. I'll code up a fix for that now. I'll also take another look for the linked words bug - sorry for my slowness on this. As for list lengths, you can assume for practical purposes that they can be infinitely long: I expect things to be limited on Botlaf's end by my machine running out of RAM to hold the list, which gives you more than enough space to list every single article on en.wiki as 'safe'!

Suggested RfA

A little while ago you supported a suggestion that I might consider an RfA. 2 other editors supported the suggestion. I wasn't considering the matter, but with four of you urging me I did stop and think about it, and I have decided "why not give it a try". You wrote "I'd be happy to co-nominate you if you do decide to accept the offer, James". If you do so I shall be grateful. I have invited Peter to nominate me, since he was the first to suggest it, but if he doesn't wish to then I'm sure someone else can. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I've asked Peter to let me know if he does decide so I can can coordinate a co-nom. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, discussion on this has been transferred to User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Focus_(.com)

Hey Olaf,

I haven't really made any wiki pages before so your help is greatly appreciated. I Have tried to rework the page so that is shows more of what Focus is and how it helps it members and the web in general. I am open to any changes on the page including deletion of sections and reworking it entirely. Please check out the edits here and let me know what you think. thanks again for your help and please let me know how i can make it better.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Sogle/Focus.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sogle (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hellolaf

I've just noticed you've been mopped. Well done. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand congratulations of a rather less trivial nature are due to you, too. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed :D. On a more wiki-note, I hit a bit of block in developing Hydrogen spectral series, could you cast an astronomer wikipedian's eye over it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to give it a look - might be a few days though as I'm pretty busy right now. Is there any aspect in particular you're looking for help/feedback on? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's annotated stuff on the talk page that should be of use. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: CSD iCarly

Yeah, probably should have redirected it. Sorry. However, the icarly tag was just a filler, because the page originally had elements copied from both the main page and episodes page. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No need to apologise - this is why we let CSDs go past a second pair of eyes. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

I actually asked my question on Yahoo! Answers and got some interesting info. Thanks, though. (You can delete this if you want- I honestly don't really know anything about the Internet, so if this isn't where I'm supposed to thank you, then... Yeah.)Masternachos (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this was the right place to contact me: you're welcome. I'm glad you got interesting answers, and I hope they were accurate as well! Cosmology is one of those subjects where people without much knowledge often feel qualified to give opinions - much less so than, say, inorganic chemistry - and it can sometimes be difficult to tell what's correct. For what it's worth my personal experience suggests that you're likely to get a better answer to this sort of question on WP's Reference Desk than Yahoo, but I may be wrong. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing out GoodyB

Thanks. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Threat or Thread

Maybe you should consider a career in comedy with such witty reposte. abdulfez 01:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulfez (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the compliment Abdulfez! I confess though I'm not too sure what riposte you're referring to... Anyway, at present I'm happy keeping comedy as a hobby alongside my career. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Relativistic wave equations

I wonder whether you are able to assess this and decide whether it is constructive editing or not. I can't tell. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, I think it's all correct. Long answer: in the spin-0 section the user's added Feynman slash notation, in which that is the correct form of the Klein-Gordon equation (note that the previous version had a sum of tensors and scalars on the LHS). In the spin-2 section, the change to Greek indices conventionally indicates that we're dealing with a 4-tensor and not just the spacelike 3-component. I'm pretty sure the sign changes are correct, although signs are always hideously confusing with this stuff.

Was there a reason you didn't ask the editor to explain their edits as well? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I preferred to ask for an independent opinion. Not greatly important, but I just wondered. Thanks anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson

Have I covered the point you wanted to make? I suggested to the other two who expressed interest in a co-nom that if they want to add anything to suggest it on User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA, then we can see what the best format is. Peter 17:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bay FM, Exmouth

Dear Olaf,

On 16 February 2010, you deleted the Bay FM Exmouth article from Wikipedia.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bay_FM_Exmouth

The deletion followed discussion among Wikipedians about the entry. Your deletion was backed up by others, with the following comment:

"This article covers a subject with little notability, too low for Wikipedia in my opinion. The radio station only operates for two weeks per year and is not a commercial radio station. It is a very local issue with no signifiance outside the local area and probably little significane without Exmouth. On top of that, the article lacks reliable third party sources for its information. Jolly Ω Janner 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"

There have been some significant changes to Bay FM Exmouth since the Wikipedia article was deleted. I believe that these changes have made the station "notable", and it should be reconsidered for entry in Wikipedia. The changes are as follows:

1) Following another successful two-week FM trial broadcast (Monday 24 May 2010-Sunday 6 June 2010), the station is now operating a regular weekend online service. The online service was launched on Saturday 12 June. The schedule comprises Bay FM's regular daytime mix of 50s-80s pop music and community issues plus specialist music (reggae/ska; Northern Soul and Motown; heavy rock and jazz) in the evening slots.

2) The "reach" of the new online service has been quite dramatic, with listener feedback coming in from London, King's Lynn, Edinburgh, Ireland, Turkey and America. Clearly the station now has significance outside the local area.

3) For its two-week FM trial broadcast in June and for its subsequent regular online weekend service, Bay FM has moved into new, purpose-built studios. The studios already include a main studio and a news booth. It is hoped that studio 2 - a training studio, pre-record facility and back-up for the main studio – will be up and running within the next year. The studios are built to a very high professional standard, using the OTS Labs playout system. There is an hourly feed from Sky News, often backed up by local news afterwards.

4) British TV and radio presenter and personality Gloria Hunniford (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gloria_Hunniford) visited the station on Monday 24 May. She toured the new studios and was interviewed on air. "Somebody said you've got to come to this fab new station," she said. "I think it's amazing that you've put this together so quickly, so I wish you well."

5) Bay FM's Facebook page now has nearly 1,000 members. There are 50 volunteers directly involved in the station, either as presenters, researchers or technical staff.

6) A number of reliable third-party sources now exist to back up this information and add credibility to a Wikipedia entry. Here is a small selection:

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Radio-station-bids-time-slot/article-2213317-detail/article.html

http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5927

http://www.exmouthpeople.co.uk/news/BAY-FM-ndash-Exmouth-s-community-radio-station/story-4839074-detail/story.html

To sum up, I believe that the changes listed above have made the station notable. Therefore Bay FM Exmouth should be reconsidered for entry in Wikipedia.

Paul Strange (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Paul, and thanks for your message. First of all, apologies for not replying to you sooner - I've just been moving house and haven't had much time to spare for Wikipedia the past week.

I have restored the deleted version of the page, and moved it to your user space at User:Paul Strange/Bay FM Exmouth. You can work on it there, adding the sources you cited above, until it's ready to be moved back to 'main space' - i.e. the encyclopaedia proper. You might find Wikipedia:Your first article helpful. I've looked at the sources above and in my opinion the station now seems to be notable so I have no problem with it being restored; however, it's always possible that someone else will disagree and decide nominate it for a second deletion debate after its returned to mainspace. Hopefully not.

I'd also ask that you read our policy on conflict of interest if you haven't already. Because it can be hard to avoid even inadvertent promotional language when writing about subject's one's personally involved in, editors are strongly advised against doing so. What I suggest is that you work on the page in your user space and then let me (or another neutral user) know, so I/they can review the article and OK it before sending it live. You don't have to do so, but it will greatly reduce the chances of someone else trying to have it deleted for promotion.

Finally, thanks for being understanding about the deletion - and please let me know if I can help you with anything else. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Olaf. Thanks for your reply. I am pleased that having looked at the sources I cited you have decided to restore the deleted version of the Bay FM page. I note that is now moved to my user space, ready for the article to be worked on. I fully understand the conflict of interest issue that you have raised. It makes total sense that a neutral user should review the reworked article and OK it before sending it live. Your offer to review the reworked page is most welcome and I will be in touch again in the near future when it is ready for review. Cheers Paul Strange (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Olaf. I do have a question that you may be able to help with. Two of the inline citations I am considering including in the revised piece have recently disappeared from the net. This is because the newspaper that they are from has recently changed its computer system and is no longer supporting live versions of the relevant pages. Both pages are still available in cached form. Is a cached URL acceptable for a Wikipedia inline citation? Cheers Paul Strange (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Yes, that's absolutely fine. In fact there's no requirement for a url at all: many articles are referenced to books or old newspapers which are not available online. The url just makes it easier for other editors and readers to verify the information and follow up to read more, so pointing to a copy of the article is more important than it being current and on the newspaper's own website. Good luck with the article rewrite! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Olaf. I have now revised the Bay FM Exmouth article. It's now in my user space, ready for review as discussed. A couple of things:

1) It would be good to include the station's logo in the info panel box. Unfortunately a copyright issue has come up, and I'm unable to upload it. The logo is copyright Bay FM, is in the public domain and is currently being used on Bay FM's Facebook page. If you could sort this for me, that would be brilliant.

2) Despite my best efforts to get the inline citations and external references sorted, a warning has come up at the bottom of the draft, saying: Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a template or a tag; see the help page. Would you be able to sort this for me? I'd very much appreciate it.

Cheers Paul Strange (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I'm afraid I don't have much time this week (again - this time a conference is at fault!), but I'll try to look over your article as soon as I can. To reply to your points:

I don't think you mean public domain, which actually means (roughly) that something's not copyrighted at all. So, since the logo is copyright, it has to be used under the fair use guidelines. An example of another logo used under this is File:BP Logo.svg - if you click the edit tab you'll see there are two templates used there, {{Non-free logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale}}. The latter requires some extra information, which is in the lines beginning with a |. But one of the criteria of this use is that the logo actually appears in an article: basically our lawyers tell us it's fine to say "we're using this copyrighted image for an important encyclopaedia article" but not "we're keeping this copyrighted image around so we can use it later if we want". Therefore, I'd suggest that you wait for me to review the article and once it's back in main space you can upload the logo, put it in the article and give it the correct license tag.
Sure. The problem was that {{Reflist}} automatically makes the reference list with the footnotes you provided above, so the second copy of each you gave below it was confusing the software. I removed the duplicates and now it's fine.

I hope that was all clear. Do feel free to give me a gentle nudge if I don't get back to you before long. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a quick look over the article and decided it's written in a nicely neutral tone, and gives evidence of notability, so I've restored it. Feel free to add the licensing info to the logo if you feel up to it, or else I can give you a hand. You might also want to make the links a little prettier - I've done one as an example in case you do. All in all though I'm impressed: most Wikipedia newcomers don't manage to produce an article without making more than a minor formatting error, and the great majority of those writing about companies seem unable to avoid promotional language and get themselves into messes over it.

If you want to make further significant changes to the article, I'd advise either posting them on the talk page first or else making the edit and asking me or another admin to look over it. Simple formatting and so on you needn't worry about, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended Heim Theory

I wonder if you might like to take a look at Extended Heim Theory. I suspect it is not notable, being sourced only to a source which looks to me doubtfully reliable. If it is notable then I suspect it needs NPOV-ing. However, you may be in a better position to assess the article than me. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My intuition is that it's probably not notable - the article certainly doesn't indicate to me that it is - but I wouldn't put too much trust in my intuition in this area. I'd suggest checking at WT:PHYSICS for more opinions.

I agree that the article needs some clean-up if not deletion. Comparisons to Buddhism and The Matrix certainly don't convey the aura of a serious physical theory... Olaf Davis (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Olaf. You should see this. It is related...

User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Sock_is_back...

All best. --Tadija^speaks 11:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tadija, and thanks for the heads-up. I'm at wikimania right now so I'll let Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) take care of it for the moment - but I will keep an eye on proceedings. Best wishes, Olaf Davis (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WOOW, Wikimania!! So cool! Have a great time! Ok, i just wanted you to know. Have a great time for me too! :))) -Tadija^speaks 12:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will! Olaf Davis (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Olaf Davis. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! From People bios

Thank you for leaving me [this response]. I really appreciate the warm welcome and the suggestions, and I will definitely [check this out]. I am still trying to figure out some of the rules and policies, but I am sure that once I have learned everything there is to learn, the rules will change again :) Yay!Ƥ Ɓ ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Learning the rules certainly is a Sisyphean task - but luckily no-one expects you learn them all before helping editing. If you have any questions or there's anything I can help with at all, feel free to ask. Happy editing! Olaf Davis (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply on the ANI search location. I have recently been getting involved in some of those as help to others (I hope) with impartial input. I was lost on the search part and had not been able to get back into it so your reply certainly saved time. At 52 I think one is never to old to learn and certainly should help others when possible. An example of learning, especially in unusual or least considered areas, would be your reference to "Sisyphean task". Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Otr500. And yes, I agree about never being too old to learn or to teach. As for Sisyphus, this is the beauty of hyper-linking: I'd never bother writing a parenthetical explanation of the phrase, but with four brackets my meaning becomes clear to everyone. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker

Hello, you probably have already picked it up, but Triton Rocker, whom you blocked for one week last week in the ANI intiated by myself, has returned to the same behaviour prior to his block of adding redirects to articles to do with informing, "Tell tale" in this case - [3] - I don't think he plans to reform. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note James. I wasn't really that familiar with his other edits - the British Isles thing was obvious enough alone. I see that he's posted here asking about the most recent redirect - I'm inclined to wait and let Sarek reply and see what TR does. If he continues making redirects without listening to people then a warning may be in order. Feel free to let me know of any more developments.

(As an aside - for some reason it took me about five tries to correctly spell 'isles', which suggests I'm not really in a sufficient mental state to make any important decisions anyway!) Olaf Davis (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What spelling did you have? "iles", "isels"? The mind boggles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't even remember really. For some reason my mind refused to put an s before the l, so I was vainly trying to make it look right with various combinations of i's, e's and even a's (via 'aisle', presumably?). Anyway, it teaches you the risks of editing under the influence! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think if I was an admin, I would definitely try to avoid editing from that position. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Proposed Deletion: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 15-17

Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Proposed_Deletion:_Category:Wikipedian_Service_Award_Level_15-17 WuhWuzDat 10:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello from Clark42

I finally found the message you left me way back in January; thanks for the welcome, and for sorting out the link I was trying to add.

I've added a user page for myself, with a (very) few details about myself and an external link to my personal web page. I hope that this is OK; the Wikipedia page on 'personal web pages' says they shouldn't be linked to, but it doesn't seem wrong to do so on my user page - please advise.

I see that pages have a 'Watch this page' check box. Does this e-mail me if that page is modified? I'd like changes to my talk page to notify my by e-mail, but (a) I can't see a 'Watch this page' check box on my talk page, and (b) I can't find such an option in my preferences.

Oh, I just found my 'watchlist', and see that my talk page is already included. I still don't know if it'll e-mail me. I obviously have much to learn.

I hope you enjoyed you Wikibreak! Clark42 (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Clark, as Olaf is on a Wikibreak I'll try and answer that on his behalf. Firstly your userpage - I think the relevant policy is You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. - So what you are doing looks fine to me. I'm afraid that the option to receive an email when one of your watchlisted pages was edited had to be taken off the English Language version of Wikipedia for processing reasons, but it is available on some other wikis. Incidentally as you are in Essex you might be interested in the WP:London meetup on Sunday week [4] Ϣere SpielChequers 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fielding that, WSC. And yes, I'd agree that your page is fine Clark. 86.26.23.100 (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah, I've been gone so long I've forgotten how to log in. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not warned

Nice to be warned that we are being warned. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Olaf Davis. You have new messages at TK-CP's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tis the season

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Olaf, you and Botlaf have been missed, hope all is well and maybe see you back sometime? Ϣere SpielChequers 11:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)