Jump to content

User talk:Stephenb/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

WikiProject Berkshire

 Hello, Stephenb/Archive 12! I'd like to invite you to join the Berkshire WikiProject. It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Berkshire-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of members. BaldBoris 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, Twinkle has served me well over the years, but I'll read up on rollback and see how I go. It might help speed up reverting vandalism. Stephenb (Talk) 11:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Saim baim

Hi there, although I agree that Saim baim is likely a candidate for speedy deletion, I did want to draw to your attention that tagging an article seconds after creation is a bit bitey and doesn't really assume good faith. This, of course, doesn't apply to things like adverts or attack pages, but generally giving a new user 10+ minutes is a good rule of thumb. --Non-Dropframe talk 12:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Yakov Chernikhov

Hello Stephen

This is the first time I tried to edit a wiki page, so please bear with me if I am doing something incorrect.

I am not sure why Tower of the 'Krasny Gvozdilshchik' is translated as "Red Carnation".

This tower belongs to the factory which used to make metal wire and nails. So there is no surprise that its name can be directly translated as "Red nail maker".

The Carnation is a flower's name and sounds similar as Nail in Russian but it is not related to the actual factory name.

Thanks Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromsun (talk • contribs) 14:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alexfromsun:I'm afraid I know nothing about the direct translation... when I reverted your change, I checked Google to see what hits there were for "Red Carnation" tower and "Red nail marker" tower. It quickly became clear to me that,in English at least, the former is used; this is the English Wikipedia. "Nail marker" is not found at all. Stephenb (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stephenb:

Hello Stephen Apparently the wrong translation somehow spread in the other articles. Have a look at how google translate this word:

https://translate.google.com/#ru/en/%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BA

You can copy this word from the Russian version of the page: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

The tower's name is right below the tower's photo. The first word is Red (Красный) the second word is Nail Maker or Nailer (гвоздильщик)

I suggest using the right translation

Thanks alexp

@Alexfromsun: OK. I know little of the translation, and I believe you may be correct about the Google hits. I have asked the editor who made the original change from "Nailer" to "Carnation" for more details of why they did that. Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stephenb:

Russian is my first language and I am sure that carnation is an incorrect translation. Moreover this factory used to produce metal wire and nails so its name is straightforward.

@Alexfromsun: Please see Smerus' reply to me here [1]... I can do no more than repeat his words. You should probably take further discussion up with him. Stephenb (Talk) 07:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stephenb:

Hello again Stephen, I haven't heard from you for a while. So what do you think about the proposed change? Would you let me to fix the wiki page? Thanks!

@Alexfromsun: Afraid I can't help further. I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page, and/or discuss it with that editor. If the discussion doesn't work, the article falls within a number of projects, notably Wikipedia:WikiProject_Russia, so you could ask a question over there and/or the other projects to see if you can get other opinions. Finally, perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion might help, but I'd follow the other routes first. Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stephenb:

Hello Stephen. Thanks for your answer. I am not going to start another discussion. I am disappointed that I couldn't make such an obvious correction. This was my first try to correct a wiki page for a good reason and it as well may be the last one. Anyway it was an interesting experience, thank for your time and best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromsun (talk • contribs)

OK, well, I hope you eventually decide to come back and stay, but otherwise, sorry I couldn't help more Stephenb (Talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

SFX and SciFiNow

Hey, what exactly do you mean when you say the above two magazines "don't contain Science Fiction" ??? These are specifically sci-fi-content-orientated mags! "SF" and "SciFi" in the titles is a giveaway. Did you even read either of them??? I did - many times - and I am saying they ARE writing mostly about science fiction. Please revert your reversal. Thank you. --NeonPuffin (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeonPuffin: They don't contain any fiction, therefore they don't contain any science fiction. Look at the two categories Category:science fiction magazines and Category:science fiction-related magazines. The former contains fiction, the latter contains writing about fiction. Read my note on your articles talk page! So, no reverting, sorry. Stephenb (Talk) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stephenb: OK Stephen, I can see your point now. You are of course right, but you should have been more specific to avoid confusion. Instead of "they don't contain Science Fiction" you should have said "they don't contain original Science Fiction works" - then it would be crystal clear. But please don't revert my other edit, as that magazine is definitely science fiction-related, so it is in the correct list. Thank you.--NeonPuffin (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeonPuffin: That appears to be just a website, not a magazine. A magazine is a periodical: that is, a new issue is produced at regular daily/weekly/bi-weekly/monthly or whatever intervals. Without an article, it also appears to be non-notable, and you appear to be simply promoting it - please read WP:PROMOTION. I won't revert it for now, but I will question its inclusion on the Talk page. Stephenb (Talk) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stephenb: Simply including an item in a list is hardly a promotion of that particular item (with this logic you could argue that including rat in the list of rodents is promotion of rats). It is only stating the fact that this item exists, which in this case can be hardly denied. Creating a concise, matter-of-factly article about that item also cannot be considered a promotion. Creating a bloated, boasting article about that item would be a promotion. And there is indeed such a thing as an online magazine. In fact, in this age when everything is online, more and more magazines are ceasing printing of their physical versions and moving to the Internet – this is an inevitable process and only understandable as such online periodicals can be updated more readily and more often, giving their readers an instant access to the latest news and features. SciFi4Ever is a periodically updated semi-professional online magazine and is 100% science fiction orientated (which cannot be said about many of the remaining magazines in the list – of which many other are also online magazines, btw) so that I believe it deserves to be included in this list.--NeonPuffin (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeonPuffin:I am well aware that there are online magazines, thanks. This doesn't appear to be one - it just appears to be a website, with no original magazine, or periodicity. There are other lists and categories for those. Stephenb (Talk) 21:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stephenb: The world is constantly changing, Stephen, and so are the definitions of things. As a person who edits Wikipedia, you know that better than most. Hundred years ago, if somebody would be somehow able to see a digital photograph, he would certainly try to argue his arse off that since it is not made of paper, it is clearly not a photograph. We know better. As I already said, many other titles in the list (Strange Horizons, Tor…) were never in the paper form either, yet despite this everybody in the SF field (including World Science Fiction Society) considers them online magazines. If these people set-up their web sites as online magazines, style them as online magazines, call them online magazines, and their readers accept them as online magazines, who are we to argue? Have a close look at SciFi4Ever’s styling and layout of the articles – with its extensive use of in-text quotations, captions under pictures, scores and trivia under reviews, etc, it certainly looks more like a formatted magazine than just a free-flow blog or website.

And with regards to your insisting on strict periodicity – I am sure that this was one of the arguments of printed encyclopedias against Wikipedia when it started its work. By this definition, Wikipedia cannot be a ‘proper’ encyclopedia, as it has neither printed form, nor it is periodically issued. Yet we both know very well that this very fact (that it is not updated yearly, as is the case with most printed encyclopedias) is its biggest strength, not weakness (as it can reflect on any changes almost instantaneously) and so it is the biggest advantage of online magazines when compared to their printed counterparts. You know what? Let see what Wikipedia has to say about itself: “Wikipedia is a free-access, free-content Internet encyclopedia” (i.e. not website) – I don’t know about you, Stephen, but I, for one, wholeheartedly agree. And so I agree with SciFi4Ever and Strange Horizons when they say they are online science fiction magazines. --NeonPuffin (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeonPuffin:Please do not patronise me, NeonPuffin. A website that has no periodicity is not a magazine, IMO. Even if it could be considered such, I'm not sure this particular website is notable, as it has no article. But I've already said that I am not going to remove it again, so what's your problem? You need not reply. Thanks, Stephenb (Talk) 07:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
What a pain in the butt. Thanks for keeping a lookout. NeilN talk to me 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Will you come to my party?

I've found the definitive list of my names over the years and am now on 496! This means I should be creating my 500th account shortly, an extraordinary event which I hope you can all celebrate with me. Stripy City (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You think you matter? Weird. Stephenb (Talk) 10:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Speedy deletion nomination of Blogger frenzy

Information icon Hello Stephenb. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Blogger frenzy. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Tagging a new editor's first attempt at an editor, less than one minute after they have made but a single edit, serves more to drive off contributors than it does to improve the encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"abusively hasty speedy tagging"? No, it wasn't. It might have been hasty, but it wasn't abusive. I marked it with Twinkle, which automatically marks the page patrolled. "Best to wait" is fine, and in cases where there is some doubt, I would... but did you actually visit the site I tagged? I did. Stephenb (Talk) 18:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was. There's no way you could have, in less than a minute, checked to see whether it was possible to write a minimally acceptable article about the site -- and that's what who ought to do if you're going to put that tag on an article while it's still being written. No ifs or "mights" about it. Racing to be the first to tag new articles by new editors without giving them a chance to finish writing the articles is a form of WP:BITE violation, and causes more damage than improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I Googled the site and then visited it, and concluded it wasn't notable, being written (IIRC) by a 12-year-old. All that in about a minute - it doesn't take long. I wasn't "racing" to tag a new article, but this one was clearly non-notable. That's not abusive, please assume some good faith that I was doing what appeared to me, and still appears to me, to be the right thing in this circumstance. Now stop wikilawyering me, which is probably something that has done far more damage to Wikipedia. Stephenb (Talk) 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Peggy Mitchell

Hi, I actually did mean to change it to read 'to which Mick tells her to get out of his pub.' but I actually think 'to which Mick tells her to "get out of my pub".' is better, so thanks for that :-) –anemoneprojectors– 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fatboy

Hi!

Just FYI if you come across an edit like this again, there is a consensus reached at WP:EE that the infobox name must match the article name. 5 albert square (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Yep, thanks for the reminder! This particular revert was per WP:COMMONNAME anyway, I thought :) Stephenb (Talk) 15:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

A little help…

Stephen—hope you can help. I was reading about the Barbados Slave Code and I saw a weird edit back in 2007, carried out by an IP address that you later tagged for some wikitrolling. I don't have my account password, so I thought maybe I could just drop this in your lap. It's here, where the editor changed "Barbados" to "Mexico"… with no citation or explanation. It has remained this way since. Thanks! 66.92.161.127 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Page on Neurophysiology

IlCorso (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with You, to a fault. Why should there be an History section  ?

How are Page issues to be resolved, without adding appropriate References and possibly appropriate Sources, without adding appropriate Content to substantiate such References as well as Sources  ?

Unless the question is posed - Why is there an History section at all  ? There is allready a page on the History of Neuroscience  ? A clear duplication of content by all means.


Another issue concerning this page, is a lacking of an appropriate scientific approach. How to add content without creating a duplication  ? There is a page on Clinical neurophysiology that deals with such an approach appropriately. Is it not a clear duplication having a page on Neurophysiology as well as one on Clinical neurophysiology  ?


I kindly appreciate the attention, and apologize if any of my actions were in any way a nuisance. IlCorso (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Funny business going on, maybe needing some attention

Some WP:LINKFARM in the “see also” sections of Nuclear power in Taiwan, Transportation in Taiwan. Also WP:BATTLE in Lin Yi-hsiung. Cheers! – Kaihsu (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So I see. I'll see if I can keep an eye on it, but I'm likely busy today Stephenb (Talk)

Thanks. You might need help from administrators. I am one but would not want to be involved this time. It is quite messy. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

EastEnders

@Stephenb: Hi Stephen thanks for that information you gave on about the book EastEnders First 10 Years I now have a copy. I have tried to replicate the listings here User:Kelvin_101/EastEnders_Episodes_Reset. I have noticed that from the reset episodes starting Episode 1 11/04/94 number 10 does not seem to be there but I think the dates are correct haven't checked them all yet. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kelvin 101: Ah, glad to have helped. I missed the fact that one was missing! It does appear that there should have been an episode on 02/05/94 but they had the Children's Royal Variety performance on instead. I'm afraid I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, so can't help further. May be back properly next week! Stephenb (Talk) 21:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, few editors have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Defunct publications has been nominated for discussion

Category:Defunct publications, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stephenb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephenb/Archive_12&oldid=1076832360"