User talk:Swpb/Archive/2008

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Swpb. 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.

your prod of National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights

fyi: I tagged it with db-spam -Gwguffey (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Turkish heroines

An editor has nominated List of Turkish heroines, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish heroines and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Future films

Hi, I noticed that you recently created The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (film), and I wanted to inform you that the notability guidelines for future films stipulates that stand-alone film articles should be created when a film has been shooting. Judging from the lack of a full profile at IMDb, this does not seem to be the immediate case. Can I encourage you to merge the passage to a "Film adaptation" section at The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test? Some examples of merging include Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV -- you can see additional examples here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! If production begins, the article can be revived to be a full-fledged film article. The threshold is in place because a lot of factors can disrupt the development of a film -- scripting issues, budgeting issues, casting issues, etc. It happens more often than you think, as I've found out working with these articles. :) Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

reply

I feel awkward explicitly stating that the subject of an article is "notable".

Unfortunately, the wikipedia has self-appointed quality-control experts, who will nominate any new article for deletion, for a lack of notability, if it is on a subject they aren't personally interested in. Some of them are very hostile, uninterested in dialogue. So, if the article contains the phrase "is notable because", they have to at least use {{prod}} or {{afd}}, not speedy deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion

I am sorry, but I can assure you that the wikipedia does have a group of self-appointed quality control experts who will nominate articles for deletion based on their personal petty prejudices. I write on controversial topics and I regularly encounter them. A few of them have made it to the rank of administrator. And there are administrators who conclude speedy deletions without really bothering to do the obvious due diligence of checking the article's edit history, to see if its current shitty shape was due to vandalism, or to check beyond the first screenful.

Trimming the accumulation of cruft is important. But the current procedures are in desperate need of reform or outright replacement, IMO.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeo_Swan&diff=191130517&oldid=190475663

Really? Could you direct my attention to the discussion you reference?

You misunderstand me. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The main reason I think reform or replacement of the wikipedia's current procedures for clearing cruft is important is not that I encounter individuals whose justification for deletion seems narrow-minded or shallowly thought-out. It is that a subculture has grown up, and infecting a significant fraction of the regular deletion patrollers that is at odds with the culture of consensus and civility the wikipedia is aiming to build. Regular patrollers routinely breach WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BITE, in those fora. These breaches of civility are so routine they pass without notice.

I subscribe to the "confine the discussion to the talk page where it was first raised" school. You won't be inconveniencing me if you respond here, rather than on my talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just in case no one else says it: thank you for cleaning up GR and punctuation! It's often a thankless job, and I'm glad to see someone's taking the time to do it anyway. Maury (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Monkey Steals the Peach

Jack Starr (blues guitarist)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jack Starr (blues guitarist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Jack Starr. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Kneel_mark_III.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kneel_mark_III.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GLA

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

6/20 DYK

On 20 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suitport , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at Timeline of nuclear fusion

It's better to use <sup>2</sup> than ² because it causes inconsistencies (10² vs. 10²). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong interwiki

it:L'Étoile is about a word that has no meaning in Italian (it:L'Étoile (Giura) and it:L'Étoile (Somme) are municipalities of France). The link you recreated between en:Star (disambiguation) and it:L'Étoile is pure non-sense. If you can't understand it, I can do nothing for you. BTW I didn't just removed dozens of wrong interwiki, I also added the correct ones, for instance between en:Star and it:Star (and a dozen other disamb pages for the "star" word in various languages)... Marc Mongenet (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

Well if it is really important to use Mylar for your astronaut garment, rather than PET film in general, then you specify which grade. There are many different types of Mylar and they are not all the same. Many Mylar grades would not be suitable. The thickness of the materials is surely also critical to performance, perhaps you should state that too. Otherwise the article is merely an ad for DuPont. WackyBoots (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kepler orbit conflict

I have undone Stamcose's blanket revert of your edits to Kepler orbit, and warned him on the article's talk page about this sort of ownership. I hope you can help address some of his concerns about your changes, and a larger conflict can be avoided. — Swpb^{τ • c} 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that...I've posted a more detailed rationale on the talk page for my major changes. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Human spaceflight

Hi. I share your thinking that the "superpowers" wording doesn't belong in the human spaceflight article. Good work keeping the article high-quality! Suggest tho' that you keep the edit summary wording as civil as possible. Best regards, (sdsds - talk) 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup for dab page Leo

It needs a general spruce-up per MOS:D. The main things I was thinking of were:

Sections are confused; there are entries above all the sections and I'm not convinced about the sections themselves; links that don't fit in a category should go in an "other" section at the end.
Inappropriate use of piped links per WP:PIPING
Order of entries within each section should be per MOS:D; parenthesized links, then links containing the term, then synonyms, then terms without their own page.
In general, people not generally referred to merely by the dab term, i.e. people known as <given name> Leo or Leo <surname> shouldn't be on the dab page, per MOS:DABSUR
Leonardo in general shouldn't be here; give a "see also" to the Leonardo dab page.

I would also suggest combining LEO into this dab page.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff and a lot nicer-looking. I think the popes and monarchs should probably have stayed however; titles, ordinals and country names don't really amount to surnames (this one confused me to start with but see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Royalty_on_name_disambiguation_pages). --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's not clear. The lists are quite long, so maybe separate articles is good. I actually missed them in the "see also" section. Since they do actually refer to "Leo", would they be better in the main disambiguation entry? --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Actuarial escape velocity

I have nominated Actuarial escape velocity, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial escape velocity. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sticky Parkin 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rotation in living systems

Great article, I enjoyed reading it. Regards, — BillC ^talk 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - an excellent new article. Well-written and interesting.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Rotation in living systems

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rotation in living systems, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I enjoyed reading the article while reviewing it. Royal broil 06:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Experience, though noon auctoritee/ Were in this world, were right ynogh to me"

Hi, Swpb !
About Wheeled creatures in fiction - Childrens or Children's.
In modern English usage, there is a sort of exemption from using the possessive apostrophe where the first noun is more syntactically adjectival or descriptive than possessive (or so it appears to me). Seems the more descriptive, the less likely an apostrophe is needed: Childrens Hospitals, but Greengrocers' Apostrophes
We could cite authorities and references back and forth 'til the cows come home. Hopefully we've got better things to do, tho.
Oo-roo from rainy Brisbane!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think of googling. Both spellings are correct... but one is more correct than the other. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spaceman

Thanks for informing me that disambiguation pages should only have one navigable link per entry. Needless to say I had no idea, mainly due to the fact that I have come across many dab pages that do not conform to this. However I realise that this does not mean it is consensus, and so will now in future only add one link per entry.

What is slightly confusing is that you seem to be the chief editor of that specific dab page, but have chosen to ignore the several other entries within that same page which are either rather dubious, very similar to the one which you previously took time to notify me about, or irrelevant and unnecessary for the "Spaceman" page; examples include the non-existent article which links to a b-side to a single released in 1994 (which has nothing to do with the word "Spaceman", redlinks which are unlikely to be created, piping which links not even to an article itself, but to a sub-sub-heading within another article (and in this instance, a redirect from a more relevant title already exists), another redirect to a non-existent article, which is just another way of piping really, as well as another instance of piping. It would make sense to clean all that up and remove links to articles where it is highly unlikely someone searching for a 30 Rock character or Super Mario protagonist would simply search for the word Spaceman. Just a thought.

Once again, thanks for notifying me about the established consensus regarding having one navigable link per entry on dab pages. Otherwise I simply would not have known. Feudonym (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Suitport

Hiya, Swpb. I review a lot of sci/tech articles, and I looked around Suitport. I lean more towards inclusionism than deletionism; on the other hand, my experience with engineering tells me that most ideas, including patented ideas, have more to do with getting funding than with creating an actual product, until and unless there's an actual product. The references currently on that page don't, in my mind, establish notability. Has anyone constructed a Suitport? Has it been proposed for any future NASA or other mission? I get that the idea makes sense, but I'd like to see some reliable secondary source say that the idea makes sense. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)