User talk:Gadfium: Difference between revisions

User:Gadfium/archive template Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here.

Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant village pumps) -- You didn't seem to mind that that one wasn't a technical candidate for CSD. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:41, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

One is clearly a WP:POINT violation. For the other, I'm assuming good faith.-gadfium 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with below)Regardless, your rationale for declining CSD at the time was that the page didn't fit the CSD criteria. This one didn't either, as POINT is not valid CSD rationale. Just pointing that out. I don't mean to bitch, but consistency in admin action is always at least a plus. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:47, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I consider WP:POINT violations fall under vandalism (CSD G3).-gadfium 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be the only one. I've never heard of point equaling vandalism before. Point violations are normally brought to AfD. If they weren't then I'd think POINT would be mentioned somewhere in WP:CSD. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:58, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. I didn't mean to say above that all POINT violations are vandalism. However, that's the appropriate speedy deletion criteria for this page. Since you object to the speedy, and I don't intend to waste further time nominating it for MFD, could you please delete it yourself once you decide it's no longer funny.-gadfium 06:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just end off by saying that next time, if you delete a page under G3, it might be better to specify G3 in the log rather than WP:POINT. The point being that it's pretty obvious that G3 was an afterthought you came up with to defend your hasty deletion that was really based on POINT. I know the horse is long dead, but half-truths tend to really bother me, so I felt the need to call it out. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:42, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why creating a random orphaned page for humour is considered "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". What point was I trying to prove, and how was my attempt to prove it disruptive? I've restored it and tagged it with {{humor}} so no mistakes can be made that it's a joke. — Werdna • talk 05:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the page existing, Werdna, but c'mon, that was blatant POINT. You were trying to prove something should be deleted by creating a new similar page and linking to it from MfD. That's textbook POINT. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:49, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Your point was apparently something about creating new village pump pages without consensus being disruptive. There was no {{humor}} tag at the time I deleted it.-gadfium 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No point, just a joke. Anyway, I think we all know the horse is well-and-truly dead. I'll userfy it or delete it in the next few days. — Werdna • talk 07:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editing on the Mcevedy shield page are facts and are not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringbackwyners (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite your sources for those facts, and for the allegations you have made.-gadfium 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For fixing spam related to the Nat Geo Music thingamjig, I thought no one paid attention. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-gadfium 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed thanks very much for that - I realise in my scattered editing I had alerted the person and not trawled through it all - that was a lot to fix! SatuSuro 08:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya.. I'm curious as to why you deleted User talk:PrinceOfCanada-HG as a G3? //roux   17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It contained a single edit, which was vandalism. I did not at the time realise that the user page redirected to yours. The alternative would have been to blank the page, which would have left the "You have new messages" for the user and given them a misleading blue link for their talk page. Deleting talk pages which have never contained anything but vandalism is therefore more appropriate than blanking.-gadfium 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not aware that the earlier redirect on that user talk page was deleted by PhilKnight in November?-gadfium 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was not. Ta! //roux   18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who else to ask, but I would like a critique on the article's current status. Whether you do it, or you request a peer review, it matters not. Sorry for the large amount of edits, but I had to keep going back and forth to retrieve information from reliable sources such as the school magazine, year book and school website. Ffgamera (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it later today. You could also request a peer review at WP:PR, where you will probably get feedback from people who are not familiar with the New Zealand education system. This might be useful to uncover terms you've used which need to be further explained. You also can ask at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard, but several of the more active denizens of that page also watch my talk page, so they may respond to you anyway. Responses should go at Talk:Newlands College.-gadfium 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on my talk page and the article's talk page. Ffgamera (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help with the Tay Sachs article. I'm having trouble getting one of those reference tags to work right. I must be missing a bracket or quote mark somewhere. You seem to have a better eye for fixing mistakes than I do. Can you figure out what I'm doing wrong? I would also really like to get the article ready for presentation as a featured article. I feel that the material is ready, but we need more images and graphics. I hate to say this, but one thing the article is really missing is some photography of Tay-Sachs patients. I feel terrible about asking some family to provide a poster child. Do you have any idea where to find pictures like that? Metzenberg (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the references was that in one case, quote marks were missing, and in the other, some unicode character which looks like double quotes was used in one place and regular double quotes in another.

I took a look at www.flickr.com for suitable photos, but there was nothing under an appropriate license. I searched for gangliosidosis as well as for Tay-Sachs. I realise you particularly wanted a photo of a patient, but I did find this cerebellum photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26016306@N03/2477641137/, which is under a non-commercial use only licence and thus unable to be used on Wikipedia. However, if you think the photo would be suitable, we could ask the Flickr user to release it under a fully free license. I've found that most people are very happy to relicense such photos. If you like, I can ask them as I have a flickr account. The author is M L Cohen, a professor in Cleveland: http://www.flickr.com/people/26016306@N03/.-gadfium 18:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you removed the sentence-part about TV3 I was bold and removed the rest of the sentence - I figured the start date was the least likely part of the whole (uncited) sentence. I noticed on the talk page you were sceptical of the start date (and, I think, had previously removed it) but figured I should raise this with you in case there was a reason you'd left the start date in. I won't be offended if you revert me ;-)

(I don't care anyway - I'm in the wrong country so I'll be waiting for the DVD release...!)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The anon had constructed the sentence in two edits, and I removed only one of them, but I had intended to remove both.-gadfium 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for the explanation - I just didn't want to step on your toes in case I was missing something. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... for snails: Pelagic Snails: The Biology of Holoplanktonic Gastropod Mollusks by Carol M. Lalli, Ronald W. Gilmer. --KP Botany (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in either the Auckland public or university libraries.-gadfium 23:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, it's loads of fun. However, I think starting with what you have, ie, whatever you can check out is realistic and sufficient. --KP Botany (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think a seriouse warning needs to be given to this IP 206.205.105.34 for his/her edits. You can review his/her edits. A warning has been already given. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a warning, but this is relatively mild vandalism, especially since they were removing their edits themselves. In effect, they were experimenting with Wikipedia, and we encourage people to do that at the sandbox instead of in articles.-gadfium 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question, I am just a confirmed user, based on the rules and regulations, is it okay for me to give these IP users a soft messages (warning1), like the one you gave or does one have to be administrator? Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its not just okay, but encouraged that you warn users who are vandalising. Very often, a vandal will stop on receipt of the first message, because they realise that someone else is watching them. If a vandal continues, warn again with a more severe message, and if they don't stop after the third or fourth such warning, report them at WP:AIV. You will find a selection of messages to cover most situations at WP:UTM.-gadfium 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. My last question is about my monobook. On other Wikipedia pages, we have monobooks, which makes these messages easier to use, as easy as a click of the mouse. How can I update my monobook here? Is it possible?Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Each logged-in user has the ability to edit a javascript and a css file, normally called monobook.js and monobook.css. By editing these files, you can customise the Wikipedia user interface, but you need to know what you're doing. There's a little information at Wikipedia:Skin. I don't use the standard (monobook) shell myself, or customise my own js/css files much, so I'm the wrong person to ask about this.

You may just want to install a tool such as Twinkle which makes posting of anti-vandalism warnings easier. I don't use any such tools, as I'm an old school editor who does everything by directly hex-editing the MediaWiki database.-gadfium 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the helpful information. Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The possible CopyVio status of another category Category:Molluscs of Australia is unconfirmed and has not been "run by" the authorities yet, so that category is currently untagged. Maybe User:gadfium can check with the Powell book and see if we indeed do have a problem with those too?? I think the majority of the Australian mollusk articles were started by Graham Bould. It is also possible that there might be CopyVio problems with many other of GB's articles, on fish, etc, etc, etc, but as far as I know, no-one has checked any of those thousands of other articles yet. Thanks for your help gadfium. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got your note about your problem with my commentary. I believe everything I said was legal and proper. You got a problem with me? Say it to me directly instead of sneaky tactics of bellyaching to the admin noticeboard. If you notice, I had the support of other editors which to me, nullifies your claims. AdirondackMan (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it this way. Your objections were heard and overruled by another editor. So face facts, my position was vindicated. I was perfectly legitimate in all ways. AdirondackMan (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Talk:Citizendium supported your posting of the question at all. There was a useful discussion following from QuackGuru's posting.-gadfium 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you, leave me and my messages alone. I'm not eager for a battle, but I will defend my messages by any and all means possible within the realms of legality. AdirondackMan (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]