User talk:Disavian/Archive 5

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

On 12 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matt Wieters, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the top of WP:WBE says that the data is from Feb 9, but further down you've said May 27. Can you clarify/fix please? Hesperian 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On 15 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brittain Dining Hall, 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.

--Carabinieri 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not butcher this article to please GA; they're not worth it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made relatively few edits to the actual article-- you should be more worried about the editors that actually make those edits. I agree, in fact, that the article should have many equations. However, I also feel that there need to be more references, and that a subject as important as this deserves to be at least a GA. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Our disagreement is on the importance of GA; this is too important a subject to hsve the article harassed by that bunch of incompetents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gatech buzz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy510 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw his edits were reverted, so I checked his contribution history (as I tend to in such cases) and then his talk page. Since nothing was on his talk page, I figured the edit was still close enough to benign to go with {{uw-test1}}. I'll have to remember the uw-npov sequence; thank you for mentioning them! —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I don't have to type WP:TUSER out all the way in the search box; Safari knows about it quite well by now. :) I just tend to stick with test, create, vandalism, and a few others, and then customize them to the specific situation with the second parameter, so it gives a much more specific comment on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I have amended the article to reflect it. --UNCCTF 12:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern: If further editing or changes occur on the Hans Godo Fräbel Wikipedia page, Fräbel Gallery & Studio will be forced to take legal action against you for Vandalism and Sabatoge of the Company's name and information. Please take note of this warning.

Thank You, Fräbel Gallery & Studio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frabel (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 July 2007

09-July-2007: Hi, user Wikid77 here (as IP only). [I've encountered some revert-what-he-edits people and don't want them following contribs to your user acct#.] I finally located the "List of wikis" but it does not list P'cola. Should I add Pcola to that wiki-list or would that be like yelling "new guy" in a room full of serial killers? I keep meeting these dreadful types and regret that you have to mingle in this kind of society.

A Better Way: Bottomline, there must be a minimal review process before releasing articles. Some have suggested "this newly added text should appear in green" (with "Warning: green text is new and not fully verified"). Sounds like a good plan for hounding the text; have you noticed how images rarely get vandalized/botched as a modified image? More importantly, multi-article architectures need experienced article-group designers: there are just too many badly organized article collections and retro-fitting proper design is like fixing the Titanic from the last lifeboat (collapsible "D" floating upsidedown). Keep your patience and remember you're learning firsthand that "organized societies" exist for some very good reasons. Anyway... Let me know about Pcola publicity; reply in this message & I'll check here. Don't risk contacting me (except as logged-out IP "Dsv") until "sanity checks" are made on the latest band of stalking suspects. Egad! -Wkd 209.214.44.218 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Pensacola wiki is notable enough to go on that page. There must be hundreds of wikis on the internet, but they only list ones of "comparative notability." I'm sure that if you added the Pensacola one, it'd be removed. There are other lists given in the external links section of that article, though. You could try adding it to one of those, if appropriate. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please *do* add public wiki to the list of all public wiki on the wikiindex, even if it's not notable enough for Wikipedia's List of wikis.

So you think there are "hundreds" of wiki? I think I was the first person to notice that there were over 1,000 wiki online. Since then, the number of wiki online has grown to over 3 000. I wonder how many will be listed at http://WikiIndex.org/ a year from now? --75.37.227.177 09:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For inline references, do the sources need to be third parties or can it reference the organizations website? I'm not sure exactly what the standard is and want to make sure its done right. Jdweiss 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Typically, I use whatever works to cite the source. Sometimes, the only source on a subject is provided by that subject; for example, a press release. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about sorting by namespace! Hadn't even occurred to me.

Also, I guess you've noticed that I imported an old Blueprint copy (commons:Category:1910 Georgia Tech Blueprint). The only graduate I found who we have an article on is Y. Frank Freeman. There are also some interesting old building photos though.

I plan to import the remaining PD Blueprint issues as I have time - after I'm done I figured we could make an announcement somewhere at the Tech Wikiproject. There are some problems with the PDF of the first Blueprint - I'm going to eventually contact the office that scanned it to see if they have another version.

Yet another project I have is to eventually import some of the public domain Techniques. Let me know if you want to help with any of this :-) -SCEhardT 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that 1910 Blueprint and was very impressed. I take it you noticed my work on the Tech-related Commons categories as well, then. Yeah, I'd be willing to lend a hand in some of this. Note that there were other student publications than the two that exist today; see the last paragraph of History of Georgia Tech#Early years. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On 18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Klaus Advanced Computing Building, 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.

--Carabinieri 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a peer review for List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. I modeled the list after the Tech Alumni list and would appreciate if you could provide some feedback that might be objectionable as a featured lists candidate. thank you.--Ccson 16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mike Pinkerton, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Pinkerton. Thank you. -- mms 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dragonconlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually orphaned, oddly enough. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Guyton, I'm trying to tidy up some free software related topics and categories at the moment. An individual who is a kernel hacker is therefore a free software programmer and therefore a computer programmer. I think he should only be listed on the deepest category which fits. Categories which involve the location or other aspects (like »computer programmers in Australia«) are not affected by this consideration (as long as there are no categories like »computer programmers in Queensland«). --mms 08:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect your work- several of them are definitely not notable- however, you should be more mindful of wiki-etiquette. Examples: more detailed deletion nominations, fewer nominated/prodded articles per day, etc. This takes into consideration that the same small number of people watch those articles, and they've only got so much time to devote to Wikipedia. Also, why the decategorization? If you want a category deleted, there's a place for that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try this next time. As for the decategorization I don't want to delete the sections but just want the articles only listed in the deepest category that fits. This was the article is indirectly also member of the categories above. --mms 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dragonconlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How did you reformat the picture? And why is it a candidate for speedy deletion? Thanks-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennesseeDeac (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 July 2007

I put it to the side of Al Ciraldo, and put a box around it. For more on how to place images into articles and copyright tagging, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. That particular image is up for deletion because it's being used under the concept of "fair use," which is disallowed when there's the possibility of finding a "freely licensed" image of the same thing. E.g., the image isn't "free." Somebody owns a copyright to it, most likely the newspaper you got it from. For more on Wikipedia's fair use rules, read Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially the Legal position section. Image policy is hard to understand, even for people that have been editing for a long time, so feel free to ask specific questions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You[1] may be surprised as I was to learn that punctuation does not always go inside quotes: Quotation_mark#Typographical_considerations. You may also be as surprised as I was to learn that Wikipedia, even though based in the U.S., uses "British style" quotations, not "American style": Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. --75.37.227.177 09:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always found that the style used in the article follows one or the other, generally dependent on whether the topic is more US- or British-centered. For example, I wouldn't go around on London changing the quote style, but I think that a topic such as Cell microprocessing would be considered a more US-centric one and follow US-centric grammar rules. I don't have an official policy page to cite for that, at least not at 6 AM. Time for me to go to bed, but I'll read up more on the picky MOS style rules tomorrow. Thanks for pointing that out. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 10:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You say both editors agree no merge is possible. However I think the original person who suggested a merge had a good point. Robotics is the 'science' of robots and includes robots, industrial robots, mobile robots, robot software etc. Therefore it could easily assimilate all the other articles, merged into it. The task is to cleanly refer to specific issues by linking to them. The section on 'structure' is not really about robotics but is about the design considerations for robots. You will find a section in robot called 'Robotics' and the content is almost the same as the content of this section. Therefore a link to 'robot' from robotics might be worth considering. OR - remove the Robotics section in robot to the robotics article.

What follows is even worse: Common Uses of Robotics is not common uses of robotics at all but is common uses of robots - moreover common uses of Industrial Robots. The content of all these last sections could easily be distributed between robot and Industrial Robot.

The article on robot is excellent but the article on robotics is weak and for a very good reason. There is, as yet no really good definition of the term 'robotics'.

Robotics1 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think merging the two articles is a good idea, then you should nominate robotics for deletion, stating in your nomination that you think the proper course of action is to merge the two articles at robot (or some other combination of articles). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I really have not expressed myself properly, sorry. When I said the original person who proposed the merge had a good point I didn't mean I agreed with it. See my post in talk:robot as follows:

I think there should definitely be two separate articles. But we need to think about what belongs in what article. For example the very long article on robots contains a section called 'robotics'. Why is that there when there is a separate article called robotics? Then within the article robotics there is a section called structure which *might* belong in robots. On the other hand kinematics might properly be part of robotics and not robots. And then there is that section called 'common uses of robotics'. This really is not robotics IMO; it's common uses of robots.

I'm certainly not advocating a merge of robotics into robots, rather a bit of movement both ways.

It's now proposed that I make some small changes to see if they work. What do you think?

Robotics1 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, How come you rolled back this change? I thought adding these links would help provide more examples of the genre. I'm not disinterested, as I co-edit Peacework Magazine, and am on the National committee (the equivalent of the board) of the War Resisters League. There are other publications I wanted to add later, but I do think these links are relevant and add value to this page. In Peace, Sam Diener 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links, "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." also, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." Also, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Not that your links don't have relevance to the topic, but I didn't feel they contributed significantly to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Georgia Tech in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Georgia Tech in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On 2 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George C. Griffin, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For taking the time to update the number of edits list. Much appreciated. --Kbdank71 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted source for All-time GT team, it is the 2007 GT football media guide. I think this is relevant, very relevant. It names players that have otherwise not been named and captures a piece of GT history in football which is what the article is about. I agree that verification is a good thing and I have added that. WHile we disagree as to relevance, other sites have all-time teams. Evidence backs up my opinion as to relevance. 72.0.36.36 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is trying to delete Christine Young again. I thought you might like to know. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Young (2nd nomination) Jmm6f488 06:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a reason why she passes WP:PORNBIO? Has she won any awards? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

She is quite famous. Honestly though to be quite honest she looks like a girl I dated in High School that's why I voted keep. If you want to delete it I won't object. sighhhh the good old days. Jmm6f488 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"She is quite famous" doesn't cut it in AfD; you need to have specific reasons to keep an article, and WP:PORNBIO guides us here. For example, is she notable with a genre? I don't think looking young is a particular genre within porn, but you never know. Has she won any pornographic awards? Is there a source you have that explains why she's so important? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I guess you misunderstood me. No, she has won no awards, its not looking young why she looks like the girl she just has that same face but with blonde instead of redhair. What I was saying was that I had ulterior motives for saying keep it really should be deleted. I've struck my strong keep and entered weak delete since it I was really partial and not NPOV. Jmm6f488 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see the article kept myself; I'm just saying that if you want it kept, you have to stick to WP:PORNBIO and argue points based on the policies established there. Unfortunately for that article, she doesn't seem to be especially notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for the next iteration. IMHO, Raul took it out too early, even though it had problems with it. I guess he's trying to de-clutter everthing a bit. Best of luck in the future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

20-Aug-2007: With the new activation of hidden TOCs, I have added the following "Hiding-TOC" topic into the talk page for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Georgia_Tech:

19-Aug-2007: I've noticed, this weekend, the Table-of-Contents (TOC) "[hide]" option has been fixed to allow shrinking/hiding the TOC detail lines. This change will require reformatting thousands of articles to auto-reformat image/text placement, but we knew this day would come, and so it has. I have begun editing articles, with explanation "Allow HIDDEN Table of Contents.." noting, for each article, the changes to allow Hide/Show TOC. An easy fix is to stack the earlier right-side images/tables (as a series of "Image:" and table definitions) near the top of the article, depending on top paragraphs to provide filler text. The text-clipping glitch has NOT been fixed [yet] for small-then-large image stacking; consequently, make stacked-images similar size or put narrow images after wider. Images much later in the article should auto-reformat fine, as is, without moving them.

I think that's enough-said to start the TOC edits. Feel free to copy/amend (or "strike") that text into other discussions/projects. Once stacked, the images look great when TOC is hidden. -Wikid77 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Marion L. Brittain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Marion L. Brittain for things needed to be addressed. T Rex | talk 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)