User talk:Slashme/Archive 4

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

Hi Slashme, the article still needs to show that it has had non-trivial, independent coverage from a reliable sources. A reliable source is one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; one with editorial oversight. There is no indication that Acid-Play.com is a reliable source. Also, a list of external links is not the same as fulfilling WP:V policy of citing sources.

I'll leave the article as it is for now while I continue to look for something to satisfy WP:N guidelines, but will place the tags back if I don't find anything. Marasmusine (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some constrctive edits and comments you did for this page. Based on a tag there that the intro was too short, I tried to write one. However, it could really use a second set of eyes, if you have the chance. Thanks! -Lciaccio (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Lciaccio

Wikipedia_talk:Graphic_Lab#Some_standards_of_our_own Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks too late, you say? Not in the Julian calendar! Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Fvasconcellos--Slashme (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for creating the article on Nothofagin. However, I find the lead very confusing, as it talks about Aspalathin, which it appears (from limited google research) is a different but related substance.

Perhaps the first sentence should be "Nothofagin is a naturally occurring organic compound with strong antioxidant properties." dramatic (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Reply on User talk:Dramatic--Slashme (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a discovery of the best onwiki sources of partizan colors at the discussion page for the new standard. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The coolest use of code ever, far superior to the wretched BOT config that keeps screwing me up. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fireworks edit" ? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be away from wikipedia for 2 weeks, your script idea is really great. But I hope you are interesting in XML because -if we want provide all the data I previously stated (Title, Image name, 1/3 1/2 2/3 , etc ) it will be again more complex (than your current test).

PS: you can look inside my Image:Japan_2007's_House_of_Councillors_election-test1.svg, I think it should be easy to simply replace text by the submited/expected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.203.61.15 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The script is still under construction, but I definitely have plans to allow the user to include majority lines (e.g. 2/3 etc.). I am now working on hosting it as a CGI script. Please put all your comments on User_talk:Slashme/parliament.py. --Slashme (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:VHFlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Applied fair-use template. --Slashme (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:TestParlSlice.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo in tag fixed. --Slashme (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Slashme, did you see the “Polhode_Motion.pdf” (221 kB PDF, here)? Note the far lower right-hand corner image; that’s Gyro 4. The very smooth graduation of the “contintent” was what I was trying to convey with the original caption. You latest caption, while also technically correct, fails to provide an impression of the very smooth shape of the bulge. The current caption can be interpreted that the topology of the bulge is as chaotic as a real contintent, only attenuated in magnitude. Allow me to give another try that should address your objective. Greg L (my talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbook_on_Drug_and_Alcohol_Abuse and found some weird ramblings about drugs which I can't imagine are what is supposed to be on the page of the Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse that is referenced. I don't have the correct information to substitute...maybe there is some way to contact the original poster of the Handbook to get it corrected...? PuppyAddict (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Response on User talk:PuppyAddict --Slashme (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Slashme, since you’ve taken an interest in Kilogram, (which features a ray-traced, CG image I made for the article, I thought you might like something I created for myself—just for fun—a year ago, and recently contributed to Wikipedia. It’s Image:Ray-traced steel balls.jpg, and can be found on Ray tracing.

I really like the recent edits you made to Kilogram. Nearly every one of your edits were on somthing that, after I wrote it, I looked at it and thought “gee, that seems a bit off” or “gee, that might not be appropriate.” But in each case, I either concluded that I didn’t know how to make it better, or thought it passable. It was interesting to see you home in like a torpedo on each one of those and fix them. Greg L (my talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User_talk:Greg_L--Slashme (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed a couple of things on the SMILES page. Your point (in your edit comments) about the lack of a branches in the dioxane structure is good and I've put in a couple of better examples (isomeric cyanoanisoles) to show how the ring can be written with the branch. Tne advantage of doing this is that it keeps the ring 'together' and makes it easier to read and code. I've also changed the name of the isomeric and canonical SMILES to terminology and re-worked the point that SMILES with isotopic specification can also be described as isotopic. Please check to see if this looks clear to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeard2007 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your message. Do you really think it's necessary to clutter people's talk pages with unwanted stuff like the one you're sending out? ("Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Childfree. Thank you.") All I did was close a bracket, for Christ's sake! Best wishes, and let's use our time wisely, <KF> 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:KF. --Slashme (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Slashme. A few other fellows and I support the creation of a full-featured template/parser function that would allow an editor to type {{delimitnum:6.02246479|30|23|kg}} in order to obtain the following: 6.02246479(30) × 10²³ kg.

The use of a template/parser function like this greatly simplifies things for editors. To generate the above value, one currently must hand-code the following: 6.022<span style="margin-left:0.25em">464<span style="margin-left:0.25em">79(30)</span>&nbsp;×&nbsp;10<sup>23</sup>&nbsp;kg.

If you like the idea of being able to use a template/parser function to streamline this, I would appreciate any supportive comments you might want to share, here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Greg L (my talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Supporting comment added to discussion --Slashme (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Greg L (my talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Slashme. I thought you’d be interested in this post on Talk:Kilogram. Greg L (my talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Talk:Kilogram--Slashme (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think we now have to clean up all the talk/test/draft pages, to provide a clear summary. I will personally work in this way, but I need to know if the project is now "stable" (no major improvement/change will appear in the next week). Since this work to make a clear summary means that many of your, 68.39.174.238's, and my advices will be clean up (move to the archives... which are de facto almost invisible, allowing a new clean place to think.), I ask first your agreement :

Questions needing answers :

1. Is your pyton project currently in a "stable" period ?
2. Do you agree to make a big cleanup of the talks/test/draft pages ... to make a summary stating the current (~2007/02/15) advancement ?
3. Can you assist me in this "clean up" task ? (answer need, assistance : as you want/can.)

Thanks for your previous work, and please answer simply on this page. 210.203.61.15 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers of 210.203.61.15 (talk) :

1. my "standard" is stable, I just have 2 minors change to make.
2. I agree to let the talk/test/draft pages -including my advices- be cleaned up (archive) if it's to make a clear summary instead. I'm conscientious that some minor proposals I made will probably be lost in the work, but that a new start is really need.
3. I will try to make 30 to 70% of the clean up + summarization work (depending of my free time), within 2 weeks.

210.203.61.15 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your questions:

1) My project is only "stable" in the sense that I won't be working on it for the next week or so, but I do need to implement some changes. Next week I will have a bit of time to sort things out more, and I will probably code the new version in about two weeks.

2) Yes, I am quite happy to do a cleanup: Next week sometime.

3) I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand the question. Could you please re-phrase it?

Thanks for your help and encouragement! --Slashme (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrase the question 3. You can look at my answer 3 to understand better.

Hello Slash,
I'm busy both in the real life and wiki life, so I will never have time to read all the talks about your script, keep each good idea, and make a summary. I'm sorry of that, but that's a borring 4-5 hours task that I have not time to do. (Wikipedians also want to have a free life~). So, the best is to make A BIG CLEAN UP, and to let you work with User talk:Slashme/parliament.py which have about 90% of the ideas. I plan to go to the Research and development page, archive ALL (about your script), and then take 15 mins to see if it is something important to keep.

Time need : 20min.
Ideas keep : 90%.

=>Accepted. (I do it in 3 30 days : Close your browser now, Enjoy a cup of tea, I close firefox too... now!.) Yug (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any need to introduce wholesale American spelling preferences into the article List of opera librettists as you did here: [1]; see WP:ENGVAR. Regards, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Michael Bednarek: "Amongst others" is not correct British English. --Slashme (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to enter into a prolongued dispute about this matter, but I take my language issues seriously, so let me explain my position:

You assert that "amongst others" is not correct British English and (on my Talk Page) you cite this to substantiate your claim. I can't see how that guideline supports your opinion.

I have consulted several dictionaries, and they all list among/amongst as synonyms with among prevalent in AmE and amongst largely restricted to BrE. Fowler (2nd ed.) finds the survival of both forms remarkable and suggests euphony as a reason for the use of amongst before words starting with a vowel; this would support its use in the article in question as amongst others. While Burchfield (in Fowler, 3rd ed.) dismisses that point (on little evidence), I can't find any source that describes contexts where amongst is incorrect and among must be used instead. Google shows >4,500 article in Wikipedia where amongst others occurs; what made you pick List of opera librettists?

I believe the choice between among/amongst is one of preference; neither is more correct or incorrect than the other.

Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED, "amongst" is:

"... when so used, generally implying dispersion, intermixture, or shifting position."

When I said "'amongst others' is not correct British English", I meant to say that it is not required by British English, so that changing "amongst" to "among" is not simply a matter of changing from a word which is correct in British English and incorrect in American English to one which is incorrect in British English and correct in American English. In the context where it is used, it is simply an example of an unnecessarily pompous word. To me it implies "mixed in amongst", where the meaning is really "an example of", which is more cleanly expressed by "among others" than "amongst others", both in British and American English.

As for why I have not yet edited the other ">4500 article [sic] in Wikipedia where amongst others occurs", I fix things when I see them. --Slashme (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I reverted your change at Template:Uw-selfrevert. It looked like you were changing American English to British English without a good reason. I'm sure you know that Wikipedia does not prefer one variation over another and in general we like to retain the existing version per WP:ENGVAR. I expect that you were actually not aware that "in the future" is Standard American English whereas "in future" is virtually unknown in American English. If you had a reason that I didn't perceive (such as this was originally written using British English and someone incorrectly changed it), please just revert my revert and leave an explanatory edit summary. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Doug --Slashme (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Just about the cupboard article which Tilman keeps vandalizing, his brothers James and Felix use the same IP. If you want to block Tilman from vandalizing the definition of Cupboard again, is it possible to block his IP from changing just that article (so his brothers use of wikipedia won't be affected)? Or, for example, to lock down that article?

Felix has already written to explain Tilman has an autistic obsession about cupboards. We don't like to see him vandalizing the article (though it is pretty harmless).

It would be better to lock the article, or even better than that, to lock the one article against his IP

Tilman's dad 137.205.56.18 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:137.205.56.18 --Slashme (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I noticed you've commented/edited on the Astrocytoma article. I was wondering if you could revisit that article and revamp it or perhaps find someone who can (I do not have the wikiknowledge to do it myself). The entry as it is has potential but is largely incorrect in its assertions. Also, the references are obscure (#4), irrelevant (#1 - C6 cells are an in vitro rat cell model that are now known to have almost no resemblance to astrocytomas), and very out of date (all the references; should not be older than 2000 unless its a fairly profound or high-impact review - such as in J. Neuroscience, PNAS, Nature or Science). I am willing to provide some reliable references to anyone who is interested, I'll be watching that articles discussion page. Thanks! Oligodendrocyte (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Oligodendrocyte --Slashme (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post here on Talk:MOSNUM regarding the new {{delimitnum}} template. See you there. Greg L (my talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello slashme, please also see : this section. Yug (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)